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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Order, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2, meeting number 27. Our orders of the day: Bill C-2, An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability. This is clause-by-clause consideration.

At the last meeting, we voted on G-28.

We will now proceed to clause 212. Seeing no request for debate, shall clause 212 carry?

(Clauses 212 to 215 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 220)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will now proceed to clause 220. There is a government-proposed amendment on page 158, G-49.

Mr. Poilievre, could you move that, please?

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's inadmissible.

G-49 proposes to delete clause 220. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 656 that “An amendment is out of order if it simply attempts to delete a clause, since in that case all that needs to be done is to vote against the adoption of the clause in question.”

Therefore G-49 is inadmissible.

Monsieur Sauvageau, on a point of order.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like to talk about the $1,000 reward. I think that you could get the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to remove this provision. Perhaps we could ask our experts if there are other ways to go about doing this. After having heard from the witnesses, I think that all of the political parties and all members of this committee would be in agreement for removing this provision.

Thank you. I have just been told how we can do it.

My apologies.

(Clause 220 negatived)

(Clause 221 agreed to)

(Clause 227 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On new clause 227.1, there is a Liberal amendment on page 167.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll propose that amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just a second, I'm going to rule it out of order. But I have to get my script.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I thought you'd know it by heart--for us, anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Amendment L-25 proposes that special reports of the commission will be submitted to the Speaker of the Senate and the House for tabling in each House. It is amending subsection 23(3) of the Public Service Employment Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on 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 being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 23 of the Public Service Employment Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, L-25 is inadmissible.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I imagine you'd like me to propose L-26 as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm not going to do that to you this time. We are going to go to some amendments on clause 228.

(On clause 228)

One is on page 168 of the amendments. There is a Liberal Party amendment. It is L-26, although I will say there is a line conflict with BQ-32, NDP-22, and NDP-22A.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I propose amendment L-26, and perhaps I should hasten on to give some explanation for it.

The reason for this proposal is to obviate the need to create a new appointments commission by making use of the Public Service Commission and appointing the president and commissioners as officers of Parliament. The previous motion, which was ruled out of order, would have provided for that commission to report to Parliament, as do most parliamentary officers.

The reason for this is simply to introduce the merit-based, transparent, and competitive process for Governor in Council appointments that I think we all seek, but to do so without the need to create another independent office of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

We're speaking to amendment L-26? I think Mr. Owen has some worthy objectives here and I commend him for them.

My own view is that there are some later amendments that would better serve to depoliticize the appointment process, and I understand there are line conflicts between them. I'm more inclined to be favourable to some that are coming up from some of the other opposition parties.

By and large, the problem I have with the amendment proposed by Mr. Owen is that it extends powers to the Public Service Commission that were never meant for that commission and would not be appropriate for it. I'd like to expand upon that point by hearing some expert testimony from our panel on how they view the existing Public Service Commission and why in the past it has not been chosen as a vehicle for appointments. I will follow up those answers with some final comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Wild, or Mr. O'Sullivan.

[Joe Wild, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice]

Mr. O'Sullivan.

[Marc O'Sullivan, Acting Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, As an Individual]

Essentially it's a question of the mandates, the Public Service Commission, of course, having the mandate for overseeing the appointment process for public servants. The question is, does it make policy sense to give the commission a mandate also over Governor in Council appointments?

Traditionally there's been a clear divide between the two types of appointment. Governor in Council appointments are oftentimes characterized as political appointments in everyday parlance, and to give the Public Service Commission an oversight role over both public servants on one hand and on the other hand for Governor in Council appointments can be seen as confusing two very different spheres of appointment activity; therefore, it would not be an appropriate mix to have the Public Service Commission do this. That's the concern, and that's the counter-argument to this proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr.—

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

Mr. Chair, I actually haven't ceded the floor yet—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Poilievre, you did say that. I apologize.

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

I won't take much longer.

I'll conclude by saying I think Mr. Owen has worthy intentions and has obviously carefully considered his amendment, but our view is that there are some later amendments that might better address the issue of appointments.

One of the things I believe are necessary is to have a codified process of appointments that's actually written in law. One of the later amendments seeks to do that. As opposed to just having these codes that can be changed arbitrarily for appointments, you would have statutory law guiding how those appointments would be made. It would be my preference to see something more of that nature, rather than broadening the scope of an organization that was never meant to play this role in the first place.

I would finally conclude that, as I understand it, due to the line conflicts this amendment would preclude two following amendments, and as such, those of us who believe there are some better amendments coming along should oppose it, especially on the grounds that it would preclude some better alternatives that may be forthcoming.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings, and then Mr. Owen.

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

Just before I begin to speak about amendment L-26, I'd like to hear from Mr. Poilievre, through the chair, who may wish to identify exactly which other opposition motion, which has a line conflict, he's stating that his government members would be prepared to support.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know if that's a fair question.

Mr. Poilievre.