Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 16th, 2006

[Maria Barrados]

Thank you for the question.

The amendment sought to the appointment process is not a request to put our position on the same level as others. Currently, under the PSEA, the Public Service Employment Act, and the legislation which regulates my organization, you need the approval of both Houses to appoint a president. There are two parts to the process outlined in Bill C-2, the PSEA and the proposals: consultations, which were conducted in my case, and the voting procedure.

I would suggest that the process be the same. That wouldn't involve putting the president of the PSC at the same level as others, but it would ensure that the appointment process is the same.

Second, as far as partisanship is concerned, the PSEA deals with that. It's one of our responsibilities. You're right to say that it isn't absolute. Obviously, people may have partisan ideas, but they have to conduct their work in a non-partisan fashion. Under the PSEA, it's our job to manage the system.

Perhaps Mr. Arseneault may want to add something about the current system.

[Gaston Arseneault, General Counsel, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Perhaps I could simply add that the new Public Service Employment Act, which came into effect in December 2005, includes new provisions pertaining to political activities. So there is a whole system which has been set up for which the commission is responsible and which comes as a result of this new legislation. That's why it's probably not necessary to deal with that aspect in Bill C-2.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, you can ask some more questions. You have five minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

What a luxury of time.

Well, I might not use it all, but I am interested in the Access to Information Act provisions and your recommendation in clause 146. There's ample reason why the other officers of Parliament and commissioners are excluded from the duty to disclose.

Do you see yourself in the exact same role, or are you using the same arguments, for instance, that the Auditor General would use? If it's information that you obtained in the process of an investigation, is it the same sensitivity that causes you to seek this amendment?

[Maria Barrados]

It's the same sensitivity, but I'm only asking for it for the audits and investigations. The access to information applies to the rest of my organization, and I have absolutely no problem with that. It really is just for the audit and investigation portions of the organization.

The proposal as it's currently written leaves the Public Service Commission in a very anomalous position, and that's why we're asking for it. There is protection for internal audit with one regime. There's protection for the external auditors named. There is none for the Public Service Commission, because we're not internal auditors either. That's why I think it's important for us to have that protection, because we don't get covered, yet there seems to be an intent to provide the protection in the bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's actually all I have, Mr. Chair. If you'd like, I could share some of the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No.

Are there any comments?

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Barrados, you referred briefly earlier to the appointments of former public office holders. I'm just trying to understand. In subsection 35(1), it states:

35.(1) No former reporting public office holder shall enter into a contract of service with, accept an appointment to a board of directors of, or accept an offer of employment with, an entity with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.

According to this wording, a federal justice minister, once elected, is not entitled to argue before any court for one year?

[Maria Barrados]

I haven't taken a good look at that section. I don't know if Mr. Arseneault could clarify that. I didn't give a lot of attention to that part of the act.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In fact, it states that no public office holder shall accept employment with an entity with which he or she has had official dealings. And yet, the Minister of Justice has official or indirect dealings with the courts when he drafts legislation. Should he be defeated at election time, as he is a lawyer, he can go and argue cases before the courts. However, since he has had official dealings with the courts, this actually would not be possible.

Is my reading of this subsection accurate, or am I mistaken?

[Gaston Arseneault]

First, Mr. Sauvageau, I haven't had an opportunity to look closely at the matter.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's fine. Thank you. I'd heard about appointments for public office holders and I thought that... That's fine, we'll try and get clarification. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That appears to be the end of questions. You've been very thorough.

Ms. Barrados, Mr. Arseneault, thank you very much for coming.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

This meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30 in this room, 253-D.