Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 13th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well said.

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there further debate on clause 99?

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

This may sound contradictory, but notwithstanding the fact that this committee in its wisdom has adopted the amendment I proposed on the advice of our parliamentary counsel and law clerk—L-6.4—I believe, based on the advice received from the said law clerk, that clause 99 should not carry; that it should be negatived, because the remedy my amendment brings to clause 99 is not a 100% remedy, and the constitutional autonomy and exclusive control or authority over members' conduct by the House is still impeded, notwithstanding this remedy.

It is my opinion that negativing clause 99, as amended by Liberal amendment 6.4, would not in any way result in the House being unable to regulate the members' trusts. The House would always be free to amend the members' code, which is appended to the Standing Orders, to deal with members' trusts. The decision would rest exclusively with the House. It would then remain an internal affair of the House and within the constitutional privilege of the House to regulate its affairs without interference from outside the House.

I would recommend to the members of this committee to vote against clause 99, as amended by Liberal amendment 6.4.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Is there any further debate?

(Clause 99 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now move to new clause 99.1. This is on page 76, and it is a Liberal amendment.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I move the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen moves amendment L-7.

Is there debate?

Did you have an explanation or a comment, Mr. Owen?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you know what? I'm going to make a statement. I'm going to rule it inadmissible.

Amendment L-7 proposes a procedure for appointment of the president and commissioners. It is amending subsection 4(5) of the Public Service Employment Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 654, that: “an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 4 of the Public Service Amendment Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, Mr. Owen, I regret to say that amendment L-7 is inadmissible.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a brief commentary. I regret that it's out of order, because it seems like a neat way to roll intended powers and functions into an existing organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's very nice, but I just ruled it out of order. I'm sorry, Mr. Owen.

We're going to move on to L-8, which is on page 77, and that's new clause 99.2. This is consequential to L-9 on page 79.

Members, the vote on amendment L-8 applies to L-9 on clause 100.

Mr. Owen, on L-8.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

This new clause provides the normal protections for someone carrying out their duties, subject only to the charge of perjury under section 131 of the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chairman, could we request the opinion of our legal experts on this clause?

[Joe Wild]

The new clause 99.2 is setting out a series of what we would consider to be immunity provisions as well as non-compellable witness provisions, and that appears to be what Mr. Owen's amendment is doing, Mr. Chair.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Wild, could you clarify? These are standard form protections for people acting within the scope of their duty.

[Joe Wild]

These protections have only been provided under statute for positions that the government characterizes as agents of Parliament, so the Information Commissioner, Privacy Commissioner, for example, as well as the...under Bill C-2 there's also been a proposal to provide the same types of authorities for the Auditor General.

The government has not proposed to add these to the Public Service Commission under Bill C-2, as the Public Service Commission is not included or characterized by the government as being an agent of Parliament because it carries out executive functions.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, just to add to that explanation, this adds a new clause to the bill rather than amending an existing clause that hadn't been raised in this bill, and that's why it's acceptable, why it's not out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

This amendment is unnecessary, given that the protections it seeks to extend to the Public Service Commission have only been extended to agents of Parliament, and the Public Service Commissioner is not an agent of Parliament, nor is the office an office of Parliament.

To date, I have heard of no practical problems with the status quo, no reason why the same legal standing that applies to others cannot apply to the Public Service Commission. So I have to state my opposition to this amendment as it seeks to solve a problem that doesn't exist and seeks to extend immunity to a body that does not, on any legal basis, merit that immunity.

I would stand against this amendment, and I would ask also, are there any legal problems that exist right now related to the non-immunity of the Public Service Commission?

[Joe Wild]

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of any outstanding legal concerns with respect to the immunities of the Public Service Commissioner or the commissioners. I would simply add that, as with any other Crown servant, the commissioner as well as the other commissioners on the Public Service Commission all enjoy indemnification. It is exactly the same indemnification as every other public servant enjoys with respect to their service to Her Majesty. That indemnification is pursuant to Treasury Board policy. It's exactly the same basis of indemnification that has been provided, as I say, to all other public servants and Crown servants.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you finished?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I think I can just withdraw.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, colleagues, this was really intended to be dependent on the previous motion, and I do agree that it serves no additional purpose without the other Public Service Commissioners having been made officers of Parliament, which was the intention. So I think this becomes irrelevant, if not out of order, and I withdraw it.