Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 14th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen, that's not a point of order. As long as he's relevant, Mr. Martin can proceed, and the chair rules that he is relevant.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I don't intend to take much longer, because I'm hoping to get the cooperation of my colleagues.

Honestly, we listened to the last Liberal amendment get debated at length by four different Liberal members who made the same points four times in a row.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Please proceed, Mr. Martin. You are in order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think adding this public education and training of public servants component will help to change the culture in Ottawa. Surely that's one of the key objectives and goals of the Federal Accountability Act--not just to make statutory changes but to send the signal that we're going to do things differently here in Ottawa from now on. That will be delivered through an actual education process. I'm not talking about brainwashing; I'm just talking about changing the way people do things.

Also, I have to take a moment to talk about this:

(2) Before making a recommendation to the Governor in Council that a person be appointed to the Commission, the Prime Minister shall consult with the leader of every recognized party in the House of Commons. An announcement of an appointment shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons for tabling in that House.

This, I hope, would preclude some of the false starts that the existing Public Appointments Commission got off to with the appointment of a chair that wasn't suitable to the leaders of the other political parties. A very embarrassing situation ensued at the committee, and we all regret perhaps the way this was handled. This amendment anticipates the possibility of a problem developing and precludes it by consultation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You want to be on the list, okay.

Proceed, Mr. Martin, I'm sorry.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm just about finished, Mr. Chairman. The rest of it merely deals with the term. We did feel it to be thorough and complete. We recommend terms of five years, reappointed for further possibility, but removed for cause, if necessary, as well.

Report to Parliament, proposed subsection 1.1(4) states,(4) In its report, the Commission shall identify any material failure to comply with its code of practice by any department, Minister or official.

Remuneration and appointment of staff, of course, are all administrative.

What we're trying to get at is that this would change forever the idea that these appointments would be made from a single desk in the PMO, by a single partisan individual, which has been the practice until very recently, when an attempt was made to change this. I have lived through previous attempts to improve the appointments process. I remember in March 2004, when the last President of the Treasury Board announced that the appointments process was going to be different, and before we knew it, Feeney was appointed to the post office. And this was in complete contradiction to the promises they made. Glen Murray was appointed to the National Round Table. Even though the committee reviewed his appointment and turned it down, he was still appointed.

Nothing we've done to date has satisfied this problem of patronage. I lay this before the committee as, I think, a well-crafted attempt to end patronage in Ottawa forever. I think we should be proud, as a committee, if we can do that and make this a key pillar of the Federal Accountability Act.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Murphy, Mr. Poilievre, and then Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Sauvageau, I had inadvertently crossed you off. I apologize, sir.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You are entirely forgiven, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that Mr. Martin is extremely glad that the rules governing speaking time for committee members differ from those governing speaking time for witnesses. I have two questions. The first...

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That is inaccurate. You should be accurate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, you guys, enough.

Mr. Martin, I'm up here.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm tired of being insulted by this guy, Mr. Chairman. I'm fed up with it. I won't tolerate it anymore.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

He's going to stop, isn't he?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, he is.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, Monsieur Sauvageau, you have the floor.

Mr. Martin. Monsieur Sauvageau has the floor.

Please refrain--

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I do not understand much English, but I get the impression that Mr. Martin is angry.

Proposed subsection 1.1(1) reads as follows:The Governor in Council may establish a Public Appointments Commission [...]

It is not a mandatory responsibility.

Paragraph 1.1(1)(a) reads as follows:(a) oversee, monitor, review [...] the selection process[...]

And a little further on, it states:[...] and report on [...]

To whom is this report made? If I understand the amendment correctly, the governor in council appoints the Public Appointments Commission and the commission reports to the governor in council. I listened to Mr. Martin's lengthy speech and I do not see how this amendment will guarantee greater transparency, especially since subsection 1.1(4) states:(4) In its report [...], the Public Appointments Commission shall identify any material non-compliance with its code of practice by any department, [...]

However, the amendment does not provide for any sanctions. It does not provide for any sanctions should somebody fail to respect their obligations.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I am entitled to ask this question, and I ask it with the greatest of respect. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau, are you asking a question of Mr. Wild?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. O'Sullivan.

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Allow me to answer the question. The amendment provides for accountability in terms of how appointments are made. For example, the obligation to report material failure is not an insignificant measure, quite the opposite. Although the report is submitted to the Prime Minister, because it is ultimately the Prime Minister who is responsible for the appointment process within government, it also has to be tabled both in the House of Commons and in the Senate. We call it the fishbowl theory; in other words, it is the very transparency of the program that ensures that there would be sanctions were the government not to respect the code of practice established by the commission. Any failure to comply with the code would be hung out in the open for all to see.

That is an example of an accountability mechanism. Subsection 1.1(4) provides further clarification by stating that the report shall identify any material non-compliance with the code of practice. It is a measure that would ensure that the government were named and shamed should it fail to comply with the code.

The amendment proposes that the appointments be made by the governor in council, while providing a key role for the Prime Minister in the appointments process. As a result, the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the governor in council have to assume responsibility for their decision. There is an obligation to produce a report in which any material non-compliance must be identified.

As a result, any government that chose to ignore the commission's work would have to justify itself publicly before Parliament.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was just trying to trace the evolution of this fairly fine resolution, frankly. I'll ask the panel.

Amendment NDP-22, which has been withdrawn, had a couple of sections at the end that, to me, seemed to better elucidate the position of Mr. Martin with respect to accountability in general.

The withdrawn amendment G-51.1, which seems remarkably similar to the resolution we're actually using now for amendment, does not have those sections. It would appear to me that the government resolution being withdrawn and given to the NDP for them to advocate as theirs is only short of their original resolution by a couple of phrases.

If this is appropriate, what does proposed section 1.3 in amendment NDP-22 add?

It would be better if I kept to the resolution before I get ruled out of order, but what has been taken out of this resolution?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That would be a good idea, Mr. Murphy. We're talking about amendment NDP-22A, and I'd rather stick to that. The other resolution was withdrawn.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Sure. I'll do that.

What would these words add to the resolution before us:The Public Appointments Commission shall table with the Speaker of the House of Commons a list of key positions in the Government of Canada that are filled by Governor in Council or ministerial appointments.

Is it already there? I see in the amendment that the House, basically, through the Speaker, will be informed of the appointments. That's the resolution before us. Proposed subsection 1.1(2) has that provision. So the House would be readily informed of all GIC appointments. Is that essentially it?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. O'Sullivan.

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Proposed subsection 1.1(2) of amendment NDP-22A refers to the appointments to the Public Appointments Commission and not to all Governor in Council appointments.