Information & Ethics Committee on May 13th, 2014

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I shall offer just a couple of words, related to this particular clause as a whole.

This amendment highlights how deeply flawed this bill is. We see from time to time, in our conflict of interest codification, that sometimes having two competing pieces of legislation becomes quite confusing. The agents of Parliament, the commissioners who were here, highlighted the ways in which the political activity description in the Public Service Act is not in line with this particular piece.

More broadly, we're being dragged down a road in this place whereby being involved with a political party, no matter at what level, is some sort of bad thing whereby your involvement with a political party mars your judgment.

I think this bill is in search of a problem when none exists. People's choice to become involved in a political party is their constitutional right; they're allowed to be involved with a political party. Somehow we're making it seem like a bad thing to be involved with a political party.

We had a discussion here about the merit principle. People should be getting jobs based on merit not based on whether they were or were not involved with a political party, as is the case here.

I think this amendment just highlights exactly how flawed this particular bill is as a whole and I won't be supporting the amendment or the bill at this time. We'll see where other amendments will bring us.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

(Amendment negatived)

The next amendment, still on clause 2, is amendment NDP-3. It is moved by Mr. Ravignat.

I'll leave it up to you to explain what it seeks to achieve, Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker—I mean, Mr.Chair. I am having a lot of difficulty. Maybe it is because I was up until midnight at the take-note debate for the Nigerian girls that I still have “Mr. Speaker” echoing in my head. I didn't get that much sleep.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I understand.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I didn't get that much sleep. Mr. Chair, I apologize for that.

I think this is a rather clear amendment. I'll just read it out so it's clear:

The provisions of this Act apply only to the extent that they are not inconsistent with existing federal legislation, including the Public Service Employment Act and its regulations.

It's kind of a kitchen sink amendment as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chair.

It seems to me that when drafting such a bill, you have to make sure that it doesn't contradict existing regulations but takes them into consideration, particularly when we're dealing with partisanship in the public service and the Public Service Employment Act, which I spoke to in my early amendment.

When we're dealing with the public service we have to make sure that we're very clear with them regarding what rules govern them concerning partisan activity. The piece of the legislation that is most important to them is the Public Service Employment Act.

So it seems logical that they should know, and that we should make it clear, that the Public Service Employment Act supercedes the bill when there is an inconsistency with regard to partisanship. This is both so that they know and so that there is clarity and consistency across the entire public service.

Inconsistencies can lead to chaos and to misunderstandings around the management/employee/employer table. They can have negative consequences for collective bargaining, in this case negative consequences for the right of free speech of our public servants, both within and outside management. So a basic amendment that makes it clear that the Public Service Employment Act is going to apply in cases of inconsistency seems to me to be completely reasonable.

The fact that it wasn't present in the original bill is worrying, because it probably means that the Public Service Employment Act wasn't considered at all, or that the possibility of there being any inconsistency between this bill and various other pieces of legislation and other rules and codes that exist in the public service was not taken into consideration. With all due respect to Mr. Adler, that to me is just a matter of basic research done before one drafts a bill of this magnitude and importance for the public service, for the commissioners, for the agents of Parliament.

So it's in that spirit that the NDP is bringing forward this amendment. We have two strikes and if we're talking about baseball it's two strikes, but we'll see about this third one. I'm always hopeful that something this reasonable may actually be supported by my colleagues on the other side of the table.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

It's probably a bunt.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

A bunt.... Okay, it could be very well be. Provided it gets me to a base, I don't mind.

I'm going to leave it there, Mr. Speaker, I mean Mr. Cheese, Mr. Chair, and perhaps there are other speakers that might want to take it up.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You can call me Mr. President, but you can't call me Mr. Cheese.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

No, no.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Charmaine Borg.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

My brain must be tired.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair—and not Mr. Cheese—I still want to support the amendment of my colleague Mr. Ravignat.

We have been informed on several occasions of concerns related to the fact that this bill might contradict the Public Service Employment Act. There are definitions that differ in certain respects, and certain provisions of Bill C-520 are redundant because they already appear in the Public Service Employment Act.

Although we did not have a chance to hear from all agents of Parliament, I would like to remind committee members that the Auditor General, Mr. Ferguson, said that there were questions about aspects that are defined in this bill but that are also defined in other acts and that could cause confusion.

Now I am going to speak in English.

The Association of Justice Counsel said, and I quote: “Blais said the bill is unfair and “redundant“ because the public service is already governed by an “elaborate regime” of statutes, codes, and processes to safeguard the political neutrality of Canada's public service.

He thinks it is redundant because an act is already in place.

This amendment will clarify matters, in confusing or ambiguous situations, as to whether the provisions of the bill may invalidate what already appears in the Public Service Employment Act. This amendment states that what is understood in the Public Service Employment Act takes precedence.

In addition, the Public Service Commission of Canada has reiterated its concerns over certain instances of duplication between this bill and the Public Service Employment Act and over the potential consequences for employees and their rights. We know that Bill C-520 opens the door to various systems of supervision and enforcement. So it is highly problematic.

For the third time, and this time may be the right one, I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment. It is very important to do so in order to provide clarification for agents of Parliament and all those who will be directly affected by what Mr. Adler is proposing in his bill. It is our duty as parliamentarians to clarify somewhat matters that concern them, and that is what this amendment does.

That is what I had to say on that subject.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Ms. Borg.

Is there any further debate on amendment NDP-3?

(Amendment negatived)

We'll move on. We're still in clause 2. The next proposed amendment is CPC-1 from the Conservative party under the name of Ms. Davidson, I believe.

Ms. Davidson, would you care to propose your amendment?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes, thank you. Do you want me to read it?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I think it's good to read it to start.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-520, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 3 the following new subclause 2(3):

(3) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as authorizing a person who works in the office of an agent of Parliament to occupy a politically partisan position or engage in political activities.

May I speak to it?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Please.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I'm very pleased to bring forth this amendment. Certainly, we heard from the witnesses—and thanks very much to our excellent clerk and analysts who serve us so very well on this committee, because all of the committee members absolutely have all of the correspondence that has been sent through. I know that everyone on this committee is very capable of reading that correspondence and understanding it, and I think that this amendment addresses the concerns that we heard, as will the further amendments that I'll be proposing.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Ms. Davidson.

Is there any further debate?

I see Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Perhaps I could ask a question before....

Sorry, Mr. Chair, I think it's clear enough.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You're certainly free to ask the clerk for any interpretation.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

No, I think it's okay. I thought I had a question. My apologies.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Not at all. Do you wish to speak to the amendment then?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

No, I don't.