Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 9th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau, you still have the floor.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

When the President of Treasury Board appeared and had three people from his office with him, that was a group of witnesses representing Treasury Board. When the Auditor General appeared and was accompanied by two assistants, that was a group of witnesses. When three different unions appear, that is three witnesses. Is that how I am supposed to interpret paragraph 4(a)?

I repeat what I said, because Mr. Poilievre seems to agree with me. We have been discussing the same thing for a while now. When the President of Treasury Board appears with two assistants, that is a group of witnesses. When the Auditor General appears with two assistants, that is a group of witnesses. When three different unions appear, that is three witnesses...

Oh, that does not work at all! We are being misled. A little earlier, there was a group of witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General, the Auditor General and two of her assistants. You said yes before.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have two people who wish to speak. Do we want to vote, or do you want to go on for a little bit more?

I don't see any hands, so, Mr. Owen, I want you to repeat your amendment if it's still there.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you. My amendment reads:

That each witness or group of witnesses presenting a common position have a total of ten minutes in which to make an opening statement

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have the original clause 4 a) to vote on.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll move on to clause 4 b).

I voted in favour of 4 a), which says that each witness or group of witnesses has a total of 10 minutes in which to make an opening statement.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like you to clarify something for me. If there is a tie when we vote on item 4(b), will the rule set out on page 859 of Marleau-Montpetit apply? Allow me to read the rule:

Casting vote. Like the Speaker, the chair of a committee votes only to break a tie [...]

As you have just done.

Marleau-Montpetit goes on to say the following:

By convention, the chair will normally vote in such a way as to maintain the status quo [...]

On the matter of how meetings are conducted, it is stated on page 855 of Marleau-Montpetit that:

As there is no limit in committee to the number of times of speaking or the length of speeches, committees may, if they choose, place limits [...]

The rule is that there is no limit on speaking time, other than when questioning witnesses. If I am correct in my understanding of Marleau-Montpetit — and you can check for yourselves on pages 855 and 859 — convention dictates that you should vote to maintain the status quo when there is a tie. Am I correct in my understanding of these two rules?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I voted to maintain the status quo.

Was that your question?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman...

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're all having a great time here, aren't we? But the vote has come to a conclusion. We're now on to motion 4 b). I understand what you're doing is anticipating a tied vote. We're not there yet, so let's see what happens. It may be exciting. Let's just wait. It may be unanimous. It could be all defeated. I hate hypothetical situations.

We have a motion on the floor with respect to motion 4 b). Is there any debate on it? All those in favour of motion 4 b)? All those opposed?

It is six votes to six.

The chair votes against the resolution. I'm sure you're all interested in the reason, which I don't have to give. The status quo would change the way we do things, and this motion would change the way we do things, so I will vote against that resolution.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to go to you next, sir.

We have finished the report.

Mr. Sauvageau, you gave us a notice of motion. You could read the motion, and then you could comment on it.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, although I do not have a copy of the motion to hand, I know it by heart. It reads as follows:That this committee call on the government to immediately proclaim Bill C-11 [...]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to read it, because I have it all written down here. The motion reads:

That this committee calls on the government to immediately proclaim Bill C-11, an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings.

That was the wording of your notice of motion, sir.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I was going to say. Thank you very much.

Firstly, I would like to draw attention to the speed and professionalism with which the Library of Parliament staff helped me to prepare my arguments in support of this motion. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them.

Allow me to explain why I believe the government should immediately proclaim Bill C-11 from the 38th Parliament, even though, once again, for the record, we have no intention of employing delaying tactics to slow down the passage of Bill C-2.

It is my intention to table before the committee a list of the 600 bills that were adopted between 1988 and 2000. Six hundred bills were adopted over this 12-year period. For each of these bills, you will be informed as to how much time elapsed between first reading and Royal Proclamation. We will calculate the average time it took for the 600 bills. In doing so, I will show you that we have absolutely no interest in delaying the passage of Bill C-2, and everything to gain by studying it thoroughly.

I shall, therefore, table this list, along with a table comparing bills C-2 and C-11. They will be provided in both official languages. It shows that 14 elements of Bill C-2 would be amended if Bill C-11 were immediately proclaimed. The most important measure would be the creation of the tribunal provided for by section 201 of Bill C-2. It has been explained very clearly to me that this change could be introduced with transitional provisions, even if Bill C-11 were to be proclaimed immediately. For the benefit of my colleagues on the committee, I will provide them with a copy of the comparative analysis in both official languages.

By turning our attention to the 600 bills that were previously adopted, we have shown that if the government truly wants to offer immediate protection to public servants who have witnessed wrongdoing, all it has to do is proclaim Bill C-11. I admit that it is not perfect, but it was good enough to win the support of the Conservatives and the New Democrats in the last Parliament.

Bill C-2 provides that Bill C-11 be preserved, but in an amended form. It is good enough to be worth keeping. I propose that Bill C-11, which has gone through the legislative process, be implemented as an interim measure while we study Bill C-2. It would allow public servants to have immediate protection.

That is all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

As chair, I have examined the motion as to its procedural acceptability and have arrived at the following observation.

In the last Parliament, Bill C-11 was given royal assent on November 25, 2005. It contained a provision for its coming into force to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. To date, no proclamation has been issued for its coming into force. The essence, sir, of your motion is to call on the government to proclaim the statute, the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act, which is being further amended by Bill C-2.

This is the crux of what I'm saying to you: the mandate of this legislative committee is to examine Bill C-2 and report it to the House with or without amendment. The committee has no authority to go beyond this mandate to comment on the actions of the Governor in Council regarding the proclamation of other statutes, even those that may be amended by Bill C-2. Therefore, sir, I rule this motion inadmissible on the grounds that it goes beyond the mandate of the committee.

Thank you.

That appears to conclude the business of the committee for today. We are adjourning the committee meeting until tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 p.m., in this room.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.