That's what I intended to do, using Ms. Thibault's original motion as a guide. I want to be clear that I don't doubt that Ms. Thibault is acting in good faith. We have worked together on several occasions and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with her. She is a frank and honest person.
The second paragraph of Ms. Thibault's motion begins as follows:
That the government should make a commitment [...]
My proposed amendment would replace the rest of the paragraph with the following:
in the National Capital Region, starting now, to divide federal Public Service, government agency and Crown corporation jobs between Ottawa, and Gatineau, primarily departments, departmental corporations or other bodies referred to in the Bank of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Canada Council for the Arts Act, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act, the International Development Research Centre Act, the National Defence Act, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Telefilm Canada Act, or in any schedule to the Financial Administration Act, to meet a standard whereby at least 25 per cent of positions are located on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region, as agreed to in 1984 by the federal cabinet, primarily by purchasing or leasing real estate through a competitive public call for tender process;
The next paragraph of Ms. Thibault's motion begins with the following:
That starting in 2007, the government report annually to the House on progress achieved [...]
With my amendment, I'm proposing that the following be added, after the words “progress achieved“:
by preparing an annual statistical summary of all public sector positions in the National Capital Region, including their locations and any movement of those positions in the previous fiscal year, which shall be laid before the House of Commons and made available to the public through a posting on the Government of Canada website, within four months after the end of each fiscal year, and by taking the necessary steps to ensure as soon as practicable as positions are filled in the public service, and in any case not later than December 31, 2010, that the 25/75 standard is implemented and respected.
Let me explain, Madam Chair, the rationale behind my proposed amendment.
First, let me say that I believe Ms. Thibault is acting in good faith with a view to attaining the 75/25 standard. However, we're not necessarily going to re-invent the wheel just because some new MPs were elected in January 2006. Last week, during a debate in the House, I was accused of becoming interested in this issue only lately, whereas that is not true. That's why I've listed the different acts that should be used for the purpose of calculating the numbers. Hear me out, Madam Chair.
When the Minister of Public Works and Government Services appears before the committee, when his parliamentary secretary fields questions in the House, when PWGSC employees refer to the 75:25 policy, they all maintain that the proportion is currently 77 per cent on the Ontario side, and 23 per cent on the Quebec side.
If we include only those departments and agencies that report to Treasury Board, the figures would probably be quite good. However, the federal government's original policy makes no reference to agencies or departments that report to Treasury Board. Rather, it refers to federal government jobs in the National Capital Region. To come up with some fair numbers, we need to take into account not only the departments that report to Treasury board, but all jobs that, directly or indirectly, report to the Government of Canada.
For example, PWGSC does not account for all Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporations jobs. Yet, CMHC does report to the federal government. However, it's not included in the calculations because as an employer, CMHC is not subject to Treasury Board.
The same holds true for Canada Post. No one is about to argue that Canada Post does not report to the Government of Canada. I could give you scores of other similar examples.
We must be very careful about how we interpret the laws mentioned in this motion. These laws also happen to be cited in motion M-316 that I presented during the previous Parliament.
We're not saying that CMHC should relocate 25 per cent of its workforce to Gatineau, just like we're not saying that the Parliament of Canada, the Senate or the House of Commons should relocate. We're saying that these institutions must be taken into account when calculating the numbers.
In response to the objection raised earlier by my colleague Mr. Kramp, if we calculate the number this way and come up with a ratio of 80:20, the missing 5 per cent of jobs doesn't necessarily have to come from Crown corporations which are not necessarily controlled by the government. Rather, they are independent agencies. However, if we need to make up this 5 per cent, the Government of Canada, which controls jobs through Treasury Board and PWGSC, could step in and transfer 5 per cent of the jobs to the Quebec side.
The big picture will show that the sharing within the national capital region is actually 25%-75%, but of course I do not suggest that employees from the Parliament of Canada, whether it be the House or whether it be the Senate, be moved to the Quebec side. What I'm saying is that all of these entities that are direct or indirect to the Government of Canada have to be considered in the mathematical calculation to arrive at the number of employees or jobs that should be split in the national capital region, and then the government, within the department or agencies that it controls, can make the different switches to accommodate this 75%-25% share.
Thank you very much. And I want to reiterate that it will be a real pleasure to discuss this and to look at any possible changes, but again, this is not the result of three months of work, this is the result of work since 1994.
Thank you, Madam Chair.