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.