OGGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

0920

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

0925

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois (General Counsel, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service)

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

0930

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

0935

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

0940

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore)

The Chair

0945

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board)

The Chair

0950

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

0955

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

1000

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

1005

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

1010

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1015

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

1020

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

1025

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

1030

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

M. John Mooney (Legal Counsel, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1035

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

1040

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1045

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

1050

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

1055

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1110

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Judy Sgro

1115

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1120

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1125

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. John Mooney

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

1130

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

1135

Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister, Privy Council Office; Head, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service)

The Chair

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1140

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

1145

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. John Mooney

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

1150

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. John Mooney

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. John Mooney

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. John Mooney

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

1155

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi (Director General, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service)

Mr. Paul Szabo

1200

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John Mooney

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

The Chair

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

1205

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. John Mooney

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1210

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1215

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

1220

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

1225

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Ms. Lois Pearce (Director General, Policy, Task force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

1230

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1235

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

1240

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1245

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

1250

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

1255

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 040

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0920)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Let's come to order for our first meeting this week considering Bill C-25 clause by clause. We will start with a procedural discussion.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the first order of business should be to apologize to the witnesses and to all the members who were here when the meeting should have started. We're in the middle of clause-by-clause consideration. It is very important, and I want to put it on the record that this has happened far too often. As a courtesy to all involved and all stakeholders in this process, we should set meeting times when people are committed to be here. This is an important issue or matter. It's a very bad signal to have meetings delayed unduly, without explanation.

We should not let the matter go on. All members should be advised that meetings do have to start on time. I feel really badly—though it doesn't just happen at this committee—because when witnesses are sitting there ready to go, it's quite disrespectful to them and the process for members not to be here. I want to put this on the record.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Would you like me to issue demerits?

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's serious.

The Chair: Is there any solution for it?

We have a procedural concern. Given that a couple of members were not here last week when Bill C-25 was being discussed, let me review it for you. This bill is structured somewhat differently than bills most members are familiar with, in that it contains two separate acts appearing as single clauses within the bill. It also has some clauses that do nothing more than put a heading into the bill.

The House of Commons holds, according to Marleau and Monpetit, that headings and marginal notes are not part of the bill and therefore should not be passed as clauses in a bill. However, the Department of Justice tells us that there are judges who have begun to take notice of headings in bills, which is why they suggest that this bill has been structured with clauses that simply add headings to the bill. The argument, though, is that if the House passes a heading, it can't be changed marginally by the drafters afterwards, as has been past practice.

At the end of the day, this committee is in charge of this particular decision. It doesn't materially change the content of the bill at all, but it is the recommendation of the table that we not pass those clauses. That recommendation from the table basically cites the practice and rules and procedures of this House, but it will affect the clauses we are now on, clauses 4, 33, 183, 212, and 214. Just to be clear, these clauses do nothing but add a word or a heading to a section of the act. The past practice is that those things are done by the drafting personnel outside of the operation of the bill.

So I'm in your hands. We are at one of those clauses now, clause 4. If there is no other discussion, I shall pose the question, “Shall clause 4 carry?”, with the recommendation that we defeat it.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: If the opinion is that the bill embedded within this act should be handled exactly as we would handle other bills, why isn't the question being put on each and every clause of the bill?

The Chair: That's what I'm saying; there are two different things here.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand that.

I mean, shall clause 1 carry, shall clause 2 carry, etc.? We have just been voting on clauses for which amendments have been posed. We have not been putting the question or considering each clause in the bill.

The Chair: No. The way this bill is structured, we have only two.

Clause 2 was an entire bill, and you're absolutely right, we did not go through it the way we would traditionally go through it, because that is not the way it was presented to us. For some reason, our witnesses chose to present the bill in this form, which has caused some problems and confusion along the way.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, I raised it simply because it is the anomaly. The decision on the marginal notes and the headings, etc., was based on this being the way we handle bills and these being the rules to apply to a bill, as it would be in the normal case. This is not the normal case.

So if you would like to apply the rule that all bills have to be handled in the same fashion, regardless of the way they're presented, then it would seem that some could argue you should be having a vote on each and every clause of a bill, regardless of whether it's an embedded bill.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I would like a chance for our experts at the end of the table to address this issue, at least give us their advice on how they see it, and we'll take that under advisement. I want to hear from the folks at the end of the table on the matter.

The Chair: Yes. And I'd ask you to address two issues. The first is the reason for structuring this bill in the form it's been structured in, rather than in the form bills normally appear before us. And the second issue is this question of specific clauses for the headings.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois (General Counsel, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps I'll answer your question, Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Forseth's.

The bill is quite different from most bills the House deals with, and that's because of the breadth of the subject matter it deals with. It amends from A to Z two bills completely. It replaces two pieces of legislation from start to finish: the Public Service Staff Relations Act, replaced by the Public Service Labour Relations Act; and the Public Service Employment Act, which retains the same name. It also amends legislation that deals with human resource matters, notably the Financial Administration Act and the CCMD Act.

Many members have mentioned it's odd that a whole piece of legislation is found in one clause only. For instance, the Public Service Labour Relations Act is clause 2, I believe. It's wholly found in that clause. And the Public Service Employment Act is wholly found in clause 12. The reason for that is the drafting process.

Every time one change is made to a section, whether one adds to a section, deletes a section, or refers to a section, you have to change the reference numbers in every clause. The drafting process for a bill this size is over a period of months and months. Therefore, so as not to make the work extremely complex and to lower the margin of error, those two wholly new pieces of legislation were placed in one clause each. That's why the bill is structured in that fashion.

Yes, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: The alternative would have been to bring forward two separate bills?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Well, that was part of it; that was certainly an option, but that option was rejected. It was felt that if they were separate pieces of legislation, seeing that the whole of the human resources structure was sought to be transformed in one process, it would be better for all concerned, including this committee, that all this transformation be looked at in one view, in one fell swoop, if you will.

Had it been broken down into separate bills, one could have said that was not the proper way to do it; it should have been put into one. So it was a call the task force and the minister had to make in the end.

With regard to the question put by Mr. Forseth and the comments of the chair at the outset, the Department of Justice's view is different from the view expressed earlier. The Department of Justice's view is that marginal notes and headings are not to be treated in the same fashion. Headings are part of the legislation. They are considered to be part of the legislation, like the words of a clause. That has been the case in rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada for a decade or more. And marginal notes, of course, are administrative. They're an aid to the reader--titles are as well--but they're not considered to be part of the legislation.

We understand and the Department of Justice understands that the heading may be changed administratively if there's text to follow the heading, as in many of the clauses in this act. But when the clause deals with the heading only, that is the only legislative authority there is to modify that heading. And that's the case with clause 4.

The other difficulty is that if the heading in clause 4 is not changed, then the old heading we're seeking to replace will not concord with the new headings in the clauses of the FAA that follow. We've changed those headings. So if this heading is not changed, it will not concord.

That's the explanation we have. We understand it is accurate. We're aware of the contrary opinion expressed, but we respectfully think our opinion is more current.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: So you take the opinion that the courts make the law?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Well, it--

The Chair: It's not unclear. We have Marleau and Montpetit, which is the authority we use, which says headings are not part of it, and we have Driedger on The Construction of Statutes, which says:

In Parliamentary procedure headings are not considered an integral part of a bill as it goes through the legislative process. This peculiarity is reflected in the majority of Canadian Interpretation Acts, which state that headings do not form part of the enactment....

That's Driedger on the The Construction of Statutes. We have Marleau and Montpetit saying very clearly they are not. Yet you want us to be directed by the Department of Justice rather than the House of Commons.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chairperson, I think Driedger stands for the contrary proposition.

The Chair: I just read it.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: In the excerpts provided to the committee this morning, you'll note in Marleau, page 657 of the text--that's the last page of the handout--marginal notes and headings are treated in the same fashion. That is not the view of Ruth Sullivan or Driedger on the interpretation of statutes.

You'll find those cases of the Supreme Court of Canada I referred to.... And I also provided this morning, Mr. Chair, precedent of precisely what it is we're attempting to do here in having an amendment deal with a heading only. I've provided that; they're tabbed. You may have that before you. You'll see that many of those amendments deal with a heading only--no text to follow. They're quite recent--2000, 2001. And for your reference, there are another eleven examples noted but not appended.

The Chair: Is there any other comment or question?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the explanation, I think I'm even more concerned on a couple of points, such as the reference that if we don't change the heading, the old heading will apply. I thought with regard to a complete bill embedded in this act that there is a repeal clause for the existing act; therefore, there won't be any old heading. This is kind of a circular argument. But that's not the important part, Mr. Chairman. I think the important part is to take a look at what the alternative would have been to presenting this act to the committee in another form. What alternatives were there?

If we were to have had a separate bill for this act that's included in article 2, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, there would have been government amendments. Those government amendments are presently included in the black binders. There are a number of changes to the existing act that are not being discussed by this committee, not even being considered--and certainly not being voted on.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: I didn't think there was a plan.

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's not a matter of whether there was a plan. I don't want to speculate on that, Mr. Chairman. But if there are changes to existing legislation, which Parliament, regardless of what element of that body it is, wants to change, this committee has a responsibility to vet those proposed changes.

We have been given the information, and there has been excellent work done with regard to preparing the binders, but all we have considered with regard to that Public Service Labour Relations Act are those clauses for which there were amendments posed by members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations. We have not discussed or voted on other changes proposed by the department in consultation with stakeholders. The public, in viewing this process, would say we have handled this much differently than a regular bill.

In the event, Mr. Chairman, that someone were ever to come back to us to say, well, why did you say it was okay to do this, I guess the defence would be that we didn't consider those clauses of that bill within that act; we just considered the other clauses. This means to me that someone could basically say that we haven't done our job.

If there are changes, even though they are articulated, and the binders provide not only what the changes were but also explanations, there was no opportunity sought or offered to committee members to make comments with regard to those explanations. Maybe there aren't any comments, but that doesn't matter, Mr. Chairman; what matters is that members would have an opportunity to comment, that they have been asked whether they have any comments. The opportunity must be afforded to the members.

I have some concern. My concern really traces back to the fact that we've passed article 2, and I recall making a comment that we have just approved certain other changes that we didn't talk about and didn't ask anybody about. I would tend to think we need an opinion, from whatever person would be in a position to give it, as to whether or not it is proper and appropriate for us simply to pass a bill that's at committee stage, having only considered amendments posed by the committee and not considering discussing or voting upon any amendments posed by the government.

The Chair: I'm going to hear from Mr. Lanctôt and Mr. Stoffer and then Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I 'd heard comments about my colleague Paul Szabo. Since I've been a member of this committee, I've noted that he has raised some very important and very relevant points.

It's as if Quebec were totally overhauling the Civil Code -- in fact it did that in the 1990s -- and the government was keeping us in the dark on the proposed changes and on what existed beforehand. How many of us, myself included, seated at this table, are thoroughly familiar with the Public Service Labour Relations Act? No one. I for one am not an expert on the subject. I'm more familiar with civil law. However, I read the legislation as best I could in order to formulate some amendments.

We saw what happened. Everyone around this table accepted the amended legislation without any discussion or explanation of the changes or of why the changes were required in the first place. I find Mr. Szabo's comments extremely apropos and I'm wondering if what you're doing is “legal”. What is the substance of this bill? What changes have been made? No one here can say. Since we're not experts, someone needs to explain it to us.

I'd like to say two more things. Mr. LeFrançois mentioned a global approach. Apparently, that was too complicated and the drafting process would have taken months. In my view, that's where the amendments come in. Let me give you an example: BQ-71, which deals with whistle-blowers, was deemed out of order. While supposedly we're taking a global approach, why was this amendment rejected without my having had an opportunity to speak to it? I wasn't present, and that's a different story. I think this shows considerable lack of respect on your part.

I admit that the Bloc Québécois was represented and that my colleagues were in attendance. Nevertheless, let me just say one thing: you're setting a precedent because each time we proceed with a clause-by-clause study, when a minister asks us to accompany a delegation -- in this instance, it was important to take part in this meeting of G8 Justice Ministers and I thought you would have shown me more consideration, which wasn't the case -- the Bloc Québécois will never again agree to go along. The experience proved extremely unpleasant for my colleagues. Despite the work I had done and the written notes they could consult, they hadn't heard the witnesses testify and that complicated matters for them. I realize they did their best to present my amendments, but the fact remains that your actions were totally disrespectful. I'm glad to have the opportunity to say so today.

There was a delay and I realized at yesterday's meeting that any one of my colleagues could have asked questions and that the clause-by-clause study was already under way. I arrived yesterday thinking that the process was just beginning only to realize that we were focussing on an entirely different subject and that my colleagues could have been present. That's shows a total lack of respect. When the Minister heads off to a meeting, someone from the opposition is asked to go along, but the Bloc Québécois will never again agree to that. You put my colleagues in a very uncomfortable position. They had to get up to speed on this bill quickly in order to take part in the clause-by-clause study. I find it all rather incredible. You're going to tell me that I had a choice. True, I did, and from now on, we will choose not to head off ever again, even if it's an important G8 meeting. I just wanted to let you know that.

As for taking a global approach, you've seen the results. I wasn't able to address the issue of protecting whistle-blowers. In my opinion, we're dealing with a major initiative aimed at renewing the public service. We all want the same thing. The fact remains that I didn't even have an opportunity to make any representations. My proposed amendment was rejected, ostensibly because it was not relevant to the mandate or framework of the legislation. Yet, Mr. LeFrançois, you've just said that efforts were made to take a global approach to the modernization process.

¿ (0940)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank Mr. Szabo for his comments, and Mr. Lanctôt as well.

If the underlying thinking is to delay the entire proceedings, take this bill away, and come back with something more acceptable to the PSAC union, I'm in full agreement.

But I just wanted to pose a question to you, Mr. Chairman, and maybe to our learned experts. If we're not ruled by Marleau and Montpetit and the procedures in their very extensive book, if we're ruled by the justice department, we have a bit of a problem, then. We have rules and procedures from two learned people. And anyone who knows Mr. Marleau knows he was not a fool. He was a very meticulous, hard-working individual, as was his colleague.

If the justice department says they're wrong, or they say that the justice department is wrong, we're in a bit of a bind here. Does that mean the rule laid down by Marleau and Montpetit on this particular example has to change to reflect the view of the justice department, or does the justice department have to override what's in that book? This is just one example. I'm sure if he wanted to go to all of the committees, he could rip everything apart and we could start from scratch all over again.

That's the question I have for you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure who can answer it. If we don't go by Marleau and Montpetit, do we go by the Department of Justice? If we go by the Department of Justice, do we not go by Marleau and Montpetit?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

I'm going to hear from Mr. Tirabassi, and then I will make a response.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just a couple of points.

I'm trying to understand some of the frustration with regard to the idea put forward here that there hasn't been an ample discussion on those particular clauses to which there is no amendment in our deck but which have changed from what previously existed.

This is the first bill I've taken through, and I know I've had the backup notes to this bill, the black binders, for approximately three months. In those three months we have met on several occasions. We've had a list of witnesses we agreed to, and we heard from them. During all this time we heard from the task force. I believe we began with the minister herself appearing. We've had this information available to us all this time. I'd like to think this is the result of the 140 or 150 amendments we've been dealing with, and there have been opportunities to raise discussion on any one of those clauses in any of the binders during this whole session.

I know also that the minister made herself amply available to discuss any concerns members of this committee might have had with regard to the bill. Some chose to take up that opportunity, and some chose not to, even though she did extend the invitation on a few occasions to several individuals.

Now, that's not to say that's where decisions are made--absolutely not. It all comes back to this committee. But because we're dealing with a piece of legislation as complex as this, we've tried several different avenues to resolve issues and to try to understand what might be on members' minds that they would like to discuss.

Now, just so I'm clear here, is the issue that we've dealt with clause 2, and as a result everything in clause 2 is gone? Again, I ask that you please bear with me. Is the issue that we didn't go through this handout to ask whether each individual clause should carry?

The Chair: Let me try to pick this apart to to see if I've captured it, because I share Mr. Szabo's concerns about the structure of the bill itself. I have raised these concerns in the briefings we've had. However, the House accepted it and passed it in that form.

Frankly, I think we would have been better served by having two separate bills coming to the committee at the same time. We would have moved through them the way we normally move through a bill: here's clause one; here's clause two; here's clause three. We would have seen what the former clause did, and away we would go. That would have been a more acceptable way of dealing with this, but that's not the issue for me. We're not going to change it, because we've agreed to accept this form, and we've been working with this form. In fact, we've passed the first bill within a bill.

Having said that, we are now into a different argument, which is an argument that I suspect goes on between this place and the other. Mr. Stoffer just said that. The House of Commons maintains that it is the place that decides law, not the courts, but I find that people from PCO are coming forward and saying no, no, because the courts have ruled this way, we now have to amend our practices to suit their concerns. I think it's very clear that, yes, certain committees have indeed made amendments that have included headings. I would say that they have either been negligent in missing them, or they have... I shouldn't say that, without having read those debates, but I suspect that they just went through on the nod, as things are often done around here.

The fact is that legislative drafters around here have caught this. They've said so. We had an example of one in the environment committee just recently, where they did exactly the same thing. There was an attempt to put a clause in, which the committee defeated, because it is the position of Marleau and Montpetit and the position of the table and the chamber that you don't do this.

Knowing that, it's a bit much to have a department of government come forward to try to do it again, when they've been so advised. I think there is a strong concern in this place with who's making law, but this is a tiny, trivial issue, and I'm disappointed we're spending as much time on it as we are.

Having said that, I want to respond to something Mr. Lanctôt said. As far as the decisions about who goes with ministers and who doesn't are concerned, those are decisions for your caucus and others. But the clause you were referring to, which was ruled inadmissible, would have been ruled inadmissible regardless of how the bill was structured. The table advised that it was outside the scope of the act, which was why it was ruled inadmissible. So it was not a matter of trying to move one past you, or of any act of disrespect. In fact, this committee agreed to stop sitting to allow you to be here for the second half of this bill. The committee cannot sit or not sit based on the schedules of individual members, or we'd never sit.

I think we have given everybody ample opportunity. The people at the end of the table have been very, very willing to sit down and provide information and discuss the concerns of members. The minister has been very available to deal with amendments. And frankly, the speeches that were made in the House in the early part of this didn't indicate any strong concerns.

So what we're dealing with right now is a relatively small procedural issue. It does not deal with the substance of the bill, but it's not the kind of issue I'm of a mind to simply let go on the nod.

Mr. Forseth, and Mr. Szabo.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

I'll bring the matter back strictly to the issue of the heading. I very much agree with the whole concept that Parliament has to push back concerning judge-made law, but the reality is that's part of the give and take and ongoing tension between the government, or executive—because Parliament is not the government—and Parliament itself, as an independent entity, and the courts.

I recall very clearly being vice-chair of the justice committee when we had to do a hurry-up bill because of the Supreme Court decision on the powers of entry into a dwelling house. That kind of thing happens over and over again. We have to deal with that reality when the Supreme Court goes in a particular direction. Philosophically, I think that Parliament should continue to talk about the ideal and to push back, according to the references they took, but we also have to deal with the reality facing us concerning rulings. That's what we heard from the end of the table.

So although I am very concerned, philosophically, about judge-made law and about Parliament asserting its own authority and our maintaining our independence, we still have to pass the title the way it's proposed, because of the legal reality we're in—whether we like it or not.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'd like to propose an approach that might give us a little more comfort in completing the review of this bill in this structure. I believe the chair is quite right that the House passed it on to us, and is satisfied. But I am concerned that there is a precedent here, which is that anybody could propose a bill with an embedded bill and a repeal clause, and there would be only one vote, to vote on clause 2, without any....This is problematic.

I had asked earlier whether we could maybe have an opinion on this, but I think that the committee, with the agreement of the members, can probably satisfy itself that it has discharged its responsibility, and insulate itself from being criticized for not having considered each of the clauses by reopening clause 2. As Mr. Tirabassi suggests, I think the committee can call the question on each clause, but not delay. In fact, members will be well aware that the chair, with the consent of the committee, can group clauses and say “Shall clauses 1 to 50 pass?” We can go through that process extremely quickly, but it does offer members the opportunity that they should have had to comment on those clauses of this bill that have not been voted on specifically. We will have a vote on each and every clause. We will have an opportunity to speak to any clause that we haven't already touched.

I think the process would not take very long, but it certainly would deal with the greyness of whether or not members gave their opinion and their clearance for the various clauses. I would think that process would at least help me to make sure that we have discharged our responsibility. I understand that we could reopen clause 2, if someone who had in fact voted in favour of the clause so moved.

With that in mind, I'd be prepared to move the motion to reopen clause 2 for the purpose of considering the rest of the clauses, for which no question was put.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, I'd like to pick apart the two separate issues here. One is do we do anything different in our procedure of moving through the major clauses of this bill, along the lines you proposed?

And there are the five clauses....which I can't rule out of order. We can identify the conflict, and the committee can vote them down, if it so chooses. Clauses 4, 33, 183, 212, and 214 have headings.

I'd like to keep those two things separate, if I may.

Mr. Tirabassi, did you want to speak on the new heading?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Yes, just to clarify for the record, I was in no way suggesting that we go back at this time. It's for the committee to decide to go through clause by clause.

I was just putting that out regarding clause 2 so that I could understand exactly what concerns were being expressed, that maybe we hadn't done that. I just wanted to make that clear.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Szabo raised a very important point. At this stage, it's important to bear in mind that clause 2 was adopted in its entirety when I was absent. I don't know if we can backtrack at this point. I'll wait, because it's important for the Chair to hear what I have to say on the subject.

In my opinion, we should call in one or two experts on committee procedure to find out if the approach we're taking is “legal”. As I was saying earlier, it would be similar to completely overhauling the Quebec Civil Code without discussing any of the proposed changes. The matter needs to be debated and approved by the committee and explanations must be forthcoming. That hasn't happened. All we've done in committee is discuss the amendments. Radical amendments to the existing legislation have been adopted without any debate.

I can see a lawyer referring to the new act in connection with a case and explaining the new reform provisions to the court, when in fact no debate took place to explain the reasons for the changes or the legislator's intent. No explanations at all were provided. Often, when arguing their case, lawyers refer to debates that have taken place in the House. I've done that myself in civil law cases to interpret the legislator's intent. Now we'll have a void. What happens now? The courts will be interpreting the legislation without really knowing the legislator's intent.

In my opinion, you're on a very slippery slope. I totally agree with Mr. Szabo, but I would take it a step further. We need a legal opinion as to whether this approach is “legal”, because we are going to face major problems down the road in terms of interpreting the legislation's provisions.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: I have a point of order.

The Chair: I understand, Mr. Szabo.

We have two different issues here in front of us, which we need to pick apart a little bit. You have already spoken on the issue of revisiting clause 2. To go back to reopen a clause that has already been passed would take the unanimous consent of the committee.

As we go on, we will hit clause 12, regarding the Public Service Employment Act. It is possible for the committee to divide that clause, if it wished to vote on it separately. But in reference to your comments, Mr. Lanctôt, I must say that in terms of its acceptability, it's an unusual form for the bill. I've asked the clerk to provide us with some information on how many times this form has been used in the past. However, it is a form that has been accepted. The table does not put these bills into the House capriciously. It looked at it and said this is an acceptable form for the bill to be in. It does pose a greater burden on members in going through the bill, in exactly the manner that you, Mr. Szabo, have referenced. But as to its legitimacy, the House has accepted it, and we have accepted it, and we are a considerable way through the bill.

If Mr. Szabo would like, I'm prepared to put the question to see if there is consent to go back to clause 2. But I do have this other question about the five clauses, which are considered to be inappropriate according to the rules of the House.

Mr. Tirabassi.

À (1000)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: There's obvious concern around both sides of the committee table with the House having ruled—which the committee wishes to respect—and the department coming in with a different opinion. There is an opportunity that was mentioned at the last meeting, but I don't know if it's still open. We could put it on the record that the clerk, or the drafters or whoever, recognize these new titles in the final drafting of the bill. We would just like to make sure that we would put it on record, rather than trying to move it. Is that option still open?

The Chair: The answer to that is yes. Basically, that would be the normal process, for the editors to work with the department to put the proper headings in and all that.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: That being the case, to try to resolve this impasse, I don't know if you would need a motion.

The Chair: No. When we call the clauses, we'll indicate.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that before a decision is made on the disposition of clause 2, we get whatever advice is necessary for us to make sure the committee can discharge its responsibilities.

As well, since we're handling this as if it's one bill, there are other precedents or other practices with regard to handling a bill. For instance, when the same or a similar clause is disposed of, other clauses that are of the same matter, and so on, the vote or the disposition of the first one would be applied.

We now have another full bill coming up in which there are a number of same or similar clauses, and our disposition of clause 2 should, following normal practice, necessarily apply to that second bill, without debate, wherever there is the same amendment, the same reasoning, or whatever.

That is the other problem we have. Whatever we've decided there is going to apply to that next bill, where it's the same or similar in the arguments and the principle or the rule of law, because we want to conform them. If you look at them, there's a lot in there that is the same.

I really think it is important to get this right, and I'm even more convinced to make sure we deal effectively with each act within this bill as a separate entity and exhaust it within itself. So there could be differences between the two bills, if that were desirable. I suppose I'm going to have to sit down and start going clause by clause in those two bills to find out what differences there are between them, being proposed by the government, and determine why those differences are there.

It's getting more complicated, but it would appear that if our decision is that we're going to treat this as if it's a homogeneous bill before this committee, the rules of committee consideration would also apply, in that we have applied votes that have already taken place as a result of the way we disposed of clause 2.

So please don't make a decision until we get the appropriate advice on those elements.

The Chair: Right, but again, let me be clear about what we're talking about here. Clause 2, which is all of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, has been passed.

I've asked the clerk to do some research or have some research done and get us some information on the structure of the bills, but I would argue that we are a long way down the road on that particular question. That's a question we might have raised right before we started review of the bill. Maybe that's a question that should have been raised before the bill came into the House, but I am informed that there have been other bills like this, although not many.

We'll get that information for you, Mr. Szabo and for the committee, so we can look at that, because I do think it's an interesting question for future reference.

I don't want to lose the time we have today, so here's what we could do. We do have amendments, largely in clause 12, which is the Public Service Employment Act. We have our minor government amendment in clause 5, which amends just the language, and no amendments for clauses 6 to 11, and then we're into the body of clauses 12 to 20, which is the Public Service Employment Act.

À (1005)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: In CA-2, the Canadian Alliance is proposing to amend Clause 8.

[English]

The Chair: I don't see one here.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It's amendment CA-2.

The Chair: Yes, it's amendment CA-2. Clause 8 is amended here.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lanctôt. It's not on my master sheet, but you're right. So there is one there.

May I suggest that we'll ask the researchers to come back with some information on the question of structure. Regardless of when we do it, if we do it, the procedure to get back and reopen clause 2 would be to ask for unanimous consent of the committee. But I would like to proceed, if we can, with the clauses we can proceed with right now--if that's okay.

Would that be satisfactory, Mr. Szabo?

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's fine.

The Chair: Having said that, the first clause we have to deal with is clause 4, which is one of these clauses on the headings that create the issue. I'm going to call the question on clause 4, as I cannot rule it out of order. It needs to be defeated, if that is the wish of the committee. How's that for an impartial presentation of the question.

Actually, let's be clear about it. What does clause 4 do? It inserts the word “Establishment” as the heading of the next section.

(Clause 4 negatived)

The Chair: Now we can move ahead to clause 5, for which there is a government amendment, amendment G-7.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I believe maybe there was a little bit of--

The Chair: There were two in favour of the clause; there were abstentions, and four opposed.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Can we redo that vote, Mr. Chairman, please? I think there was an awful lot of confusion here as to who voted what.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, if it's defeated, could we bring in, in some way, shape, or form the suggestion I had made regarding that it be put on the public record? There's an opportunity to do that immediately after.

The Chair: It's done. It's on the record.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Okay.

The Chair: I think at the end of the day here, we're not talking about changing anything. This is why this is such a trivial issue at one level. We're simply talking about the procedure by which the headings get into the bill. The same heading will go into the same bill, but it will be put in, as it is always put in, by the drafters, as opposed to by the House. The fear, though, is that if we embed it in the bill, it could not be subsequently changed by the drafters and would have to come back to the House to be changed.

That is, as I understand, the essence of the argument. The question is, the Department of Justice has a particular opinion, and the House has a different opinion. My recommendation is that we support the House.

So do you want me to recall the question? Shall clause 4 carry?

Mr. Szabo.

À (1010)

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the prudent approach is to resolve it by virtue of a decision made by those who have the expertise here. First of all, the committee should be advised if we are getting involved in creating a problem. I'd like to see that opinion from somebody who is responsible to provide the House with that opinion.

Regarding this idea that the courts use the sidebars and all this other stuff, obviously they use absolutely everything outside of the bill to help them in making their decisions: the intent, the debate underlying bills, and all this other stuff. This is a red herring, about side headings.

I don't know how we got into this problem, but I don't believe there is this big bogeyman about us wanting to make sure this act, which is going to be a rewrite of an existing act, wouldn't simply go forward. I would assume that if anybody ever wanted to amend this bill or this act at a future date, their changes to the appropriate clauses would probably also automatically trigger any appropriate changes to the sidebars. I don't believe you would be locked into sidebars, because we've already had the opinion that those are simply there at the discretion of the drafters to provide a little bit of information.

We've gone far too far on sidebar headings, and whatever. The elements are the bill itself.

We either get an opinion on this thing, or the decision must be that we--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Szabo, we have an opinion on this thing. That's the point.

Mr. Paul Szabo: There's a disagreement.

The Chair: No. There's no disagreement on the part of the table and the House of Commons. There is no disagreement.

These clauses are not in order--that's the ruling. The clauses cannot be ruled out of order in the way an amendment can be, I am told, because they are part of the body of the bill. Therefore, they must be defeated.

I am told also that Mr. Tirabassi's point is exactly right. The fact that the drafters of the bill would like to have this heading in that place, and have it reconciled with the marginal note, is exactly what the editors of the bill will do.

Let me raise one other point. Earlier on in the bill, we had a disagreement. I don't know, Mr. Lanctôt, whether it was you or your colleague who noted a difference in the French and English text. We said let's agree that they'll reconcile and let the editors do it. The table came back to us and said they can't do that. Because it's in the body of a clause, it has to be agreed to and passed by the House. We had to go back and re-pass that particular amendment. It was a trivial difference in the wording.

They argue that the headings and marginal notes are done by the editors simply to show the way through the bill. That practice is very clear in Marleau and Monpetit. This is not a big contentious issue, but because it's here in the bill, we have to do it. Clause 4 has to be dealt with.

The table informs me that if we defeat clause 4, Mr. Tirabassi will get exactly what he wants. This is not the clause 2 issue. That's the point.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I like your explanation, except for the fact that it won't matter to the courts. They could care less about Marleau and Montpetit. The title will be very important to the courts. It's not something of marginal importance. We're asking for a legal opinion and this is part of the overall discussion. Researchers have said that the title is not important. We're rejecting the title today but yet, officials at the Justice Department are telling us that we can use it and that it's not a marginal note. Now, this is being rejected. We're treading on dangerous ground.

Move your motion, Mr. Szabo. I want to hear from the experts on these two points. I want someone to explain what would happen if there was no amendment. I believe we're dealing with two different, albeit related, things. We need an expert legal opinion.

You say that you're going ahead without these opinions, but remember that you're going to set a precedent. When another bill comes to committee for clause-by-clause study, someone will invoke this precedent to amend the proposed legislation without any discussion. This bill contains 10,000 changes, but our focus is solely on the amendments. You're setting a precedent. If this has already happened, the experts will let us know when and what happened exactly.

À (1015)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I have two points, Mr. Chairman.

Number one, Marleau and Monpetit did not comment on this matter with regard to a bill in this form. I want to be very sure that whoever is giving the opinion is well aware of what is in front of us. That has not been established. Absolutely, Marleau and Monpetit never addressed a bill in this form.

Number two, in the way this bill is structured, it basically says that the following is an act that is going to replace an existing act. It has sidebars on it. I'm not sure what the sidebars on this relate to. Do they relate to Bill C-25, or are they the sidebars of the new act?

If they are the sidebars of the new act, they shouldn't be in the margin; they should be indented. The entire rewrite should in fact be within the clause because it is part of the bill. Now I'm not even sure to which bill or act the sidebars relate.

This is part of the problem with breaking new ground with a new form of bill. I am absolutely sincerely concerned that we are breaking some new ground here and should take the time to go through it. I would move on with whatever clauses don't relate to the question before us, but get the appropriate opinions based on full knowledge of the predicament we are facing right now.

We have to do this right and we have to make the interpretation. If there's a disagreement in opinion somewhere, then we should try to resolve it, make a decision to accept the particular opinion, and the committee ought to adopt the opinion as its guide for its work.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, the week before the break, there was a vote on bills C-10A and C-10B. The original bill was split in two by the House on orders of the Senate. You voted in favour of this move. I see this as an encroachment on our privileges as Members of Parliament. I'm amazed you went along with this.

Will the Senate again question the nature of this bill? Is it going to find that this way of doing things is unusual and contrary to the rules of both Houses of Parliament? Mention will be made of possible interpretation problems and you'll be told once again that you haven't done your job.

We have to do our job. Here in committee, we have the choice of splitting a bill. We did that in the case of bills C-15A and C-15B. In fact, we should have had C-15A, C-15B and C-15C, because the Senate stepped in and told us what to do. That could still happen. That's what you, Mr. Szabo and I are discussing. Why not be certain that everything is in order? Why is it so urgent that we adopt this omnibus legislation when it might well be preferable to split the bill and do an actually clause-by-clause study? That's all. Then we'd really be doing our job as a committee.

This is what we do. We raise issues and debate them. Mr. Chairman, you say that we'll look into it, but we're forging ahead. If I were Chair, I'm not sure that I would do the same thing. We're asking for information and for legal opinions. Instead of making a move and running the risk of having the Senate overturn our actions, let's do the job we are supposed to do.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear some comments from the people at the end of the table on the implications, if any, if we vote down clause 4.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Again, you've heard there's a difference of opinion between the House--the clerks--and the Department of Justice. But the view of the Department of Justice is that the clause needs to be passed by the committee for the change to be effective, for the heading to be replaced by the heading suggested in the bill. That is not the view of the clerk, and it's not been heeded by the committee. But we understand, through cooperation of the clerk's office in the drafting of a new bill, or I should say a reprinting of a new bill at report stage, that the comments of the task force as to what this heading should be replaced with will be taken into account.

And on that score, Madam Sgro, we're perfectly comfortable with that. We've made our position known on the record. We accept the recommendation of the clerk. We accept the decision of this committee and we're quite prepared to move on with this.

In fact, I perhaps should have not brought this matter to the floor this morning. I did not think it would have this kind of impact. I thought it was a very minor manner.

À (1020)

The Chair: Moi aussi.

Okay, Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: It's my understanding that there continues to be some concern, and more information of a legal nature should be brought forward. I would propose that we stand this particular clause. It's my understanding from the officials that we can carry on with the other amendments here, and it would not impact on that.

So we offer another option here.

The Chair: Well, you said you would accept the change or stand the clause.

What is the will of the committee?

Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): I think what Mr. Tirabassi is saying is that given that there is a point of discussion that Mr. Lanctôt and Mr. Szabo have made in terms of the difference in opinion between the table and the justice department, and wanting clarification of that--and I do respect the fact that we do have opinions, as the chair has indicated--I think what Mr. Tirabassi is suggesting is that we stay those clauses that deal with the titles until we get those opinions coming back to the committee for the committee to review in more detail, but we can move on the other clauses with respect to areas in this bill.

That would be an option, I think, that satisfies Mr. Szabo and Mr. Lanctôt.

There's more information to come in from the justice department and the table, and that means the committee will not vote on these clauses today, but we can move on the other aspects of this bill.

The Chair: You've heard the proposal. Are people in favour of staying clause 4, and eventually... I'll just get the exact list of clauses that need to be stayed. That would apply to clauses 4, 33, 183, 212, and 214.

Is it clear, Mr. Valeri? What you are suggesting is that we stand those clauses pending further information.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: All we're doing is standing those five clauses.

I will ask the clerks to come forward with information on both comments on the structure of this particular bill and the issue of--and I agree completely with Mr. LeFrançois--the minor matter of headings.

(On clause 5)

The Chair: On clause 5, Mr. Tirabassi, on government amendment G-7.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm moving that Bill C-25, in clause 5, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 33 on page 103 with the following: “any of the powers or functions it is authorized to exercise”. This motion proposes to amend the English version of proposed subsection 6(4) of the Financial Administration Act, the FAA, in order to better reflect the French drafting of these provisions, clarifying that the Treasury Board may delegate the powers it is authorized to exercise.

À (1025)

The Chair: Is there any comment?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: This is to conform the languages, is that what you're saying?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: There are no amendments for clause 6. Shall clause 6 carry?

We have a tie. The chair must break the tie. The chair votes yes.

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8)

The Chair: On clause 8, we have Canadian Alliance amendment CA-2.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

I move to amend clause 8, replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 107 with the following:

respect of those grievances;

(h) establish policies or issue directives respecting the disclosure by persons employed in the public service of information concerning wrongdoing in the public service and the protection from reprisal of persons who disclose such information in accordance with those policies or directives;

(i) establish policies or issue directives respecting the prevention of harassment in the workplace and the resolution of disputes relating to such harassment; and

(j) provide for any other matters, including

You'll recall the issue of whistleblowing--as it's commonly known--when the bill was first tabled was talked about in the press. I did talk about it in the House. It was a concern with a number of individuals. The answer from the government was that they do have an existing internal policy. My answer back was that it's fine to have an internal policy, but it should be at least recognized in legislation that there shall be a policy.

Then, as a result of the back and forth of that, the government drafters helped me with my point. This is what has been agreed on to put forward. It recognizes in the bill that the government shall have a policy relating to disclosure. It doesn't try to put all the fine details in the bill, but it says there shall be one and it gives some basis in law so it can't be just an internal memo that's wiped away in another administration.

That's the basis of it, and I think there should be a lot of support for this.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Tirabassi, do you wish to comment?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, for reasons expressed by Mr. Forseth, the government will be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there any further comment?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: In view of the discussion we had earlier about conforming, I wonder if the officials could advise us whether anything we have decided with regard to clause 2 as amended has a parallel in the Financial Administration Act amendments being proposed. Are they in conformity if we pass them as they are here?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: On that note, the first example I would suggest, Mr. Szabo, is the amendment the committee has just accepted. Proposed section 8 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act—in clause 2 of the bill—is the consultation clause. You may recall, Mr. Szabo, some weeks ago now Mr. Forseth introduced an amendment to add the same two issues as subjects of consultation—that is, harassment and whistle-blowing--in consultation committees.

With regard to the other provisions of the Financial Administration Act that the committee has just dealt with, there is no significant impact, because those provisions deal with the internal delegation mechanisms from Treasury Board to the Secretary of Treasury Board and from Treasury Board to the President of Treasury Board. But to complete the answer, Mr. Szabo, clause 8 does deal with some of these matters, because what is added in there is direct authority of deputy heads to deal with matters, whereas today those authorities are delegated from Treasury Board.

À (1030)

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, this raises the question of whether or not changes that were made in clause 2 apply automatically as consequential amendments to other parts of Bill C-25. I raised it because I know Mr. Forseth has already raised this matter before. I wonder whether this should have been subject to a vote but rather conformed as a consequence of what we did in the prior clause. I don't know what the answer is. We've asked the question, but--

The Chair: I'm not certain, Mr. Szabo. When one amends a clause or a section of the bill, it's not uncommon to have a series of consequential amendments--

Mr. Paul Szabo: Understood, and is this--

The Chair: --that would be passed sometimes en bloc or sometimes separately. Mr. Forseth made an amendment earlier on in the bill, if I understand Mr. LeFrançois' sequence right. And it's true, he made that amendment, and now to have it conform you make an amendment in another section of the bill.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'd like to ask the clerk if that's the case, because it would appear that it leaves you open to having a contradiction within a bill itself, and I don't believe that's--

Mr. Paul Forseth: That happens all the time.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But to have a second vote on the same item... If it is a consequential amendment, there is no vote required. Is that the case?

The Chair: I have a couple of hands. Let me hear from the officials and then I'll come back with the clerk's ruling.

Mr. Mooney.

M. John Mooney (Legal Counsel, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service): What we usually talk about on consequential amendments is something so interlinked that one cannot survive without the other and one affects the other. The structure of this bill is there are four major acts, and they don't have that relationship. In the Public Service Labour Relations Act they're independent. They have to be treated together to see the picture before us, but they are independent. You can vote on one side on the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and when we come to the Public Service Employment Act, they are independent. They don't depend on what you did on the Public Service Labour Relations Act. There is not that dependency relationship.

There is that dependency relationship in all the consequential amendments that you find in the bill, of which there are several. But between the Public Service Employment Act, Public Service Labour Relations Act, and Financial Administration Act there is not that dependency relationship. The committee can vote. It is entirely free to vote as it wishes on the Public Service Employment Act. Its hands are not tied, as in a consequential where that happens.

The Chair: Did you want to add to that? That's fine.

Mr. Szabo, does that...

Mr. Paul Szabo: That is the question that was raised earlier because of the form of this bill, where you have embedded bills. The normal practice with regard to a bill before the House or a committee is that it is treated as a homogeneous matter. That's the dilemma on which we've asked for the opinion. Notwithstanding that the opportunity to split this bill into different bills would have in fact sustained what Mr. Mooney says, the issue is that we have a bill that has more than one act in it. If you were to apply the normal rules, any change made to a particular clause that had a parallel elsewhere in the bill would be a consequential amendment.

Mr. Mooney has given us his opinion—thank you very much—and we've asked for an opinion from anybody else who has some expertise in this matter. I'm still a little bit cautious about summarily moving forward on matters where there are parallels between bills, or the fact that within the same act we could sustain something.

For instance, let's take something simple, like the change of the oath for public servants to eliminate reference to the Queen, which we did in article 2, but then go to article 12 and do the reverse. This would be problematic. This would be very problematic to this whole process simply because one part of the public service would be subject to one oath and the other part of the public service would be subject to another.

À (1035)

The Chair: Let me come back on that. If I understood Mr. Mooney correctly, which is the way I also understand it here, the amendment that was moved earlier by Mr. Forseth could stand on its own. The reason they needed us to pass a second amendment here is the desire to make the two conform. But they could live in isolation, because they are two separate pieces of legislation.

There is the case where, given a lengthy process in committee, there may be anomalies between two pieces of an act within a normally constructed act, as well as in this. As the clerk points out to me, that was the original intention at report stage amendments: it was to catch up and clean up little anomalies like that after the passage of the bill through committee.

I understand, Mr. Szabo, that you have a concern about the broader question of the structure of this bill and the relationship between clause 2 and the rest of the bill. You asked that question. I think the officials have responded that on this particular amendment there is no such conflict, or they're satisfied there isn't such a conflict. I believe that is the opinion at this end of the table too.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I ask, Mr. Chair, that when this matter should arise in any future clauses, what the committee decided previously would be brought forward to remind the committee that there was this debate and a decision taken earlier on another part of this act.

The Chair: As much as it is possible to do that, we shall do that.

Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Chair, I'm just questioning why the clerk isn't telling us on the same issue when we go to vote on something that we have previously done this and what the implications are.

The Chair: The assumption is that you were here and were part of that action, I guess.

Ms. Judy Sgro: When we've done legislation before on committees, when we voted on one, very often that has made three or four other pieces or clauses redundant because we took a particular position on clause 2.

The Chair: That's not the case here.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I realize that, but it would be helpful, given Mr. Szabo's comments, as we go through this, that if there are those kinds of conflicts, or not necessarily conflicts, but issues, that they be pointed out as we go to vote on it.

The Chair: We would not have realized this was an issue because there's not the conflict.The problem is I'm not sure how to respond on each clause in that case, because...

Ms. Judy Sgro: But if we go to vote on clause 56 and it has implications that we've already taken a position in clause 2, we should know that.

The Chair: We can try to do it. It's harder to do it, but we'll try, to the extent to which we can see it.

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 12—Preamble)

À (1040)

The Chair: This brings us to clause 12. Clause 12 is the second major clause. On clause 12, we have a number of government, Bloc, NDP, and Alliance amendments. This is comparable to what we did with clause 2.

Let us begin. I'm going to call amendment BQ-72.

I should make one comment right at the start, because it comes up subsequent to amendment BQ-72. So everyone is clear on the process here, for amendments that are exactly the same in form, the one that we receive second will be ruled out of order. For amendments that are on the same subject but different in form, it's our practice to let the committee deal with them. For example, the wording may be reversed or whatever. We had a couple of cases of those in the earlier package of amendments.

In this particular case, we have a relationship between amendment BQ-72 and amendment G-8, in that they both refer to the notion of linguistic duality. I only bring that to your attention following Madam Sgro's request.

Let's proceed with amendment BQ-72. For the benefit of those who haven't been in committee before, I'll call on the mover of the amendment to move the amendment, Monsieur Tirabassi to respond, and we'll get going.

Monsieur Lanctôt, amendment BQ-72.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I have two things I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman. I just remember because someone mentioned it. When I vote against a motion, I want you to state for the record “on division”. I've been told that you don't say these words. We had agreed that each time I voted against a motion, the record would indicate “on division”. Even though we had agreed to this, I was told earlier that you do not speak these words. I just wanted to be certain that the record shows the motion was agreed to on division.

[English]

The Chair: Carried on division, yes. I recall your comment on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by replacing line 20 on page 112 with the following:

incorporate the notion of linguistic duality while being representative of Canada's diversity and

We're proposing to include a reference to linguistic duality. We're pleased to note that in the third paragraph of the preamble, we find a reference to a public service that is “able to serve the public [...] in their official language of choice”, a reflection of the importance assigned by the government to official languages. However, the Official Languages Act aims to do more than just this. It's also aims to make the public service a work environment in which employees belonging to the two linguistic groups can use their language and at the same time enjoy equal access to employment opportunities.

The public service must also recognize and promote the use of English and French in Canadian society and promote the continued existence and expansion of official language communities. The notion of linguistic duality embraces all dimensions of the act. Therefore, I feel that a reference to linguistic duality should be added to the third paragraph of the preamble. This would complement the reference to Canada's diversity in this particular provision. Indeed, linguistic duality paves the way for acceptance of diversity and complements Canada's reality. Since duality and diversity are two concepts that should be mentioned in the preamble, I move that the third paragraph be amended accordingly.

À (1045)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government will not be supporting this particular Bloc amendment simply because it puts linguistic duality ahead of representativeness of Canada's diversity. However, we do have an amendment G-8, coming up shortly. It highlights the importance Parliament places on linguistic duality without creating the impression of a superiority. I must say the amendment G-8 is more in line with some of the witnesses--for instance, the Commissioner of Official Languages and her particular position. Those would be my arguments for opposing this one and supporting amendment G-8 when we come to it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Folco, I believe you wished to make a comment.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a Quebecker, I do not consider the notion of diversity in Canada's society quite the same way as I view the notion of linguistic duality. I may be wrong, but my sense is that diversity to English Canadians means the linguistic diversity of the country's two founding peoples.

In Quebec, however, the interpretation is different. Diversity in Quebec is interpreted as “ethnic” diversity, whereas linguistic duality refers to the country's two founding peoples. Although I'm not opposed to the wording of the bill as such, I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague that the notion of linguistic duality should be included in this clause. I feel it's important.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, with respect to language issues and the legislation's approach to official languages, federal government institutions are required to provide service to Canadians in their official language of choice, be that French or English. However, it's important that public servants be able to express themselves in their own language, in their respective regions and provinces, all the while bearing in mind that serving the public is their priority consideration.

I don't think this goes against our stated objective. I fail to see why the government would have a problem with this. It's a question of dotting the i's and crossing the t's once and for all, and of acknowledging that if the government is to provide service in both languages, it's important to acknowledge the country's two founding peoples -- in fact, there are three founding peoples, but when it comes to official languages, two are recognized, namely English and French -- and of giving people a choice to work in their own language, regardless of whether they live in Quebec, New Brunswick or elsewhere. In my view, this provision would truly protect people.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

I think the member has just argued in favour of the government measure coming up shortly. Just the way amendment G-8 is structured, it also includes the word “transparent”, and there's agreement on the issue of linguistic duality. But the government motion says “a public service that embodies linguistic duality”, and the BQ motion talks about “incorporates the notion of linguistic duality”.

I think we should defeat this one. The essence of arguments behind the BQ motion are better adapted in the subsequent one coming up in amendment G-8.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: That brings us to BQ-73.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

À (1050)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by replacing line 35 on page 112 with the following:

is accountable to Parliament, with the objective of actively promoting participation and diversity in the workplace in a spirit of openness;

As drafted, the bill does not address the question of transforming the culture of the public service with a view to strengthening its ability to strive for excellence. For example, the President of the Treasury Board has stated that the culture of the federal public service should value learning, innovation, participation and diversity, while giving public servants an opportunity to contribute to the welfare of Canada.

The President of the Treasury Board also spoke of the importance of public servants looking to values for guidance and of bearing in mind ties with their leaders and directors and the needs of managers with a view, among other things, to actively promoting participation in diversity in the workplace.

Since the proposed legislation aims to give managers a greater role in the hiring of employees, we believe managers, and indeed all public servants, should have a responsibility to create a welcoming environment respectful of workplace diversity.

In our opinion, a revised definition of the merit principle would be a more proactive way of making diversity a basic skill requirement, while eliminating systemic barriers to equitable staffing. Therefore, we recommend that the bill include a specific provision to the effect that recognizing the need for diversity in the public service is an essential requirement for any person authorized by deputy heads to make appointments.

Thus, we propose that the following be added to this clause: “with the objective of actively promoting participation and diversity in the workplace in a spirit of openness”.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, this motion or amendment would add a representativeness and openness to the preamble of the PSEA. I would just remind you that representativeness is referred to in line 20 of the preamble and in the context that signals its wider importance to every aspect covered by the PSEA.

This motion links it only to appointment authority. With regard to the transparency in amendment G-8, which has not yet been discussed, it will introduce the value of transparency in all employment practices. Again, this motion links it only to the appointment authority. Therefore, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Tirabassi, will this amendment be contrary to what is in line 20, or will it make it stronger? Does it defeat what is in the preamble?

Sometimes the more you repeat things, the better things get. Maybe people will adapt to it, finally, if they read it more. I think there's nothing wrong if we're not saying anything contrary, just repeating it.

Are you agreeing?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: No. The only argument I can make is I guess it's a difference of opinion. If you mention it once, it should be ample. If you mention it two or three times... We obviously differ on that point. We feel it's sufficiently covered.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We can never say enough about this. It's mentioned in the preamble to which I have just moved an amendment. Although it's noted in the preamble and reference is made to it elsewhere, we're talking about staffing here and tremendous powers are being given to directors. I don't see any harm in pointing out to the director, deputy head or manager who makes the appointments that this concept should be promoted. That's not asking too much. Better safe than sorry, as the saying goes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Speaking of that, I believe the perception is different depending on whether we're dealing with English or French case law. As I see it, when a principle is stated either at the beginning or early on in a bill, it influences the provisions that follow.

Particularly since I supported the previous amendment, I feel it's necessary to include something that it virtually taken for granted, given that the principle is stated earlier on in the text of the bill.

À (1055)

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'd like to respond to that comment. We're looking at the preamble. At which point earlier on could we have amended the text? We're on clause 12 of the bill, the proposed preamble to, and hence the very beginning of, the Public Service Employment Act. We're only just starting to consider the draft legislation. Don't forget that this is an omnibus bill and that we're still dealing with the same problem. These are two different things. We haven't touched on this notion, Ms. Folco, because we're only at the preamble. We're just starting.

You're saying that this would add further weight to the provision. We're dealing with staffing. You know what staffing is: it means giving jobs to people and promotions to public servants. Therefore, it's important to emphasize that diversity must be promoted as part of the staffing process. We're looking at the preamble, and no mention has yet been made of this. I hope that you will vote in favour of this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, should I call the question?

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: May I respond briefly to that, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Well, at the risk of having a debate break out, sure, go ahead.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, this is going to be very short.

[Translation]

I just want to say that in my opinion, this notion is included. Linguistic diversity, a concept of utmost importance and significance to all Canadians, is addressed earlier in this same preamble. I stand firm on my position.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that I totally disagree with that. Therefore, I will be requesting a recorded division on the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, you've succeeded in convincing a very powerful parliamentary secretary to your point of view, so your arguments had some force.

We shall move to Bloc amendment 73.1.

À (1058)

Á (1105)

The Chair: Let's proceed.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Are we going to wait until we have a quorum, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Does the perimeter of the committee room extend to the washroom?

Mr. Yvon Godin: How many do we have in the washroom?

The Chair: I'm sure we have a few.

We will suspend until there's a quorum in the room.

Á (1106)

Á (1108)

The Chair: Okay. We're back in session. I have a quorum.

I will call upon Monsieur Lanctôt to move amendment BQ-73.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move amendment BQ-73.1: That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 112 the following:

the principles set out in the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act must be taken into account when hiring employees;

We're mainly concerned that issues of diversity and representation in the public service are not a more fundamental component of the bill. Specifically, we've observed that these principles are addressed primarily in the proposed preamble to the revised Public Service Employment Act, Part 3, Division 1 “Enactment of Act”, clause 12.

Furthermore, there is no mandatory reference to the Employment Equity Act in the new bill. While application of the legislation's provisions is mandatory in the public service, Treasury Board may choose to adopt measures in this regard. In other words, there is no clear acknowledgement of the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Employment Equity Act.

Given this fact, one could come to the conclusion that a diverse and representative public service is not one of the bill's stated objectives. We're recommending changes that would result in direct references to a diverse and representative public service.

We're recommending that the bill specifically say that the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act must be taken into account when hiring employees.

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The difficulty we have with this is that the effect of adding this language would be that for every individual staffing action there would be a requirement to explain how all the principles of the two acts were taken into account, whether or not the principles were related to staffing.

For example, while the CHRA does not refer to principles as such, one of the matters dealt with in the act is the denial of commercial premises or residential accommodation, which has nothing to do with staffing. If the courts were to interpret only principles related to staffing, it would be redundant.

The requirement to act in accordance with the relevant provisions of the EE Act and the CHRA flows from those acts. Therefore, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Is there any further comment?

Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, the act should ensure employment equity, but in practice, that's not the case. We have the impression that the government is open to the idea and is making all kinds of promises, but there is nothing concrete in the legislation to ensure that the principle is applied. The wording is vague and open to interpretation, and could potentially result in some in-fighting. In my view, an amendment like this would clarify the act once and for all.

This bill should lend added weight to the existing act and further promote the cause of employment equity. Judging from what you've just said, Mr. Tirabassi, the government is not prepared to go along and say in which direction this country should be heading, particularly as far as the public service is concerned.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, if I may, I would refer to Mr. Mooney in response to that.

Mr. Mooney.

Mr. John Mooney: As Mr. Tirabassi said, the main problem with the government with this motion is the confusion. To what does it refer, to what principles in the act? Are some relevant and some irrelevant?

The other thing is that it's not usual to say that another act applies. If it does apply, it goes without saying that what is relevant in the Human Rights Act applies to staffing. You don't have to repeat it.

If in the act you repeat that the other act applies as other acts apply to the Criminal Code, and there are several other acts that apply to staffing, the courts will ask why he is saying that this act applies. They know this act applies. What does this add to it?

It's not the usual manner of drafting. It inserts confusion into the rule.

The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Getting back to what Mr. Mooney said, it may not be commonplace, but it does happen. My colleague Ms. Scherrer and I are pleased that a reference to respect for the Official Languages Act was included in a preamble such as this one. There are many references to other laws the purpose of which is to highlight a major problem that needs to be resolved.

In this case, the important issue is ensuring diversity in the public service and my amendment would promote respect for diversity. We've seen this in other acts. It's not the first time.

[English]

Ms. Judy Sgro: On this particular issue, we should not have to repeat it constantly. The Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act are clearly legislation that we, as Canadians, believe in, and it is overarching everything we do when it comes to employment. If we have to start repeating these kinds of things throughout, I think we would have to constantly do it. It think it's quite satisfactory the way it is now; otherwise, we're going to start becoming very repetitious, trying to remind us of what is supposed to be a natural part of the public service, which is to ensure that the Employment Equity Act and the Human Rights Code is naturally passed. I don't see any reason why we would have to repeat it again and again.

Á (1115)

Mr. Paul Forseth: I really think that this particular amendment is not correct. In my view, it inappropriately tries to add an actual operative clause in a preamble that is merely recognizing general themes for clarity. If the goal was to accomplish the direct reference, it should be somewhere else in the bill, not an operative one sticking it in the preamble. So I think it's the wrong place and the wrong time; it's not supportable.

The Chair: Are there any further comments to do with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't know if it's appropriate for me to comment about this, but I have a vested interest in employment equity. Let me give you an example of a situation that recently arose in our region. For the past six years, boats in my region have headed out to sea to do studies on the fishery and on catch levels. To my knowledge, fish do not speak English, French, Italian, Chinese or any other language, for that matter. Fishers fish with a view to doing some studies.

In the Halifax and Yarmouth regions, the government never demanded that the fishers on these particular boats be bilingual. However, in Shippegan, the government insisted that the fisher who had worked on contract for the past six years on the Opilio be bilingual. How's that for employment equity? The department even argued that postings should be bilingual, in accordance with the requirements of the new legislation. In the meantime, though, persons hired in Halifax and Yarmouth did not need to know any French at all. They were only required to speak English.

I went to see the minister and urged him to consider the principle of employment equity. The minister noted that if a Halifax anglophone could work on fishing boats, then so too could a francophone in Shippegan. In my view, this not only strengthens the notion of bilingualism, but the notion of equity as well. In some places, bilingualism is unnecessary.

For example, with today's technology, anglophones can work out of call centres. By pressing 1, a caller can speak to an anglophone. If the caller presses 2, the call will be answered by a francophone. With today's reliable systems, calls can be transferred and anglophones and francophones alike can obtain employment and serve the public. However, equity remains an important consideration and this amendment would reflect that fact.

Let me reiterate the importance of repetition. How many times should a bill contain a reference to a particular provision? When it's critical to convey a message, repetition is important. Here, we're trying to get a message across. If this notion is re-stated throughout the bill, people will know that the government is serious. People will know that they are protected, without having to search through the bill for a single reference. This message will also come through clearly to those called upon to interpret the legislation. To my mind, it's important to demonstrate to these individuals that the act is coherent and that the government wants its legislation to be applied.

Are we ashamed to refer to this notion, and to refer to it often? If so, then perhaps all of Canada's laws should be reviewed and all repetitions deleted. We'd then have to scrutinize provisions closely to understand how the law applies. I think you're afraid to include in an act a reference to existing legislation and to convey the government's desire to have this legislation respected.

I don't know if you're planning to reject all of the proposed amendments, but that seems to be the direction in which you're heading. I think you need to ease up a bit. It's not the end of the world. We're asking that certain notions be promoted and that this be stated in the act. I've often had occasion to consult laws. When I worked at the union, I examined labour laws which always referred us to particular provisions. Repetition enhances people's understanding.

I have nothing more to say on the subject. You're afraid to repeat this because you don't want people to see it. I suggest you have a change of heart. That's what a bill is all about.

Á (1120)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

I will now call the question on BQ-73.1.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Mr. Godin, hope springs eternal. I suspect on the very next clause you're going to see the committee accepting an amendment.

Mr. Yvon Godin: From whom?

The Chair: A member of the committee. We don't discriminate on this committee.

Now we are going to move to amendment G-8, which is in the original packages. And just for the notice of members, I'll confirm that you have amendment G-8.1, which is the very next amendment and which was not in the original big package. I believe it's been circulated to you, but we will move strangely enough from amendment G-8 to amendment G-8.1.

So let's go with amendment G-8, Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: It was mentioned previously, Mr. Chair, but I'll formally highlight it.

I move that Bill C-25 in clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 113 with the following: “a public service that embodies linguistic duality and that is characterized by fair, transparent employment practices, respect for employees,”.

As mentioned previously, this motions adds a value of transparency and a reference to linguistic duality to the preamble in order to indicate the importance attributed by Parliament to transparent employment practices and linguistic duality in the public service. This was a point raised by witnesses, including Mrs. Hynna of the Office of Commissioner of Official Languages. So I would move this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there any comment?

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: As far as the expression “embodies duality” is concerned, it's as if this notion was already prevalent in the public service. However, with BQ-72, we were endeavouring to promote this diversity or duality. Therein lies the problem. I'm having trouble understanding the process here. The witnesses who testified before our committee told us that to say the public service embodies linguistic duality is an untruth. In fact, the level of linguistic duality is so low within the public service that this institution is by no means the embodiment of diversity. The witnesses tell us this, and we do not listen to them.

Obviously, I can't oppose this amendment, because it's a small step forward to say that the public service embodies linguistic duality. However, we're burying our heads in the sand, because this is not at all true. We need something stronger, that is we need to say that we need to promote linguistic duality. Let's stop kidding ourselves. The committee heard from expert witnesses. You heard what they had to say as well, but you convinced yourself that this was the right thing to do and that people would be satisfied. However, that's not the case, as you heard from the witnesses. What's needed is something similar to BQ-72. I want to thank Ms. Sgro for supporting this amendment. There's a difference between saying that it embodies duality and saying that duality must be promoted.

Unfortunately, that difference is very slight, but nevertheless, I will support the amendment. However, it's quite ludicrous. The witnesses wanted you to promote this duality, not to acknowledge that it exists.

I'd also like to mention that the English text refers to “is committed to a public”. That's not the same as souscrit au principe”. The English carries a little more weight. We agreed earlier that there should be consistency between the two versions.

I believe Ms. Scherrer is an excellent translator. I'm not, but I do see a difference. I do not feel that the French and English versions correspond.

I say this with all due reserve, as my English is not very good.

Á (1125)

[English]

The Chair: I will note, Monsieur Lanctôt, that you managed to spell “linguistic” correctly, which was more than the government was able to do. However, Mr. Tirabassi, when he moved it, didn't use the word “linguistic”, so that it will be corrected in the text.

Madam Scherrer, did you have a comment on the lack of correspondence between French and English?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): First off, I believe Mr. Lanctôt is correct in saying that “the government of Canada is committed to” certainly carries more weight than “souscrit au principe de”.

Secondly, “embodies” and “incarne” do not have quite the same meaning, in my estimation. The French and English mean slightly different things; “embodies” means embracing a principle, whereas “incarne” means something broader, or the promotion of an existing principle. In my opinion, the term “embodies“” refers to integrating and committing to a principle, whereas the word “incarne”, as I understand it -- perhaps those well versed in French literature will correct me -- implies that a principle already exists and is being promoted. By using the term “embodies”, the public service is required to integrate the principle.

[English]

The Chair: Let me raise a question here, procedurally. If I understand the argument, there seems to be some substance to the difference.

Mr. Tirabassi, do you want to respond to that?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I am not fluent in French, and sometimes even trip over the English, so I will refer to Mr. Mooney for an explanation on that.

The Chair: Mr. Mooney.

Mr. John Mooney: Yes, we discussed this with the drafters. The drafters feel that this is the closest you'll get to an equivalent. “Embodies linguistic duality” means you're committed to a public service that will have this. And incarne also means you have that. So you souscrit, there's a commitment to something that incarne, that has that.

After many discussions with the drafters, this is the closest they could get to an equivalent between the two languages. As you know, it's not always easy to get that perfect equivalence, but the drafters couldn't get closer than that.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Quickly, in ten seconds, I can tell you that in my opinion, even though I haven't examined the question, “demande l'intégrité de la dualité linguistique” would already be much closer to “committed to”. I just wanted to prove that in 10 seconds, I was able to suggest something. Therefore, I think we could come up with something better.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: There's concern on both sides of the table. I suggest that we stand this, have it go back, and have another attempt at bringing them closer in line.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth, you wish to comment.

Mr. Paul Forseth: When the drafters and the linguists have a look at it, it would be my encouragement that the French would be brought into line with the English “embodies”, rather than looking at the French and trying to change the English. Because of course there is such an English word as “incarnate”, which comes out of the Bible, but there is a great difference in English between what embodies and what is incarnate. I think you're going to have to decide which way to go.

My preference is embodies; it means it's kind of there, and it's included. “Incarnate” means that it's of the genetic origin, from creation. So there is a difference, and I'm not sure if incarnation in the French means the same as the English, but my suggestion from my perspective is take “embodies” and then try to get the French to line up with that rather than the other way around.

The Chair: So what an Alliance critic calls the “devil incarnate”, this would not be...

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Monsieur Godin.

Á (1130)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'd like to say something, Mr. Chairman. I don't think this committee should be examining bills that have only approximate translations. I find it unacceptable when translations are more or less similar. All of the terms used in a bill should have the same meaning and scope. It's not enough to say that their meaning is more or less the same.

[English]

The Chair: We decided to stand this one and let the drafters have a look at the language and they'll come back to us with that.

G-8.1--am I correct in assuming that this is not consequential or tied to G-8? Is that right? Clause 12, line 39 on page 114, yes. So can we proceed to G-8.1? The reference is a different line.

Mr. Tirabassi, will you speak to G-8.1?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: We move that Bill C-25 in clause 12 be amended by replacing line 39 on page 114 with the following:

ries Actand any minister of State referred to in the Ministries and Ministries of State Act.

What that simply does is it gives a better definition of ministry.

The Chair: It broadens it beyond minister to include ministers of state.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: So moved. It's a technical amendment.

The Chair: Is there any comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Is this redundent? I don't believe so, because certain elements are being clarified. It's all the same thing.

[English]

The Chair: You've had too much sleep.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chair: We will now move to a Canadian Alliance motion, and that one is stood.

Canadian Alliance 3, and I will call upon Mr. Forseth to....

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: If I may say before you go there, we're now, if I'm not mistaken, going—

The Chair: To page 115 of the bill?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, he's going until line 31.

We are leaving the definition section of this act included in clause 12. And in the black binder with regard to the definitions, there is, as you know, the current and the proposed wording. At the end of it, the explanation indicates that there were four items added to the definitions that weren't there previously, but it didn't mention which ones were taken out. I note that one of them that has been taken out was common-law partner. I wonder, since it's a pretty significant area of law, whether the officials could explain why it was okay to take out a definition in that regard, and how is it properly disposed of in the proposed legislation.

Mr. John Mooney: The definition was taken out because the only place where that definition, common-law partner, is used is in the schedule that talks about preferences to veterans. That schedule has its own set of definitions. So it was taken from here and put with the other definitions in the schedule relating to the definition of veterans. So it's a displacing of it.

The Chair: Let's discuss the question on the structure, though. Was Mr. Szabo correct, in that in the book that was prepared for members, where you have discussed changed clauses, you have omitted to discuss clauses that were taken out? That reference does not appear in the book that was prepared for members?

Á (1135)

Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister, Privy Council Office; Head, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service): The current wording... You can look at it, Mr. Chairman, by looking at the way the book was structured, which says what's now and what's being proposed. That's the way we did it, and then we spoke to what it is that we're doing in this piece of legislation.

The Chair: I know that on a clause-by-clause basis where a clause is being altered, the existing clause is there and the altered clause is there. Mr. Szabo's making the observation that in the definition section you referenced definitions that had been amended or changed or added to, but you did not mention definitions that had been eliminated. Is that correct?

Mr. John Mooney: Yes. Even though probably 50% of the provisions of the old act are carried on in this act, it is a new act, so that clause-by-clause treats it as a new act and explains the provisions of the new act. It doesn't explain what's not there because it's treated as a new act.

The Chair: So in essence it reinforces Mr. Szabo's earlier concerns?

Mr. John Mooney: It doesn't talk of what's not there because it's a new act. It's not an amendment. When you amend an act--

The Chair: What's not there is significant, though.

Mr. John Mooney: When you amend an act, you have to explain how you amend, how you delete. But since we're not amending an act, we're creating a totally new act, that's why.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'll ask one other question.

Out of curiosity, in the new act, the terminology “public service” is being lower-cased compared to the existing act, which is an upper-case reference to public service. I'm wondering what the thinking was behind there to make a change to the proper reference to the collective public service.

The Chair: Mr. LeFrançois.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In reference to Mr. Szabo's question, the difficulty in the present legislation is that “public service” appears both in lower case and upper case, and they mean something different. That's what was being corrected.

In the present legislation, as odd as it may seem, public service, lower case, was a different concept from Public Service upper case. That same problem didn't exist in the French version. Different terminology was used. So that's why, sir, it was changed--to correct this discrepancy.

But this bill does not change the structure of the public service in any way. Everything that was or was not in the public service remains in or out. There's no change. It's simply a change in nomenclature because of the confusion this caused, the high case versus low case.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I noted through the bill the words “public service” that appear in lower case in various clauses because they're referring to a non-specific. But I'm asking about the definition. This is the definition of “public service”. It is the only place it occurs in the definitions. In the current wording of this act, “public service” is defined as having the same meaning as the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which we are going to repeal.

In the proposed wording, public service--i.e., lower case--means the several positions or under the various schedules. Quite frankly, I would have thought that if the public service as an institution, collectively, could not be accorded the proper name of the Public Service of Canada, then who else would deserve it? I mean, it really is sort of a.... I don't want to make difficulties, but I would certainly say the public service deserves capitalization.

The explanation, Mr. Chairman, is that it's used in different contexts, but I thought the purpose of the definition here was to embody or define the group of people who were included in the upper-cased Public Service.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Okay.

I should also point out something else to you, Mr. Szabo, in that the peculiar structure of this bill is such that the staff have organized the amendments as best they can, trying to follow the order of clauses in the bill within clause 12. But because we don't pass clause 12, it's possible to go back to any clause in the bill at any time for amendment. We don't have that process of sequentially moving through the clauses, in terms of how they get passed, which creates another dilemma.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Just for clarification, are you suggesting we deal first with those clauses for which members have amendments?

The Chair: In a normal bill, we would start at clause 1 and move through to the end, right? Then if an amendment came up on clause 37, we would dispose of it and move on. We could not go back, right?

But in this particular bill, because clause 12 is all of the clauses of the Public Service Employment Act, just as a guide to get through, what we've done is taken the amendments that amend certain clauses within clause 12. But we are not signing off on those clauses. So it's possible to go back and revisit any one of those subjects at any time, which is another operational program.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I ask the question again then, Mr. Chairman. Are you telling me we're going to deal with all the clauses for which committee members have amendments first, and then if anybody wants to talk about anything else, we could then raise them at that time?

I would suggest to you the reason bills are structured the way they are is that they build on the foundation that starts at the beginning. So to the extent we would pass a clause down the road and then come back to the definitions, we might be pre-empted, or in fact make a consequential amendment to something we have already passed.

So I believe the appropriate approach, subject to the question we asked earlier, is should we at least be discussing any questions members have as we move through the progression of the bill to ensure there are no concerns that may affect an amendment a member is going to propose down the road?

The Chair: Thank you.

For your information and the information of members, given the anomaly in the structure of the bill, we have assumed that there are interests in or concerns about those clauses where members have proposed amendments. For ease in following it, we've therefore organized the amendments in the order of the clauses of the bill. But no, there is no process or ability to move through this bill clause by clause, unless the committee were to instruct us differently—although even then I'd have to get some advice on that. We are not progressing through the clauses as we would normally do, because of the way the bill is structured.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I didn't pose a motion, but I asked—

The Chair: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So are you suggesting that no one should even ask questions about any part of the bill?

The Chair: Oh, no. That's why I—

Mr. Paul Szabo: So after we've disposed of all the amendments...

The Chair: I was raising that point for your information, because you seemed to be concerned that information may or may not be in your briefing book. I was simply saying that you are not constrained from going back and getting those answers later. That's all I was trying to say.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand.

The Chair: You don't need to worry about having to solve that immediately, at least in the context of this clause. We can come back to it, if you discover other concerns.

I'm going to call upon Mr. Forseth to move amendment CA-3.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

I move that clause 12 be amended by adding after line 31, on page 115, the following: “(4) For greater certainty, a reference in this Act to abuse of authority shall be construed as including bad faith and personal favouritism”.

The reason this motion proposes adding a new subclause is to clarify that so-called abuse of authority includes bad faith and personal favouritism. It speaks to the problem of possible bureaucratic patronage, which we heard about during testimony. It makes things much more explicit.

It is really in response to committee members' concerns that the grounds of a complaint in the proposed staffing regime are too narrow. I've had some assistance with the government drafters in this regard, and I think this amendment an improvement that allays some concerns.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will be supporting amendment CA-3.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, by “we”, do you mean yourself? Madam Sgro was somewhat independent-minded on these things.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Sure.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'd like something clarified, Mr. Chairman.

Let's compare the English and French versions on page 115 of the bill. In the English version, we find references to lines 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30, whereas in the French versions, we have lines 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40. Could someone explain this to me?

[English]

Mr. John Mooney: Each language has its own count. In English you count the lines, and in French you do a separate count.

[Translation]

On the French side, the line count is different. You start at the top and count line one, line two, line three and so forth. From time to time, there are parts that do not correspond, hence the line count is different.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, in the English text, one reads, and I quote:

[English]

“'Tribunal' means the Public Service Staffing Tribunal continued by subsection 88(1)”.

Mr. John Mooney: The explanation for this is that the definition is sometimes shorter in one language and longer in the other language.

The other explanation is that there are two more definitions in French than there are in English in the current act today.

[Translation]

In French, it says “nomination externe” and “nomination interne”.

[English]

They're defined here. As in the current act today, we didn't need a definition in English. In the English, we talk about appointments from within the public service or appointments to the public service. In French, it was necessary to use the expressions “nomination externe” and “nomination interne”. It was also necessary to define it.

So there are two more definitions in French than in English, but a lot of people feel intrigued by the blank space after the definition of the word “tribunal” in the English text of the bill.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The explanation is that the wording is: “external appointment process” and “internal appointment process”, which is already provided for. It is not because there is no definition; there is one. It is probably because you need fewer letters to reach the same result.

I note in passing that it was predictable that it would be accepted by Mr. Tirabassi; he submitted the motion. We can see how things have been arranged. We guessed that you were going to accept it, since you had introduced it. It says that the Canadian Alliance will be introducing the motion. You are quite an alliance!

[English]

The Chair: No, it was actually an amendment moved by Mr. Forseth.

Á (1150)

Mr. Yvon Godin: The motion of Tony Tirabassi.

The Chair: Yes, I noted that, but this is just simply a reference. What was read into the record is indeed the motion, and the mover in this particular case was Mr. Lanctôt.

We are now moving to Mr. Forseth's motion.

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: Is that unanimous? Mr. Lanctôt, it is not on division?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Well, it was moved by the Alliance and not by Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. John Mooney: Indeed, there is no equivalent, as the lady has pointed out.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: What is the difference between an “external appointment process” and an “internal appointment process”? Isn't that the equivalent of “nomination externe” and “nomination interne”?

[English]

Mr. John Mooney: No.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: When you say “external” and “internal”, what does that correspond to in the French version?

Mr. John Mooney: An external appointment process is a “processus de nomination externe” and an internal appointment process is a “processus de nomination interne”. There is no equivalent to the terms “nomination interne” and “nomination externe”; the equivalent would be “appointment from within the public service” and “appointment to the public service”. This does not require a definition.

You are correct when you say that there is no English equivalent to “nomination interne”.

[English]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Okay.

The Chair: I'm going to move to amendment BQ-74.

Just for the information of members, there is a line conflict between amendments BQ-74 and BQ-75. Should BQ-74 be adopted, then BQ-75 cannot be put. So we will proceed with BQ-74, and see what happens.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I move that Bill C-25, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 21, on page 116 with the following:

(3) The President and the other Commissioners shall serve on a full-time or a part-time basis in accordance with the requirements of the Commission.

So, we're replacing the expression “shall serve on a full-time...” by the words “and the other Commissioners shall serve on a full-time [...] in accordance with the requirements of the Commission.

Several provisions in the act relate to the structure and operations of the Public Service Commission, in order to allow it the same flexibility as that afforded the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, as well as to other institutions headed up by part-time commissioners. According to administrative requirements, the bill could be amended so as to authorize the appointment of commissioners to serve on a full-time or part-time basis; so there would not only be a president, but also the commissioners.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi and then Madam Scherrer.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: As an explanation, currently the Public Service Commission is composed of three commissioners. One is the president. Although there's nothing in the act as to whether they are full-time or part-time, in practice they have been full-time. By having part-time commissioners, there's new flexibility to appoint a higher number of commissioners, who could represent different regions of the country to assist the president of the commission.

The other factors in favour of having part-time commissioners are there will be an anticipated decreased workload of the PSC, which will no longer be responsible for the appeals board, for example. The PSC is now focused on its core business—again, for example, no longer responsible for training or developmental programs, as prescribed in this act. It is expected there will be more delegation to deputy heads, perhaps for recruitment or appointment in the EX category.

As a result, we will not be supporting this amendment.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I want to make sure I have understood the amendment that was introduced. According to Mr. Lanctôt's explanation, I think that the purpose is that commissioners may also possibly sit full-time. But the wording implies that the president might also serve part-time, and I would like to hear the officials on that aspect. According to the wording of the amendment, the commissioners may serve full-time, but the president could at one and the same time be serving part-time. This would probably cause problems. Could I hear some comments on that?

Mr. John Mooney: The amendment as worded implies that the president and commissioners could serve full-time or part-time. That is our understanding of the wording, and I think that is also Mr. Lanctôt's understanding.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, the issue of whether an order-in-council appointee is full-time or part-time has a consequence to the conflict of interest or related disclosures they would have to make. For instance, my understanding is that a full-time employee would have to file a declaration of conflict of interest--there are other words I'm thinking of, but I think the principals would probably understand that--whereas part-time appointees would only be subject to the general code of conduct matters related to the public service. Is that correct?

The Chair: Is Mr. Mooney to respond?

Mr. Ranald Quail: We can't be specific to respond to his question. We'll have to take it under.... We can stand it or we can come back or whatever you prefer, Mr. Chairman, in order to be sure that we can answer Mr. Szabo's question properly.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay, well I have a follow-up question. What is the rationale for having public service commissioners, which include the president, one to be full-time and others to be part-time?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi (Director General, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service): The rationale, as Mr. Tirabassi has explained previously, is that the president is there as a CEO of the Public Service Commission. He has to be there, as Madam Scherrer has mentioned, on a full-time basis as a CEO of the Public Service Commission.

With regard to the other commissioners, as Mr. Tirabassi indicated, right now they are there on a full-time basis. It is now thought that there is no requirement to have commissioners on a full-time basis any more because, as you know, the mandate of the Public Service Commission is much more focused now. In a new bill it will have a workload that will be decreased. For example, as Mr. Tirabassi indicated, they won't have the appeals function or training or developmental programs. It was felt that it was no longer necessary to have three full-time commissioners at the commission.

On the other hand, the reasoning behind having part-time commissioners is it allows you to have more and to be more representative of regions. If you don't do it on a full-time basis, you can have one, for example, representing each region. That's the rationale behind this.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Do any of the current commissioners who are presently full-time also have other jobs and have other employment or earned income? There's no prohibition on them having other earned income other than being a commissioner.

Â (1200)

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: Well, actually, right now one of the two commissioners has been appointed to the Privy Council Office. At this time there's only one other commissioner in the Public Service Commission, instead of two more. As for the other commissioner, I cannot speak for her.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Is there any prohibition for a person classified as full-time order-in-council appointee to have any other earned income, which means self-employed or employed income other than that as a commissioner?

Mr. John Mooney: I can't answer generally for the GIC, but currently in the current act, subsection 3(7) says “A commissioner shall not hold any other office in the Public Service or engage in any other employment.”

There is now in the current act a prohibition for a commissioner to have another job.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But not under the proposed act?

Mr. John Mooney: In the proposed act there is a prohibition for the president to hold other employment, but not for the commissioners, since they're part-time.

The Chair: The public service code of conduct would come into play also, would it not, with the commissioners, as it does with other GIC appointments?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: The GIC appointees fall under the GIC code of conduct.

The Chair: Yes, but is there a differentiation between full-time and part-time?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: I don't know.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I was advised in the discussion we had on Bill C-13 on reproductive technologies that under the new agency that's going to be set up to do research, full-time order-in-council appointees must make a conflict of interest declaration and file papers on all of the relationships and associates, etc. Part-time do not; they're simply generally covered under the code of conduct.

I raise this because this commission is a very important body. The commissioners collectively are going to make some decisions, and if it's structured where the president is full-time and he's going to be doing everything and the others are just there as sheep, where is the board of directors, all of whom have an equal vote, if you only have part-timers?

Maybe I should ask this question, then. How much are we going to pay? What's the salary range for a part-time order-in-council appointee as a commissioner?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: Subclause 4(4) says “Commissioners shall not accept or hold any office or employment, or carry on any activity, that is inconsistent with their functions”. This replies, I would think, to your question, your concern to the functioning of the conflict of interest—

Mr. Paul Szabo: Does anybody know how much a part-time commissioner will make? What is the salary range?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: Part-time commissioners will be paid for the time they will be sitting, so they will be paid by...

Mr. Paul Szabo: By per diem, you are saying?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: Yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But they are prohibited from doing anything else.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: I don't say it is prohibited. They cannot accept or hold any office or employment that is inconsistent with their functions.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That is fairly broad—“inconsistent”. It could be that I'm a member of some organization, which is anti-union or something, or I could be an employee of an employer who doesn't have a union or something like that and has some biases.

If you're only going to pay per diems to a part-time commissioner, unquestionably it is not a sustainable income for anybody. With the apparent restrictions on their ability to do other things, it would be almost impossible to fill the job, I would think.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: I think this will have to be done on a case-by-case basis and we'll have to check everyone as to what other activities they do and whether or not they are inconsistent with the role of commissioner.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Quail, how important is the commission as a group in terms of the optics to the public service, its independence, its respect, and its ability to discharge its responsibilities if the commission is structured with persons, one of whom is going to be a full-time substantive player and any other commissioners will be, I assume, paid on a meeting-by-meeting basis or something like that? Do you believe it would enhance the whole objective of renewing this public service area by having a commission that is truly independent and is giving its substantive attention to the affairs of the public service?

Â (1205)

Mr. Ranald Quail: Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Szabo, I believe the bill is structured in this part so that the commission is independent. I would argue that the commission is totally independent. We've focused their responsibilities in terms of recruiting and staffing and making sure that they follow their mandate and report back to Parliament. That's point number one.

Point number two, the appointment process is such that the president will be full-time. The feeling was that the president would be full-time because it is a full-time job. It will require his or her total attention.

The president would be able to function in that agency in a very effective manner because presumably the agency will also have a number of vice-presidents. The vice-presidents will report to the president on a day-to-day basis and would function, in my view, in the way we had set it up on the basis that we would have commissioners. There would be board meetings and the commissioners would come in to the board. The day-to-day function, in order to ensure that there's independence with respect to staffing, was set up in that particular fashion.

Finally, Yvette has pointed out the issue with respect to potential workload.

The second part of it is that I would also have thought that it would allow for some commissioners to be appointed in the board kind of concept that we have set up here to be representative of the country. They would come from different parts of the country and bring some views to the board deliberations that would take place with the president in the chair.

There would be, therefore, those checks and balances.

The Chair: I would like to ask one question relative to the independence of the president. Who conducts the annual performance review of the president of the Public Service Commission today?

Mr. Ranald Quail: I don't know.

The Chair: Then let me ask the question in this way.

Mr. Ranald Quail: If you want to know, I'll have to find out to be absolutely certain on how to respond to that question.

The Chair: This doesn't change any practice that currently exists relative to who he or she is accountable to.

Mr. Ranald Quail: No.

The Chair: Currently, it's the president of the Privy Council.

Mr. Ranald Quail: Pardon me?

The Chair: Currently, it's the president of the Privy Council.

Mr. John Mooney: No.

Mr. Ranald Quail: That's the designated....

The Chair: I have a letter that I'll show to you. It goes back to the question that Mr. Cullen has been raising. How is this person independent if they're accountable to the public service?

Mr. John Mooney: The president is accountable to the House. Only the House can designate the president.

The Chair: When we come back this afternoon, I'll bring you the letter on that.

Anyway, we're back to amendment BQ-74.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen, hold on a minute.

I have about four speakers and will take them in order. I will go to Mr. Godin, Mr. Forseth, Madam Sherrer, and Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like a bit of information. I don't know if it was Mr. Mooney or the other gentleman who said that the president was appointed and served full-time. The commissioners are chosen throughout Canada to provide their viewpoints, but do the commissioners not vote? Are they there only to provide their point of view or are they members of the team? If the majority of commissioners are opposed to a decision made by the president, can the president still act anyway he pleases? That is not clear to me.

Why don't we have the same rule for everyone? When we appoint people to a committee, they have to be on an equal footing, otherwise the majority will be subject to more restrictions than the chairman or chairwoman.

Â (1210)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Serson is here. I had some conversations with him.

I'm looking at BQ-74.

I had some of the same concerns Mr. Szabo did about status, all of the issues of pay for a full-time employee versus a part-time one, what that means for compensation, and so on.

I also understand that certainly Mr. Serson is looking at workload, especially in transition. Certainly we all have a desire to perform and do a great job on a timely basis. It looks like the part-time people will be so heavily employed for a while that, in essence, they will be doing a full-time job and yet will still only be classified as part-time.

The Bloc amendment says that “The President and the other Commissioners shall serve on a full-time or a part-time basis in accordance with the requirements of the Commission”. It provides the increased flexibility that I think is being suggested by Mr. Serson, rather than the very determinative way that is in the bill, where you have a president and then you have part-timers. It introduces a little flexibility here, especially in the transition, when I understand the workload is going to be pretty heavy.

The appointment of full-time versus part-time positions is the only issue I'm looking at, not the conflict of interest part.

The Chair: This allows an option.

Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: My objection was not about the fact that commissioners could be appointed to serve full-time, but about the fact that according to the wording of the Bloc Québécois amendment, the president might serve on a part-time basis. It is this part-time status of the president that I have a problem with. I really don't object to the fact that commissioners have the option of serving full-time or part-time; it is, rather, the fact that the president might be serving part-time that worries me.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I don't have a comment specifically on the part-time or full-time issue, but I have my amendment that I guess you stood down.

The Chair: We'll come to it.

Are there any further comments?

Do you have a question, Mr. Lanctôt?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: These are not comments; I would simply like to make a clarification. You can see that in the proposed amendment, it says “lines 19 to 21”; in reality, the lines concerned are lines 17 to 19 in the French version.

[English]

The Chair: It seems to be the same issue that was referred to in terms of the different length of either language.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm getting some information that if we were to make a substantive change to this from the way it's written in the act, there might be a problem with the authority in being able to do so without going back to cabinet.

To help alleviate and address some of the concerns here, I would suggest that we stand this particular clause and bring it back.

The Chair: Does the committee agree that we will stand amendment BQ-74?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I'm going to move to a Liberal motion. Let me go with Mr. Szabo first, and then to Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Paul Szabo: As we approached BQ-74, you made some comments, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the admissibility of BQ-75. I would refer you to the decision of the Speaker on a very similar matter where a change in a clause--although it was drafted to say “replace” something, and it does, and the lines overlap.... The intent of the mover was not in fact to replace anything that was there, but rather to add to it. It's the journals branch who take the approach that you must delete the whole line rather than saying you would add after the word “basis” such and such a line or a sentence.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, these two are not in conflict. In fact, the Speaker ruled that should there be a subsequent amendment dealing with a clause that has been amended already, that clause would be amended and would conform so that all future clauses dealing with the same area would presume.... They have to be written to presume that there are no other changes to the clause, but should some other member--or even the same member--attempt to make an amendment, he has no way of knowing whether or not it would be passed.

This would certainly be in order if, for instance, BQ-74 is simply defeated; but if it's passed, they're not linked in terms of what they're trying to do. They are actually two separate things, two separate ideas. I would suspect that the member submitting it to the legislative branch to draft it said “I would like to add this sentence, which is put in BQ-75”. It has nothing to do with anything before the word “basis”, whereas BQ-74 is in fact changing the items before that.

I would like you to please look at the admissibility of BQ-75 simply from the standpoint that it is a separate item. Members could not have anticipated that there would have been such a change before you came to their amendments. They have to presume that the bill is as is, and anything that happens prior to getting to that motion has to be reflected in what is almost a consequential amendment to a proposed amendment.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, are you speaking on the same point?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes. It comes to the same thing. Amendment BQ-75 has a very tenuous link with amendment BQ-74; it is another point that must be brought out. It is not because we postponed the study of amendment BQ-74 that we should not take amendment BQ-75 into account, which refers to something else altogether. Both are linked, of course, but BQ-75 refers to another aspect. They are not the same amendments.

If we change amendment BQ-74, the substance of amendment BQ-75 still applies because it is not the same. And especially, since we are not really voting on this clause-by-clause, we must debate this. We passed an amendment, but the other amendment is still possible. If this were a normal clause-by-clause study, we could not change it. But now, because of the way in which we are proceeding, we can do that.

[English]

The Chair: There are a couple of possibilities here.

I am told the problem is not within the argument made, that the drafters don't know, putting them in, what the disposition is going to be, which is why they are listed in this particular discussion in...

Madame Sgro, do you want to speak on this point?

Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Chair, since we're standing down amendment BQ-74, and they are separate but interrelated--I view them as related--why don't we hold BQ-75 until this afternoon, when we have the information on BQ-74? That may clearly take care of BQ-75 at the same time.

The Chair: We can certainly do that.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I want to add that even if we accept amendment BQ-74, in my opinion, we must also examine amendment BQ-75 because it is different. This isn't a normal clause-by-clause study. When we do clause-by-clause study, when we accept a given amendment, the others fall by the wayside. However, in this case we did not vote on the article as a whole, as you say, Mr. Chairman. So we should debate this amendment to improve the clause in two ways. Do you understand? It is complicated, but because of the way the bill is presented here, we can move both amendments.

[English]

The Chair: But presumably when you produced BQ-74 and BQ-75 to follow on the same clause, you saw the two as linked.

I will seek more clarity on this issue of line conflicts, because there is a principle. You don't amend the same line repeatedly. Although I think what you're saying, Mr. Szabo, if I understand you correctly, is that the line is structured in such a way, and the amendment, that it really affects two different parts of it. Let me come back to you on that.

Â (1220)

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I might just refer the clerk to the specific report-stage motion on Bill C-13. They had the same problem, and the chair ruled on it and explained that they were separate items.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Szabo, I should have picked up on that, although I'm somewhat hesitant to talk about report-stage amendments. It was suggested that if it was ruled inadmissible here, then BQ-75 would be inappropriate as a report-stage amendment because of that conflict.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I would challenge that.

The Chair: Because it could not be moved. If we ruled that you couldn't move BQ-75, then it would come in at the report stage.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: May I suggest that we discuss amendment BQ-75 now, to see its importance, and to avoid having people say, if we postpone 20 amendments, that they have seen it and that they studied amendment BQ-74, and thus will not examine amendment BQ-75? I would like to debate amendment BQ-75. In that way, people will be aware of what I wanted to say, we can discuss it and we can postpone the vote till later. I think this would be interesting.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll deal with these amendments when the government comes back with a response. You may be so thrilled by the response that you may--

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like to move the amendment so that they can have a look at it. If I don't move it, they may not look at it. Did you understand me, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: If I don't move it, how will people be able to vote? Are we postponing the vote only, or also the introduction of my amendment? I did not move amendment BQ-75. Are we only postponing the vote?

[English]

The Chair: We could agree by consent that we will simply not deal with BQ-74 and BQ-75. If we agree by consent to do that, we can carry on in that fashion. Then you are discussing BQ-75 in the context of what has occurred to BQ-74. That's all.

I'm not suggesting that we're going to throw it out. The government has agreed that there's an issue here, and they want to come back. Let them come back, and we'll see what they say. Then we'll proceed with BQ-74 and BQ-75. Okay? That just allows us to proceed.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay.

We are now going to move to Liberal amendment L-1.1. I will call upon Mr. Cullen to move it.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the bill before us, proposed subsection 4(1) reads as follows:

The Public Service Commission is continued, consisting of a President and two or more other Commissioners to be appointed by the Governor in Council.

My amendment recognizes the fact that the Public Service Commission has both a role with Parliament and also a role with the executive. My original amendment, which I'll come back to in a moment, called for the appointment of the president of the Public Service Commission by the Governor in Council following approval by a resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons.

I've been working with the minister and the government, and they are agreeable in principle to my amendment, but I have taken out my amendment and replaced it with one that basically is more explicit with respect to the other two commissioners. My amendment had been more or less silent with respect to the other two commissioners. By inference, and it's probably best if this is more explicitly stated, the other two commissioners were to be appointed by the Governor in Council.

My amendment is as follows:

The President and other Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. The appointment of the President shall be made by commission under the Great Seal, after approval by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons.

This would mean that the government would come up with a candidate for the position of president of the Public Service Commission, who would be presented to the House of Commons and to the Senate. If either body did not reconfirm or approve of that appointment, it would be back to the drawing board, in a sense.

The other parts of my amendment deal with the term of office and the reappointment process, but the main element of my amendment is to make the appointment of the president of the PSC more accountable to the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons, and the Senate.

I'm quite pleased that the government has agreed to the thrust of my amendment. I think it allows parliamentarians to play a role. We've talked a lot about the need for the Public Service Commission to be non-partisan; I think the necessity of securing approval for the appointment of the president from both the Senate and the House of Commons provides that.

Amendment L-1.1 does this, and then there are three others that are consequential, but this is the main part of my amendment.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: We will be supporting amendment L-1.1. There has been extensive discussion since Mr. Cullen's original amendment, and thus he has come forward with L-1.1, which we will be supporting.

The Chair: Madam Sgro and then Mr. Szabo.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I have a question for Mr. Stoffer. I guess I could ask it of Mr. Cullen. It's on the whole issue of the reappointment.

We're looking at 14 years that an appointed individual would end up in this position. Is this normal here? Is that the way these kinds of significant appointments tend to go, for that amount of time?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: Right now, proposed subsection 4(6) in Bill C-25 says

The Commissioner is eligible for re-appointment to the Commission, in the same or another capacity, for a second term of office not exceeding seven years.

So there is one additional term, whereas the way Mr. Cullen has it in his proposed amendment, there could be several subsequent reappointments.

Ms. Judy Sgro: So it could end up being 21 years?

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's indefinite.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: Absolutely. Yes.

Ms. Lois Pearce (Director General, Policy, Task force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service): That's consistent with the current act.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, I think you were talking about my original amendment. The amendment L-1.1 states that the reappointment for a subsequent term of office would be “for a further term not exceeding seven years”.

Could that be repeated?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: That's the way we read it.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I must say I didn't pay as much attention to it. I don't have any problem with it. I was more concerned with the appointment process, not the reappointment process.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, do you have a question?

Mr. Paul Szabo: We dealt with a previous item related to the term of service to reduce it from eight years to five years.

The Chair: There was a proposition that it might be seven to five. I don't recall term of service.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That was the review of the bill.

The Chair: The review we reduced from seven to five.

Mr. Paul Szabo: The review was seven to five. That's another bill.

I wanted to ask the officials, notwithstanding that this is what the current bill says, what is the practice in terms of order-in-council appointments for commissioners or the equivalent?

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, can I broaden your question to House officers--access to information, privacy, and the like?

Â (1230)

Mr. Paul Szabo: The Auditor General is different from all of them, but okay. What are the comparatives?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: The Auditor General is appointed for a term of ten years. The Information Commissioner is appointed for seven years, as well as the Privacy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Official Languages. So seven years is for all these agents of Parliament except the Auditor General.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Are they renewable in all cases?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: There is no limit except for the Auditor General, which is not permitted.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, do you have a question? If so, I'll come back to you.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, I only raise this from the standpoint that we are talking about part-time commissioners, and I'm wondering whether or not there comes a point at which it's necessary for someone to be there to learn the job before you get them, and if they were to finish their term in say less than five or seven years, it would not be a productive transition.

Is the argument for open-ended terms for continuity, or have the officials discussed the possibility of refreshing a commission with people who know about or have followed the same developments and may have something to add? I understand the positions are “up to”, and at the discretion or the pleasure of the government they can be terminated at any time.

Mr. Roy Cullen: At the pleasure of Parliament.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, it says “holds office during good behaviour”. If there's not good behaviour...

Mr. Roy Cullen: Keep reading, Paul.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, I'm looking at your amendment.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, that's what I'm looking at. It says “but may be removed by the Governor in Council any time on address of the Senate and House of Commons”.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, if they have bad behaviour, does it...

Mr. Roy Cullen: It says they may be removed at any time. So if the Senate and the House of Commons--

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's for any reason, including bad behaviour?

Mr. Roy Cullen: For any reason.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay.

I'm a little concerned about part-time commissioners who are being paid on a meeting-by-meeting basis who are really just kind of coasting along and don't have a commitment. That renewal of the commission might be as important as say the Public Service Commission--they'd have a renewal of the leadership there as well. I'm sure other agencies do that, or at least make it open for consideration, simply because leadership has to be renewed.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen, do you wish to respond to Mr. Szabo's question?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, I do, by stating that in my understanding--and I think the officials have confirmed it--this appointment and reappointment process is consistent with the exception of the Auditor General and with all other officers of Parliament. In fact, it's consistent with the Standing Orders of the House. By virtue of proposed subsection (6), this is really what I was striving for: the Parliament of Canada has the power to appoint and remove. That gives it to the Parliament of Canada.

So even though someone might be eligible for reappointment, if the Senate and the House of Commons want that person removed, they'd have the power, with this amendment, to do that.

The Chair: Okay.

I'm going to go to M. Godin and then M. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but what is the point? People who work part-time and even those whose mandate can be renewed will have to be nice and go along with the government, otherwise their appointment will be called into question. The person who has a set mandate does not have to worry about the decisions that may crop up in the future. Here we are giving people a responsibility and telling them that if they are nice, everything will go smoothly. It is true that this is reviewed by Parliament, but normally, in Parliament, the government has the majority. So there is an effect on appointments. If the person does what the government tells him or her to do, he or she will continue to be appointed, but if he makes decisions that run counter to the government's intentions, he can be sure that his mandate will not be renewed.

I think that we are opening the door to transparency and responsibility on the part of a commissioner. The Auditor General has a set mandate and knows that he will no longer be in that position when his mandate expires. He will be showing personal judgment in his decisions. Here, we are encouraging the appointed person to be on the right side, otherwise the appointment may disappear. I think that we should correct this aspect of the bill.

Â (1235)

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: There are two things I'd like to point out. To continue in the same vein, I would say that we must not forget that even though the independence of tribunals is important, that of a commissioner is as well, especially given the new tasks we want to entrust to him or her. A judge is appointed for life, but that is not the case for a commissioner. I think that a renewal is very dangerous in these circumstances because these people who will want to have a new appointment may run the risk of making very bad decisions. There is a transparency and independence problem at that level. For my part, I am really against the possibility of renewing appointments, of obtaining a second seven-year mandate. I am completely against that because of the reasons I have just explained. Moreover, in English, the expression “during good behaviour” is used.

So we are talking about good behaviour. In French, it says “à titre inamovible”. So there is no possibility of replacement. Here again I see a big difference between the French and the English—my goodness, I'm really becoming bilingual—and I think that these are two completely different things. In one version, the text talks about good behaviour and in the other, it talks about “à titre inamovible”, or about the permanent nature of the appointment. These are two important points, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I shall refrain from commenting on how you will end up, Monsieur Lanctôt.

Shall I call the question?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, have we resolved this sidebar issue, the side headings?

The Chair: I am satisfied, as is the clerk, that these are simply directional, and they will deal with them in the same way they deal with them traditionally.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So in Mr. Cullen's amendment, the references to appointment of commissioners and oath of affirmation are not what we're voting on?

The Chair: No. We are voting on the content of the--

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's a friendly amendment, isn't it, to this motion?

The Chair: I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Mr. Paul Szabo: We're eliminating the words “Appointment of Commissioners”, “Tenure and term of office”, “Re-appointment”, and “Oath or affirmation”.

The Chair: Right. They would be considered marginal notes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: We should deem these not to be on this page. Is that what you're ruling, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: I am informed that it is not uncommon for the drafters to put motions in this fashion to provide a guide to where they fit into the bill, but they are not--the marginal notes--deemed to be part of the amendment. What we are passing are the substantive parts of the amendment. These marginal notes will be handled in the same fashion as headings.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Could the parliamentary secretary make a final determination on this?

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, we would be prepared to move the amendment as presented.

The Chair: The amendment has already been moved.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: I'm told we do not have copies of two of the consequential amendments by Mr. Cullen, so we will wait until they arrive. We will proceed with amendment BQ-76 as we wait.

Â (1240)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Have we also postponed the study of amendment L-1?

[English]

The Chair: Amendment L-1 has not been moved. It has been withdrawn and replaced by amendment L-1.1.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Has it been withdrawn?

[English]

The Chair: Well, because it was not actually moved, Mr. Lanctôt, it doesn't need to be withdrawn; it's just not proceeded with. For example, you could decide not to move amendments BQ-76 and BQ-77, and we would just move on. That's one way of doing it.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes, I know. I will not be making any comments on that.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we'll go to Monsieur Lanctôt, on amendment BQ-76.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I move amendment BQ-76: that Bill C-25, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 117 the following:

(8) The Commissioners must possess the necessary knowledge or experience and be representative of the geographic and cultural diversity of Canada, as well as its linguistic duality.

We want to give a certain guideline as to the appointment criteria used for commissioners. This can be done by stating in the act that the commissioners must be appointed to collectively represent the regional or cultural diversities of Canada, as well as Canada's linguistic duality, and must have knowledge or experience related to the tasks they will be called upon to perform.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: Amendment BQ-76 says it's to amend page 117.

The Chair: Correct.

Mr. Paul Szabo: On line 6 of that page I have a statement, “remuneration determined by the Governor in”. This clause references the number 8, which appears, I believe, on page 118.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, if you look at the preceding page, page 116, at the bottom you'll see proposed subsection 4(7). Then, at the conclusion of that, it adds this as proposed subsection 4(8).

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Tirabassi, would you care to comment on amendment BQ-76?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you want the good news first, or the bad news?

The Chair: We've just had the good news. We've just passed a very sizeable amendment here.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, we find this amendment unduly restrictive, too prescriptive. The requirements might restrict the ability of the Governor in Council to find appropriate persons to appoint. There is no requirement for representativeness or reflecting linguistic duality now, and the commission is representative and reflective.

We feel that this is not needed in legislation. Therefore we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I disagree completely with Mr. Tony Tirabassi. In my opinion, this goes hand in hand with the Dion plan and with the government's current statements. Here people are saying that the government once again runs the risk of having its hands tied and of not being able to find candidates who meet the linguistic duality criterion. That is unbelievable in a country such as ours, with a population of 31 million people!

That is the message you want to convey now, while the government is boasting that it invests millions of dollars in linguistic duality? We are talking about a commissioner and stating in this regard that we don't want to tie the government's hands. I want to say for the record that this exemplifies the type of will the government shows with regard to linguistic duality.

This runs counter to the Dion plan, completely, as well as our Official Languages Act and the well-being of regional minorities; we want these regions to be represented. I want to congratulate the Bloc Québécois for this motion, but I can't congratulate the government for taking steps that run counter to the Dion plan. We must absolutely take linguistic duality into account; it must be reflected. How can you say that we will be tying the government's hands? It is characteristic of the government that it always feels it has its hands tied, and it is time for someone to untie you. This doesn't make any sense.

You are implying that among 31 million Canadian men and women, you may not be able to find a qualified person. I know that it will be quite difficult to make you change your mind, because your mind is made up, but think a little about what is before you and what the government's philosophy is supposed to be. I'm speaking in favour of this motion because it is really important.

Â (1245)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Godin.

I should note that in amendment L-1.1 you will have the ability to comment on each commissioner who gets presented. So I'm sure you would not approve of a commissioner who did not possess these qualities.

We've now handed that responsibility to you, Monsieur Lanctôt, along with the rest of us. This should please you, sir.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now we'll move to amendment BQ-77.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I move that Bill C-25, in clause 12, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 118 the following:

(3) The amounts appropriated to the Commissioner are approved by Parliament, and the Commission is under no obligation to submit its budget estimates to the Treasury Board.

In fact, that amendment was suggested by Mr. Serson himself, from the commission. Even though it is possible that the mission of the commission may evolve it must continue to be able to report to Parliament in an objective manner without fearing repercussions. The independence of the commission vis-à-vis the political apparatus of the government has for a long time been an essential element of the system set up by Parliament to choose the men and women who are employed by the Government of Canada and to grant them promotions. The bill could be amended in order to allow Parliament to play a more important role in the process used to allocate funds to the PSC. This would contribute to guaranteeing adequate funding for its monitoring activities, in accordance with what Parliament deems appropriate.

The former Auditor General, Denis Desautels, said, concerning the Office of the Auditor General, that the fact that its budget was negotiated with Treasury Board officials was an uncomfortable arrangement; even if that situation never caused adverse effects, the office could certainly be subjected to unjustified pressure if ever anyone threatened to block funds. That statement by the former Auditor General applies in the same way to the Public Service Commission, particularly at a time when it is about to play a greater role in monitoring merit.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Excuse me, if I may...

I'm sorry, Monsieur Lanctôt, I had turned off my mike for a minute to consult with the drafter here because there is an issue that's raised by this amendment. I have a ruling, which I noted in the past has been quite successful in bringing peace to this process.

Having looked at this, while I think the subject that you raised.... Given some of the desires to change the relationship of House officers, and we note the concerns raised by the Auditor, it is argued that this amendment is out of order at this time in this bill because it is outside the scope and principle of the bill. Now I advise you of that.

I would be interested in hearing some of the discussion on this. I'd like Mr. Tirabassi to respond. Well, let's see where we go.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Â (1250)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I think what we see here as being unique is that the Public Service Commission has this dual role, both an audit function and an executive function. In its executive function as part of the government, putting this in would undermine the ability of the government to basically account for the use of the public funds. That is why we cannot support this particular amendment.

The Chair: If I could just ask a couple of questions, I'm not certain whether staff at the end of the table would have the answers to these. I may need to seek them elsewhere.

I believe all of the House officers currently submit their estimates to Treasury Board. I don't think there are any that do not, Elections Canada included, in part for the expertise required in order to properly assess and manage the fisc. There is an issue here about the fact that any organization needs to be able to manage its overall fiscal framework. While the issues of independence are interesting, that is also a consideration.

Is it not also true that the estimates of the House of Commons are presented to Treasury Board for inclusion in the budget? I believe that is the case. They may be. In fact I heard a “yes”.

Anyway, it is the right of the Crown—and this is a constitutional right, a constitutional division of power—to propose. We cannot increase outside of the royal prerogative. I think I'm satisfied that this is out of order.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: What I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, is that my understanding is that budgets for the House and the Senate go through a process that is somewhat different. In fact, my understanding is that they may go to the PCO. There obviously is discussion back and forth with finance to ensure that there is some reasonableness about how it fits within the whole fiscal plan.

I was going to make a suggestion, and I may be too late, but given that the commissioner is an officer of Parliament, and the committee has approved this other amendment—my earlier amendment—the way it works with the Auditor General, as I understand it, is that the Auditor General is invited to the public accounts committee quite frequently. There's a standing arrangement that the Auditor General is always asked by the committee whether or not his or her resources are sufficient to the task at hand.

Whether we have a motion, or whether it's just an informal arrangement, I think it would be useful if we invited the president of the Public Service Commission to this committee on some sort of interval basis, and that it be a standing question of this committee whether or not the resources of the Office of the President of the Public Service Commission are adequate to the task at hand. Then this committee could report whatever it wishes to report.

The Chair: Certainly the Public Service Commission, just as the other House officers, with the exception of official languages and the auditor, come before this committee, and the estimates would come forward in exactly the manner you're suggesting, Mr. Cullen, and a comment can be made on them, as a comment can be made on the plans and priorities in advance of the budget-building process, if there were a concern about a deficiency.

The dilemma here is that those are all provisions in the fiscal administration of the House. In these clauses, what we are doing is establishing the commission. We are not speaking to the funding or financing of the commission. This clause seeks to embed a condition relative to the way estimates are handled.

I note my very capable clerks up here have found for me that in fact in Marleau and Montpetit the estimates are developed--this is the entire House of Commons--by the Board of Internal Economy and then reported to the Secretary of Treasury Board. This reporting to Treasury Board is a common feature across government in order to allow proper management of the fiscal framework.

In either event, this bill is about establishing the commission and setting the legal framework for the engaging of staff, not for the financial operation of either one. Hence, this recommendation is out of scope.

On that basis, the only reason I am not simply saying it's out of scope and let's move on is because the last time I did that, you overturned me. I thought we should at least have the opportunity to discuss this and present the very reasonable basis upon which it has been now ruled out of order.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

Â (1255)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I want to add that this isn't about the budget so much as about having the principle in question pinned down. Will this be included in a budget and audited by Parliament, or is the purpose to allow the commission to eliminate the possibility of a non-arm's length situation when it negotiates credits that allow it to hire people?

In that sense, I find this admissible. They will be studying the budget matter later, but we have to give this aspect a good foundation. Will this be the responsibility of Parliament, or will negotiations take place with the Privy Council? We are laying the foundation; the issue is not the actual granting of funds, but knowing who will be granting them. In my opinion, this is a matter of substance and it is admissible.

[English]

The Chair: If I may, I'm inserting myself into this in part because it's necessary to rule or not rule, but I'm not unsympathetic to the argument relative to the independence of the commission, and it would apply to the other House officers. I think in this bill at this time this is not an acceptable solution, but I would suggest that this committee may want to do some work on this at the conclusion of this bill relative to all of the House officers, because the same issue arises. Although given that the entire House submits its estimates to the President of Treasury Board, to suggest that one commission alone in government would be under no obligation to do so I think is neither appropriate for this piece of legislation or practicable, given that we haven't had a chance to really go through that.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That is different. If in your opinion, this is not acceptable, we can vote. But the motion and the amendment were admissible.

[English]

The Chair: Unacceptable in the context of this bill. This bill does not deal with the fiscal framework for these commissions. It has impact on them. Obviously it establishes a need to hire commissioners, but it does not deal with the process of budgeting. The Financial Administration Act deals with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: In such a case, are you under the obligation to reveal the grounds for your decision?

[English]

The Chair: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading--so it was approved in principle by the House--is out of order if the amendment is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. This amendment would be seen to be beyond the scope and principle of that bill. That's all.

You are always welcome to challenge my decision, remembering that I'm a foot taller than you are.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Okay, that brings us then to BQ-78.

Oh, I'm sorry. Don't leave just yet. We are now going to adjourn this meeting. We have a meeting called for 3:30 this afternoon to continue with clause-by-clause.

We are adjourned.