All right.
Thanks to the interpreters.
He obviously had not read the amendments before writing his letter. Consequently, we do not know his opinion on the amendments introduced by the government and the NDP. However, it is very important that we begin debate on this bill knowing the commissioners' full opinions. They have come and testified before the committee and have since had occasion to reflect and speak once again to the bill. I commend them for doing that. I believe the public and journalists must know that the commissioners have written to you, Mr. Chair, and that they were very concerned before this meeting to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
This time I am going to cite the opinion of the Commissioner of the Public Service Commission of Canada, who also expresses reservations about the bill. Then we will be up to date. There are deficiencies in the process being used to analyze this bill. We could have heard from many more witnesses, such as various groups in Canadian society that are concerned about this bill. Whatever the case may be, that is where we stand. At least we will know the commissioners' opinions.
Here is what the commissioners of the Public Service Commission wrote in two letters dated February 17 and May 9, 2014. The letter of February 17 reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Martin, We are writing with respect to "Bill C-520—An act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament", which has been referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics for a clause-by-clause review.
In the letter of May 9, 2014, we are told the following:
The Public Service Commission (Commission) wishes to reiterate that it has a keen interest in the proposed legislation and will support any effort to safeguard the merit principle for appointments to and within the public service and the non-partisan nature of the public service.
I believe the majority of Canadians agree that public service appointments should be based on merit. The most qualified Canadians must work for the government. I understand the concern of the Public Service Commission, which is responsible for ensuring that the merit principle is applied within the public service, and the reason why it spoke out first on this fundamental issue.
Several clauses in the bill would jeopardize this basic principle, which probably dates back to Confederation, or even before it. According to that principle, the appointment of a person to the federal public service or to any other level of government should be based on merit. The hiring of an individual at any level of government, but especially in the public service, should be based on merit.
The officials who work on the Hill demonstrate very clearly that this principle is always applied. We are well served. The work that analysts and clerks do is proof that the merit principle is not dead in the public service. I thank them for their work, by the way.
The commission adds that it also wants to protect the impartial nature of the public service. It remains concerned "about the Bill's effect on the merit-based appointment system and the impact of the overlap with the Public Service Employment Act provisions for managing non-partisanship and political activities of public servants, which could have an impact on employees and their rights."
These concerns are cited in a letter accompanied by a document prepared by the commission and sent to our attention, Mr. Chair, on February 17, 2014, as a constructive contribution to the study of this bill.
In the conclusion, the commission says it is prepared to continue discussing with us protection of the merit principle and the political impartiality of the public service.
These two letters express the commissioners' concerns. They did not have enough time to inform us of their views or to express their concerns. They clearly felt compelled to speak to us once again about this bill.
I'm switching to English now, if that may help the interpreters.
Clearly the NDP has brought forward a number of amendments today that are in the spirit of the commissioner's worries, and I think the government has done so as well. I'll remind Canadians that this was done under some heavy pressure, both from the commissioners and the public, and also from the opposition.
This bill was basically about claptrapping, I would say, muzzling the independent agents of Parliament. My mind is open, as are probably all of my colleagues, in making sure that agents of Parliament can do their jobs objectively. We have to say that the record of this government with regard to the independence of agents of Parliament to express themselves has not been good. We can think about Mr. Page as being a prime example of this government's inability to listen to independent voices.
Having said that, I'd like to refer to my first amendment, which would delete lines 11 and 12 on page two of the bill, basically the line that say:
(j) any other position added by the Governor in Council in accordance with section 5