Evidence of meeting #104 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It's page five, proposed subsection 5(1), acting chair.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Would it not be reasonable for an organization of this importance and this size to have a standing vice-chair? In my view, it would be most appropriate that an organization like this would want that position and not wait for a case when there isn't a chair, so that they'd have to go through the process of finding a vice-chair.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Certainly, they may want a vice-chair. I guess the difference here is that this is a review body, where the governing structure really flows from the executive director and from the staff of the executive director. This is a board that's going to meet infrequently, so the need for a running vice-chair may not be there. It may be. It depends on how they want to run it. It's not something you would necessarily need. That's why there is the potential need to preserve flexibility.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I will come back to this.
Our amendment concerns line 4 on page 5, where it says “may designate”. I understand that other designation cases are covered in subsections 4(7) and 5(1), but on line 4, it rather says “may designate”. We want the wording to be “designate” instead. The expression “may designate” indicates a possibility, and we are proposing that it be made into an obligation. The NDP agreed with that.
We are not talking about the same thing.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Perhaps it's more a discussion with the drafters about “may” versus “peut”. I understand them to be synonyms, but I would want to have the jurilinguists look at that. It was intended to be “may” on the French side.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It's the view of the legislative clerk that there is not a drafting issue here. It says what it says and it's clear what it says. Therefore, the amendment before the committee is clear.
Is there any other debate?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I was curious about the drafting piece. I stick to the same thing. It's not that the organization cannot have a vice-chair. It may have a vice-chair. It's a matter of providing that flexibility, rather than a rigid rule. To me, it makes sense the way that it is currently set out.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
From the experts, are there organizations of this size and importance already in government that have wording like this and that don't include a vice-chair as normal practice?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'm not familiar with another organization that would require a vice-chair, in law.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
This requires that the chair be a full-time member. The rationale is that currently the chair is to work on a part-time basis, yet at his or her salary level, that is unacceptable. The amount of work that this agency will conduct will likely require a full-time attitude and effort.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Again, there's a similar thread that's carrying across, which is the matter of allowing for flexibility within it. The wording, as it is, allows for a full-time position. It's something that could happen, but having the stringent requirement that it must be a full-time position takes away flexibility. It takes away the possibility for some suitable candidates.
Having worked as a lawyer in Toronto, I know that there were a lot of qualified people who would do part-time positions because of different things. I worked part time. There were job shares and all sorts of flexibility, which in fact increased your opportunity to have suitable candidates.
I would keep the flexibility there. You can have a full-time person or it would allow for a part-time position.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I appreciate the point that was just made, but I think having these positions be part-time or even having the possibility of their being part-time shows a lack of seriousness with regard to the review process and wanting to undertake it properly. I find it difficult to imagine that someone on this kind of body would be involved with other work or doing other things or only part-time. If we really want to take seriously the kind of accountability that's being sought with the agency, then I think it should not be a part-time position. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
We're talking about national security here. This is national security. This is why we've been given this for second reading. This is a serious issue, as Mr. Dubé has said, and you don't work on this off the corner of your desk. I believe it's critical that this individual's mind be engaged in this on a full-time basis. His attitude and his effort need to be full-time. I don't think it can be anything but that.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move on to CPC-5.
Conservative
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Has that one been tabled, because it is following what the other amendment said?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
CPC-4 was defeated; therefore, CPC-5 is now up.
Is there any debate on CPC-5?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On CPC-6, we have Mr. Motz.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
This amendment indicates that really no member designated as the chair can hold the position for more than 30 days. Bill C-59 allows a member to hold the role of chair for 90 days. That's far too long, and a vice-chair should be in place to cover off all the absences of a chair in the first place, so that's the rationale behind this particular amendment.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thirty days is a very short period of time; 90 days is a reasonable amount of time for someone to hold the position. It would just add to an administrative burden to limit the time. It, again, reduces flexibility. Ninety days isn't a very long period of time, either, so I would suggest that the way it's worded right now is fine.