Information & Ethics Committee on May 13th, 2014

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Okay, next on the list is Madam Borg.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although the amendment in question is not really a problem for me, I would like to repeat my concern that this is somewhat redundant. I believe that the people affected by this act understand that we are not encouraging them to occupy a partisan position. Furthermore, I do not believe that this practice of seeking partisan positions is a common one. I think it is already understood that this is not encouraged. The Public Service Employment Act states that as well.

However, I simply wanted to say that the amendment was somewhat redundant, although I do not consider it a fundamental problem.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Is there any further debate?

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Chair, let me ask our legislative clerk whether this amendment is in conflict with anything else in this bill. Does this amendment flow with this particular piece of...?

I think this amendment seems a little out of place, because it may be in conflict with some of the other parts of this bill.

Is my reading of it correct?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Actually, Scott, that question is more properly put to the legal counsel from the legislative drafting people. It's not really for the clerk to make that kind of judgment about the relative merits of the clause; he's here to deal with the procedural side of things.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay, that's a fair comment.

Would it be of some use to have the legal department here during this bill? I know that it has been the case with other bills that some people from the legal department have been before committee to answer certain technical questions.

I'm just asking. I don't know whether there's a....

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I don't think it is any kind of normal practice to have the legislative drafting people here. You might have a question for the analysts along those lines, as to their opinion.

Is this something the analysts here would like to intervene on—the appropriateness?

I really think it's a judgment call on the part of committee members whether they feel it's redundant or ambiguous. You can make that point, but you can either vote for or against the amendment as proposed by Ms. Davidson. It was deemed to be in order. I think if it were wildly out of place, the legislative drafting people probably would have advised the author of the amendment and have said that this really isn't an appropriate amendment.

But it is here properly before this committee, so I suppose the options are to vote in favour or against.

(Amendment agreed to)

Are there any further amendments to put in clause 2 before we call the question on clause 2?

Seeing none, I shall put the question on clause 2 as amended.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3—Partisan activities)

The first amendment proposed to clause 3—of which we've had notice, at least—is Conservative Party amendment CPC-2, again under the name of Ms. Davidson.

Would you like the floor to explain your amendment and defend it?

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

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The amendment I am proposing is that clause 3 be amended by replacing lines 13 to 17 on page 3 with the following:The purpose of this Act is, in conjunction with any other applicable rule of law, to avoid conflicts that are likely to arise or be perceived to arise between partisan activities and the official duties and responsibilities of any person who works in the

office of an agent of Parliament

The difference is a couple of new words—“in conjunction with any other applicable rule of law”—and the deletion of “an Agent of Parliament or”. Those words are deleted. That again, as I said in my previous remarks, is in response to the testimony we heard as we went through this bill.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Ms. Davidson.

Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

In the last clause, the amendment talked about political activities and a partisan position; this new amendment talks about partisan activities.

My question is, what is the difference between a political activity and a partisan activity or a political position and a partisan position? Does the government have a clear answer about that?

It seems to me, when we're considering this type of clause or any type of clause, that we need to be consistent in the vocabulary we use and also that we have at least an idea of what we mean by these different categories of human activity, whether it be a “political position”, a “political act”, “political activities”, a “political expression” or a “partisan expression”.

I'd be interested to understand whether the government has actually wrapped their heads around any of these terms. If they're not going to refer to the very clear terms defined the Public Service Employment Act, then who is going to interpret all of this?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Have you concluded, Mr. Ravignat?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

That was my question.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Next on the speakers list is Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would refer the member to page 2 of the bill where it clearly outlines what they are: electoral candidate, electoral district association officer, member of a ministerial staff, member of parliamentary staff, member of a political staff, chief executive officer, appointed auditor, or a financial agent. It's actually clearly defined on page 3 of the English, in subclause 2(2), under “Interpretation”. It defines what that is, Mr. Chair.

So I suggest the member might want to re-read the second page of the bill. It might help him. I know that he had a late night last night, but page 2 might help him out a great deal—not only on that particular clause, but also on all the clauses and amendments that the Conservatives have brought forward. It's not only on this one, but going forward, which I know he has in front of him. So he might want to take a look at that in that context.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Is there any further debate?

Madame Borg.

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

I thank Mr. Calandra for his willingness to head us in the right direction. However, I just want to mention that partisan activities are still not defined.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you.

Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I want to point out that Mr. Calandra did not really answer my question. There is a difference between a political position and a political activity. He is right in a way. It defines the positions, but, when you are in that kind of position, there are all kinds of activities that a public servant may consider and take part in.

I do not think it is as clear as Mr. Calandra would like to suggest.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Ravignat.

Mr. Calandra, again.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'll read it slower for the member.

“electoral candidate” has the same meaning as “candidate” in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Elections Act. “electoral district association officer” means a person who occupies any of the following positions in an electoral district association, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Canada Elections Act, namely (a) chief executive officer or any other officer; (b) appointed auditor; or (c) financial agent. “ministerial staff” means those persons, other than public servants, who work on behalf of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state. “parliamentary staff” means those persons, other than public servants, who work on behalf of a senator or a member of the House of Commons. “politically partisan position” means any of the following positions: (a) electoral candidate; (b) electoral district association officer; (c) member of a ministerial staff; (d) member of a parliamentary staff; or (e) member of a political staff.

It continues:

“political party” means a registered party as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Elections Act. “political staff” means those persons, other than public servants, who (a) work for a political party; (b) work in the office of the Official Leader of the Opposition—

presumably in Ottawa, not Montreal—

in the Senate or in the House of Commons; or (c) work in a political party research office.

So that would be on page 2 and page 3, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Calandra.

Is there any further discussion or debate?

Madame Borg.

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

Again, we are very capable of reading, Mr. Calandra, but I would thank you, again, for reading those out loud. I would actually ask you to perhaps re-read it and try to find the definition for partisan activities.

I understand that we have a bunch of other definitions relating to positions, great. We have “parliamentary staff”, great. We have “ministerial staff” and what a political party is, fine. But we do not have a definition for partisan activities, and that is our concern here.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Is there any further debate or discussion on CPC-2?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

Good enough. That concludes the amendments. Are there further amendments to clause 3 before we move on?

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4—Positions)

The first amendment to clause 4 is CPC-3, in the name of Ms. Davidson.

Ms. Davidson, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My amendment is that clause 4 be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 3—again in the English and French version side by side—with the following:

This Act applies to any person who

The rest of lines 19 and 20 would removed, so the final clause 4 would read:

This Act applies to any person who applies or is selected for a position in the office of an agent of Parliament.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Okay, we've heard the amendment.

Mr. Andrews is opposed.

We have another amendment under clause 4, which is NDP-4 in the name of Mr. Ravignat.

Mr. Ravignat, would you like to propose your amendment?