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

Thursday, May 15, 2003

0915

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

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

0920

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

0925

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

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

Ms. Yvette Aloisi (Director General, Human Resources Modernization Task Force)

0930

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

0935

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

0940

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

0945

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel LeFrançois (General Counsel, Human Resources Modernization Task Force)

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

0950

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John Mooney (Counsel, Human Resources Modernization Task Force)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John Mooney

Mr. Paul Szabo

0955

Mr. John Mooney

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. John Mooney

The Chair

Mr. John Mooney

1000

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1005

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 043

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 15, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Just for the benefit of members, if we proceed in an orderly and expeditious fashion, we could be out of here relatively quickly, as we have very little of the bill left to clean up. However, I do have a few comments to make and a ruling overturning, rescinding, or disposing of a ruling I made yesterday.

The situation is this. During the clause-by-clause consideration yesterday, there was a consequential amendment to a clause that had already been passed by the committee. The rule is that amendments and motions proposed as amendments to a clause during clause-by-clause consideration can be put without notice, but once a clause is adopted it takes the unanimous consent of the committee to go back to it. This is the principle we have functioned with throughout this period of time.

We did not receive unanimous consent to open clause 19. However, there was another standing order referred to, which appeared to give us authority to go back to the clause, if the majority of the committee agreed to do so. A vote was called, the majority of the committee agreed to it, and we went back and amended the clause.

It is my belief that that ruling was in error. The standing order refers to motions outside of the clause-by-clause amending process. Such motions require a minimum of 48 hours' notice. So the procedure yesterday was incorrect—but it was done, as committees can do pretty much what they want.

However, I think there's been considerable discussion around the table about this. Out of respect to the members of the committee who were involved in this.... At the time I was asked whether or not we could open clause 19, it was in regard to a consequential subamendment. I should be clear on this: it was a consequential subamendment to clause 19, flowing from an amendment that had been passed in clause 12, which had been proposed by Mr. Szabo and agreed to by the government. Given that clause 19 had been passed, Mr. Lanctôt refused to give us consent to go back to the clause.

So to this extent, I would now rule that we were in error and that we should return to the status that existed at the point in time when he refused to give consent, which would be that clause 19 is passed without amendment. This will restore us to our normal operating procedures, and the bill will be reported as such.

Others have told me that this is acceptable, but I would just feel more comfortable if we ended up back in that position.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I move that we proceed as described.

The Chair: I don't think it even requires a motion, other than a motion to overturn, if anybody wants to do that.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, if you want to have a consensus....

The Chair: I appreciate that there is a willingness to proceed in this manner.

Mr. Forseth.

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

When we reopened the clause, what was the section that we amended?

The Chair: If you recall, the amendment was to expand the oath to allow people to refer to the deity.

Clause 19 is actually a clause in one of the transitional provisions, so its cause and effect would be only for the transitional period, in any event.

So I believe that people have basically determined that they are satisfied that no real damage is done by proceeding in this fashion.

Mr. Paul Forseth: But the oath appears several times throughout the bill.

The Chair: Yes, and we amended it in every instance—except you will recall that there were some transitional provisions.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Right.

The Chair: Those transitional provisions would not be amended.

Mr. Paul Forseth: If other people wanted to do that, could they still fix it in the report stage?

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Yes.

The question here is I guess the government now can change it at the report stage. You see, it's already been dealt with in committee here, so can you propose an amendment--yes, you can.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The government could get them at report stage if they wanted.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Are we ready to proceed?

The Chair: Are you proceeding with a motion or a question? I do have a couple of other procedural things I'd like to deal with before we move to the standard debate.

So that disposes of clause 19.

For the benefit of those who weren't here, as we moved through those big blocks of clauses, there were a series of clauses for which there had been no questions posed or amendments posed. They seemed to have support.

We missed one clause as we were moving quickly through that, and that was clause 184. Again, it is a clause to which there were no amendments proposed, or, at the time, no questions asked. We do need to carry clause 184. So may I call the question on clause 184?

(Clause 184 agreed to on division)

The Chair: I will carry that on division at the request of Mr. Lanctôt.

Now we are left with clause 12, which is the big clause, on which there may be some discussion. Mr. Cullen and Mr. Szabo I understand have comments to make.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I have just tabled with the clerk. It's being copied now. It deals with the Public Service Employment Act. It's consequential, in a sense, to the amendment that was adopted by this committee yesterday in terms of the appointment process for the president of the Public Service Commission. I want to make sure it's not getting lost in one of those blocks.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen, is your amendment to clause 12, which is the Public Service Employment Act?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, it is.

The Chair: Clause 12 is still open, so there's no conflict there.

Mr. Roy Cullen: You'll alert me when we're coming to that.

The Chair: I would advise you to remain alert, because I'm going to alert you really quickly.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, because this is a little confusing with all these clauses that are all wrapped up in other stuff. So I'll pay attention.

The Chair: Okay, there is one more piece of business before I move to the discussion of clause 12. Mr. Cullen referenced it just now.

Mr. Szabo has made some comments, and there have been other comments about the structure of this particular bill. It was suggested that we might do a study on this and have some discussion about the form and use of this form of bills.

I am informed that the most appropriate time to do that would be before we dispose of the bill. Unfortunately, I don't think that would be useful in this context. So it has been recommended to me that rather than delay the bill and deal with that, the recommended course of action would be for the chair, upon tabling the bill, to make a comment and to forward a letter to the appropriate individuals on this matter, which I will do.

Now, we are into clause 12. This is Mr. Cullen's amendment.

Mr. Szabo, you had actually indicated the desire to speak on clause 12. Is that on this amendment or is it on some other item?

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's not on Mr. Cullen's amendment. I haven't seen it yet.

The Chair: Shall I call Mr. Cullen's item?

Mr. Paul Szabo: If you wish, that's fine.

The Chair: Okay. Do members have copies of Mr. Cullen's amendment?

Mr. Cullen, could I call upon you to move it, please?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Do you want me to read it? Perhaps I should give you the background.

The Chair: I think you should first move the motion.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay. I'd like to move that Bill C-25 in clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 31 to 39 on page 117 with the following:

(3) If the President is absent or unable to act or if the office of the President is vacant for a period not exceeding sixty days, the President chooses, amongst the Commissioners, who will act as President. If the President is unable to make such a choice, the Commissioners will choose, amongst themselves, who will act as President.

(4) If the President is absent or unable to act or if the office of the President is vacant for a period exceeding the period mentioned in subsection (3), the Governor in Council may authorize a Commissioner or other qualified person to act as President.

And the marginal note is “Acting President”.

That's my motion, Mr. Chairman. Would you like me to comment on it?

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Roy Cullen: You will recall that yesterday we accepted an amendment that allowed for the appointment of the president of the Public Service Commission to be by order in council, but on the approval of the Senate and the House of Commons. Now we have the president of the Public Service Commission being essentially appointed by the House of Commons and the Senate. Under the existing bill, if the president is absent or unable to act, or if the office of the president is vacant, under proposed section 23, it's the minister designated by the Governor in Council, which, in terms of practical effect, in this case seems to be the President of the Treasury Board. So you would have the anomaly, under the current bill, that the president of the Public Service Commission is essentially appointed by the Parliament of Canada, but in his or her absence the minister responsible would designate a replacement.

This amendment attempts to bring that particular situation more in line with what we passed yesterday. It says essentially that if the president of the Public Service Commission is absent or unable to perform for a period not exceeding 60 days, then the president chooses among the commissioners who will be the acting president. And if the president, for whatever reason, is unable, then the commissioners, among themselves, will appoint the acting president. If the period exceeds sixty days, then the Governor in Council would then appoint the acting president.

It's to bring these provisions, in my view, more in line with what we as a committee adopted yesterday. And it's somewhat anomalous that without enacting this you'd have the president of the Public Service Commission appointed by the Parliament of Canada, and yet in his or her absence the Governor in Council would decide who should replace the president in those particular circumstances for a period of up to 60 days.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since we've just received this particular amendment, and after hearing the explanation from Mr. Cullen, I think it would be appropriate to turn to the department for its interpretation of this amendment and its potential implications, positive or otherwise.

I would turn to Ms. Aloisi.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi (Director General, Human Resources Modernization Task Force): Mr. Chairman, subclause 6.(3) says if the president is absent or unable to act or if the office of president is vacant, the minister designated under section 23--who right now is the Minister of Canadian Heritage--may authorize a commissioner or other qualified person to act as president. Let me explain to you what this is meant to deal with.

If the president is absent right now, the president can always delegate. This is to deal with situations where the president is incapacitated--for example, the president is absent or unable to act because he's in a hospital bed, or in a position where he or she cannot choose their replacement. So it's to deal with that kind of situation. Also, it is to deal with situations in which the president is unable to act because, for argument's sake, the president is under suspicion and maybe there is a criminal investigation or some kind of investigation and the president has to be set aside while it is taking place. You cannot assume that then the president should choose who will replace him or her when they are unable to act under such a circumstance. So this is to deal with that kind of situation.

In the normal situation where the president is absent and is going on a trip, going on a business trip or on holidays, the president can always choose who will act in his or her absence. This is not to deal with a normal situation where the person goes on holidays or a business trip and can delegate. And this will continue. The provision we are discussing is to deal with very extraordinary circumstances.

The second issue you raised is the issue of it being up to Parliament to choose who is the president. By the amendment that you've proposed, it seems to me it would be the commissioners who would be choosing the president, and the commissioners are not chosen by Parliament; the commissioners are appointed by the GIC. So you would ask a commissioner appointed by the GIC to choose a president.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Forseth, Mr. Szabo, and Mr. Proctor. Then, Mr. Cullen, I'll come back to you after we've heard from others who haven't spoken.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

It says where “the President is absent or unable to act...the President chooses...”. But it also has “...if the office of the President is vacant...”. In that case we don't have a president, so there's no president to do the choosing. In other words, the phrase is inherently inconsistent and inoperable within itself. You can't have a president when there is no president, choosing something. How can you have a president choosing when he's absent and incapacitated, is stuck in a riot in Africa somewhere and is incommunicado or his plane went down and we can't find him? He's absent--we don't know where--and he can't choose. From a drafting point of view, it does not make common sense; it's not workable. In any event, in the larger respect, a president choosing, rather than the way it is, I think lowers the standard of confidence, also.

On those two grounds, I can't support this.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Given that there are some specific prohibitions with regard to the president, who's a full-time person, that do not apply to a part-time commissioner, there would be provisions in the act about which you would have to say that notwithstanding the requirements of some of these other things, this person could discharge it. My recollection is that there are at least a couple of differences in the job of president as commissioner and other commissioners who are part-time. They may not be able to comply with those.

I raise it only from the standpoint--if the officials would confirm this--of elevating a part-time commissioner to the president's position. If there are only two commissioners or a small number, maybe not one of them would meet the requirements, the criteria.

The Chair: Okay. I'll let the officials consider that.

I'll take Mr. Proctor's comment and Mr. Cullen's comment. Then we'll return to Mr. Tirabassi or the officials for comment.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cullen, on the last part of proposed subclause 6(4), it says “the Governor in Council may authorize a commissioner or other qualified person to act as President. When you explained the proposal, Mr. Cullen, it seemed to me that you said “would be authorized”. In other words, I found that what you were saying was stronger than what is written here. I only point that out. It doesn't seem to me that the word “may” is consistent with the way you describe what you are endeavouring to do here.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Okay. I was wondering, Mr. Cullen, if it would be helpful, given that a couple of the members were not here at the time, to remind them of what was read in your main motion or what has been passed by the committee.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes. It was the other day. I guess it was yesterday. Have there been some new members joining us?

The Chair: Mr. Proctor is here, and Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Paquette and Mr. Proctor. Yes, sorry. Maybe I should start over then.

I apologize for only tabling my amendment today. Frankly, I hadn't really twigged to this relationship. I became aware of it yesterday. That's why I only tabled it today. In fact, I thought I would be able to work on it over the recess, but we decided to meet this morning. That's fine.

Basically, as the committee may recall, yesterday we agreed on an amendment that would call for the president of the Public Service Commission to be appointed essentially with the approval of the Senate and the House of Commons. That's what this committee has adopted as an amendment.

If you go to the current bill, it says “If the President is absent or unable to act or if the office of the President is vacant, the minister designated under section 23...”. Now it turns out that it's the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which totally boggles my mind. Nonetheless, it's by Governor in Council. In other words, the Public Service Commission gives its annual report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Is that correct?

The Chair: No. It gives its report to the President of the Treasury Board.

Isn't that the reason for a designated minister?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: The annual report goes through the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who signs the report.

The Chair: It's the Minister of Canadian Heritage, excuse me.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, but it's basically by the Governor in Council, so my amendment tries to bring that in line with the amendment we adopted yesterday.

Rather than filling the office of the president in absence.... And my amendment doesn't deal with when the president is travelling or working on something else; this is when the office of the president is vacated for whatever reason. You raised a good point. It could be that the office of the president is under suspicion, etc. But my amendment deals with when he's absent or unable to act. It attempts to bring the act more in line with the fact that we've now said the president is appointed with the approval of the Parliament of Canada.

My amendment also tries to deal with the world of practicality. In a perfect world, in an absence like this, it would go back to the House of Commons and the Senate, but for practical reasons, I don't think that is achievable. So my amendment tries to deal with the practicality, but takes it essentially out of the hands of the executive branch--which is what we've done in terms of the appointment of the president in the amendment we passed yesterday--and says that in the absence of the president for a period of up to 60 days, the president would then select a commissioner to act in his or her place.

In a situation that someone raised here, if the president were in a hospital somewhere and unable to act on his or her behalf, this amendment says the commissioners, for a period of up to 60 days, would choose one among themselves to act as the president. In a perfect world, again, it should go back to the House of Commons and the Senate, but as a practical matter, I don't think that's a very achievable goal.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Proctor's comment about what new proposed subsection 6(4) does, it says if the office of the president is vacated for longer than a period of 60 days, then for practical intents and purposes, the Governor in Council would authorize a commissioner or other qualified person to act as president.

Again, in a perfect world, it would go back to the House of Commons and the Senate. I'm prepared to have that discussion and look at a subamendment if that is.... I just thought as a practical matter we're trying to deal with an absence here. It's to try to reflect the fact that the president now is not appointed by the Governor in Council; the president of the commission is appointed by the Parliament of Canada. So it would at least remove that particular constraint.

In summary--maybe I've miswritten the amendment--it's not meant to deal with the president going off somewhere and needing someone to do something else. It's about the office of the president being vacated for a period of up to 60 days and a practical way to deal with that, recognizing that the president of the commission is now appointed by the Parliament of Canada.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Paquette indicated a desire to speak.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): I merely wished to point out to the clerk that the French and English versions don't quite correspond. It's important to know what we are voting on in the French version. I'm referring to the proposed clause 6(4). The English version contains a reference to “the Governor in Council may”, whereas the French says “le gouverneur en conseil autorise”. It should read: “peut autoriser”

[English]

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you for your point. Maybe we should make the English line up with the French--make it “shall”. I'm fine with that.

The Chair: So, Mr. Paquette, if I understand Mr. Proctor's and Mr. Cullen's comments, if we took the “may” out of the English side and replaced it with “shall”, would it then correspond with the French?

Mr. Paquette, would you like to make a subamendment to that effect?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes.

The Chair: Let's just be clear, though, because--

Mr. Pierre Paquette: To help my friend Mr. Cullen, no problem.

The Chair: So, Mr. Paquette, you are moving that Mr. Cullen's amendment in proposed subsection 6(4) be amended by replacing the word “may” with the word “shall”?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes, exactly.

The Chair: Is there any comment on the subamendment?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: This would preclude the Governor in Council appointing a new president from other sources, and it would appear that you need the option. If the situation looks as if it's something they can live with, then “shall” would say you must do it from one of those—

The Chair: A commissioner or other qualified person.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, but that's for a temporary appointment. The process of appointment for a term.... That's with regard to an acting position. They may want to appoint a new president, not an acting president.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

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

I just bring the members back to the amendment we adopted yesterday, which says that the president of the Public Service Commission is appointed by the Parliament of Canada. Proposed subection (6) also says:

A Commissioner holds office during good behaviour for a term of seven years, but may be removed by the Governor in Council at any time on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

The reality is that if this were dragging on, then I think the Senate and the House of Commons quite rightly would step in and say “We have a problem here. We're quite prepared to be flexible on interim arrangements, but we want to revisit this, and we have to have a new president.”

The Chair: If I could just clarify one point, actually the original amendment is:

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 the Senate and House of Commons.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the next clause, proposed subsection (6).

The Chair: I understand. But you also said the president was appointed by Parliament.

Mr. Roy Cullen: It's “under the Great Seal, after approval by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons”. What that means is that if the Senate does not ratify the appointment, and/or the House of Commons, the appointment that is proposed is not going to go forward. That's what I mean.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I understand Ms. Aloisi has some concluding comments.

The Chair: I'm sorry. I'm sort of—

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Yes. I mean, once we've gone around....

The Chair: Ms. Aloisi, do you have any comments on the subamendment? Let's dispose of that before we go back to this conversation. Do you have any comment on that, or shall I deal with this one issue?

Okay, we'll deal with the subamendment proposed by Mr. Paquette.

(Subamendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now, Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I'd like to refer to Ms. Aloisi for some concluding comments on this, now that she has had an opportunity to hear some of the discussion.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: What I would like to emphasize here is that what you are proposing, Mr. Cullen, is to have commissioners themselves, who are not approved by Parliament, choose who would be the president. That's what you are proposing here.

Mr. Roy Cullen: In a perfect world, it would go back to the Senate and the House.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: But that's what you're proposing. You're asking to have commissioners do that appointment process.

I think in the real world—and especially since we don't know how many commissioners are going to be appointed—you may have difficulties getting commissioners to agree among themselves who is going to be the president. That's another issue you would raise.

What I would like to also say is that this is not something that is only in this bill. There are about 30 precedents in different pieces of legislation where it is done in this way. This is not just for the Public Service Commission.

Finally, what I would like to say is that what you are proposing here is, I would think, very difficult to work out.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian has asked to make a comment.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): I have one question to Mr. Cullen. When you say commissioners will choose among themselves who will act as the president, is that a simple majority election, or a two-thirds majority? How do you choose the president?

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

I'd like to bring the committee back to the amendment we adopted yesterday, that the president of the Public Service Commission may be removed at any time on a resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.

If we got into the situation that the commissioners were unable to choose among themselves, or if we got into the situation the officials mentioned, where there was a cloud hanging over the president and maybe some of the other commissioners were partially implicated—or maybe there was a perception—then I'd like to remind the committee that the House of Commons and the Senate can at any time call for a new president to be appointed.

What we're talking about here are some interim measures and a practical way to try to deal with the issue. If the commissioners can't decide among themselves, and if there is no practical way to solve this for 60 days, then the House of Commons and the Senate could be involved very quickly.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: My question was, even if they can solve it among themselves, how are they going to do it: by two-thirds majority or simple majority? That was my question.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I think what the amendment says is the commissioners among themselves.... There are two others.

An hon. member: It could be unlimited.

Mr. Roy Cullen: What is unlimited? Oh, I see, you mean the number of commissioners.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: Is it two, or more?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Well, in the absence of any statement to contrary effect, in my amendment it would be a majority, I guess.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: A simple majority?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois (General Counsel, Human Resources Modernization Task Force): What would happen if there were an even number of commissioners? They could be deadlocked.

Mr. Roy Cullen: They could be deadlocked, in which case the House and the Senate would have to become involved.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are we ready for the question? This amendment, designated as L-1.3, is an amendment to clause 12. There's a subamendment changing the wording in the second part.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Can we have a recorded vote on this?

(Amendment negatived: yeas 3; nays 7)

The Chair: Are there any further questions on clause 12?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, there was only one other item, and it was left over from last meeting. It was with regard to proposed section 118 on page 152 of the bill.

The Chair: I'm sorry, is that a subclause within clause 12?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, it's within clause 12.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, the issue was first raised by Mr. Forseth. I think we asked the officials about an issue relating to the words “The commission may investigate any allegation” with regard to failure to comply, followed by the qualifying phrase, “made to it by a person who is or has been a candidate in an election”. I think we asked the officials to respond to the unknowns, including what election is referred to, how many years back one could go, and a whole bunch of other things that aren't clear in the current wording.

I would like to have a response from the officials. If in fact there is a change, I have stated that the commission should have the ability to investigate any allegation, whether it be from a candidate or a person who has direct knowledge, and that we should thus not have any qualifier in this clause. I would simply drop the phrase “made to it by a person who is or has been a candidate in an election”. That way, the clause would certainly read, “may investigate any allegation”.

Could I have officials' response?

Mr. John Mooney (Counsel, Human Resources Modernization Task Force): To answer the first question, the government did think of that issue. The current act actually has no limit. The government discussed that, and we don't think it's fair that somebody could contest an election ten years after. So we built in a regulatory power in paragraph 22(2)(h) on page 122 of the bill to give the commission the power to put time limits on the presentation of allegations.

What the commission will probably do is to look at it and say from election to election, perhaps, or a one- or two-year time limit—

Mr. Paul Szabo: What level of election are you referring to—municipal, federal, or provincial?

Mr. John Mooney: That's dealt with in the definition of an election in proposed subsection 111(1) on page 149 of the bill. An election is strictly “a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal election”.

Mr. Paul Szabo: And what is your objection to someone who has not been a candidate but has knowledge and would like to raise an allegation for the attention of the commission, and leave it up to the commission—because it does say “may investigate”? Why wouldn't we want to help the commission become aware of allegations that may bring disrepute or some negative view with regard to the process and the integrity of the act?

¿ (0955)

Mr. John Mooney: The reasoning of the government here was to carry over the present system. The present system—

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a motion then.

The Chair: I have to give you some notice here, Mr. Szabo. I want to be very clear about this. If I've been following your conversation correctly, you are wishing to move an amendment to proposed section 118 within clause 12, but I will put you on notice that an amendment has already been moved on that clause. Depending on the position of the wording of your amendment, you may be in conflict. But I'll hear your amendment first.

Mr. Forseth, and then I'll come back to you, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. I hope our people at the end of the table can listen to me for a second.

I see a couple of problems. There is the issue of why limit it to a person who had been a candidate. That's the larger concept that Mr. Szabo brought forward.

The other issue is a candidate in an election. It doesn't specify a candidate in the election for which there is a concern. You almost need additional qualifiers, “has been a candidate in the election of the complaint” or “in the election concerning the allegation”, because you could have a candidate...they may meet the complaint time limits within what the regulation says, but they might have been a candidate at another election somewhere else and still be able to meet both criteria. So you have to specify the time the complaint is made and you have to specify clearly who's eligible to trigger that investigation based on an allegation. And candidate “in an election” would be candidate “in the election in question” or something like that, to qualify both.

The other suggestion, Mr. Szabo, is to simply say that the commission may investigate an allegation pursuant to regulations or something, then you could have a whole series of paragraphs spelling out time limits and who and what, whatever, in the regulations, if you get too bound up in trying to do it in the bill.

I inherently see a hole there that is partially covered by other parts of the bill but is still not covered by what I've heard you say, being the candidate “in an election”. If you had “in an election in question”, then it would relate that yes, indeed, the common sense thing is that there was an offence at that time in an election by the candidate who was involved in that particular election, but it doesn't read that way in the current wording.

Do you get my drift?

The Chair: Okay. Now, do we have an amendment?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I move that Bill C-25 in clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36 on page 152 with the following--

The Chair: Which is sort of proposed section 118 within clause 12, line 35--

Mr. Paul Szabo: Lines 35 and 36.

The Chair: Do you want to replace them all, or do you want to...? Go ahead, yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: It would be by replacing lines 35 and 36 with the following: “allegation, in accordance with the regulations, that an”.

The Chair: Is everybody clear on what's being proposed?

Mr. John Mooney: May I make a suggestion?

The Chair: Do you want to make a suggestion on the wording, Mr. Mooney? Let's do that.

Mr. John Mooney: It's preferable, generally, that the act says who can make an allegation. Your suggestion is that the commission may investigate any allegation. So if the commission may investigate any allegation, it sort of has the power to filter a bit those it wants or doesn't want. I'm not sure that “in accordance with the regulations” is necessary.

À (1000)

Mr. Paul Szabo: I think it is, because you can decide in regulations what are pertinent to this clause.

The Chair: Let's get the wording of this, Mr. Szabo, before we proceed with the debate. I'd like the words. I'd like you to read me your motion, please.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That Bill C-25 in clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36 with the following....

The Chair: Lines 35 and 36 on page 152 in the English version?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Sorry, yes, on page 152. They would be replaced with the following: “allegation, in accordance with the regulations, that an”.

The Chair: That's the motion?

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's the motion.

The Chair: Thank you. So moved.

Monsieur Paquette, do you wish to make a comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I'd rather the clerk read the French version of the amendment to us.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'll repeat it in English, and he can listen to it in French.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: It's just that the interpretation doesn't always line up exactly with the text. From a legislative standpoint, I want to know exactly what I'm voting on in French. It's not the translators' responsibility to decide how the text will be drafted. It's not that I didn't understand. I want to know how this will affect the French version.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Paquette, if you will just give us a moment, we'll come back to you with that version.

I agree. We've run into this problem before. You're right. It is not always exact. We do not have the official translators here, but we have to approve each change, so your point is well taken. It's important we get it done.

Yes, Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Just while we're waiting, Mr. Chair, have we dealt with Bloc amendment BQ-114, which deals with this? I've been in and out of this meeting.

The Chair: Amendment BQ-114 was ruled out of order because there was a line conflict. What happened was Canadian Alliance amendment CA-5 was accepted, and it amended two of the lines within it. Then the Bloc motion came along, but it was amending the lines that had already been amended. The line conflict ruled it out of order. This amendment comes in and actually deals with the top two lines the Bloc amendment was designed to deal with.

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I wonder, through you, Mr. Chair, if we could ask Mr. Szabo again to explain the rationale for this amendment.

The Chair: I'll permit that while we're working on the translation.

Mr. Paul Szabo: The current clause restricts allegations to being made only by those persons who are or have been a candidate in an election. The rationale is that should there be another person who has direct knowledge of a breach of a provision of the act, the commission and the process would be facilitated by at least having the knowledge of an allegation, regardless of who it comes from, and they would always retain the option of whether to investigate. It says they “may” investigate. It's simply to say it's not just a candidate who can make an allegation, but anybody who has knowledge of an allegation, and it's up to the commission to determine what course of action would be taken.

À (1005)

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The people at the end of the table wanted to comment.

The Chair: Yes, I'm just coming to that, Mr. Foresight.

An hon. member:Forseth.

The Chair: Well, we've attributed some foresight.

Mr. Tirabassi, while we're waiting for the translation to come, would you care to comment?

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

Regarding the concerns expressed by the department, in consultation with the department, we are prepared to support this particular amendment. I guess we're just waiting for the French.

The Chair: Then we will await the translation, which I suspect will not be long, given there are only about six words involved.

Okay, Mr. Paquette, you've seen the French version of this. Are you satisfied?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes, I am.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now, seeing no further indication of a desire to debate, I will call the question on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Szabo.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, your persuasive talents are enormous.

(Clause 12 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: What is left are basically the schedules and the title.

Shall schedule 1 carry?

(Schedule 1 agreed to on division)

The Chair: I need to note that some of you may have noticed that there's a typographical error in schedule 2. The corrected text will appear when the bill is reprinted.

Shall schedule 2 carry?

(Schedule 2 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall we all go for coffee?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Could I have order for a few more minutes, please?

Mr. Tirabassi.

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

I hope you'll entertain these comments as in order.

This is the first bill I've had an opportunity to take through a committee. I would like to take this moment to sincerely thank the chair, all members of the committee, certainly the task force, and the department. As you know, although our particular exercise involved some three months, this was two years in the making.

I would like to conclude by expressing my appreciation for the cooperation around the table, again, from the task force and the department in seeing this through to this stage. I know there's more to come.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

I would like to add to that. This has been a somewhat unusual process. I think I need to make a couple of comments, though.

I think the attitude and the actions of the minister in this case have been exemplary. Her willingness, your willingness, and the willingness of the office and officials to meet with members to discuss possible amendments and to accept amendments has been exemplary.

There are some concerns about the structure of these bills in general. It's not only this bill. It is bills that embed bills within bills. This has come up in the House several times. I will deal with it. Although that is not a reflection on the choices in this particular bill alone, this is a more general concern to the House for reasons that we witnessed in going through this bill. It becomes difficult to proceed with it.

We have also been plagued with other problems. Our clerk's father died in the midst of this, and we had a series of clerks. It has been a tumultuous process at times, but I think there has been a lot of good faith and willingness to get on with this.

I appreciate everyone's efforts. We can now go to the recess and maybe take a few minutes to relax, while the officials work through the holiday in order to get this thing ready for the next stage.

Thank you very much.

We are adjourned.