Evidence of meeting #24 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well said.
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings] )
Conservative
Liberal
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Ms. Jennings.
Is there any further debate?
(Clause 99 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We now move to new clause 99.1. This is on page 76, and it is a Liberal amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Owen moves amendment L-7.
Is there debate?
Did you have an explanation or a comment, Mr. Owen?
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chairman, could we request the opinion of our legal experts on this clause?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
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.
Liberal
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.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
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.
Conservative
Liberal
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.