44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023
- 05:51:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I was going to ask that we change “not employed in the public service” to “not employed in the Public Service of Canada”. I think it's better defined.
Would the government be open to...? As I understand it, they're currently objecting to this. I guess they would still object to it if we put “the Public Service of Canada” versus “the public service”. In that case, if all opposition parties vote to support it, then it is not significantly material but it is material.
I guess that would be my subamendment then. One moment. Let me just confer with my desk.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:52:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Again, the subamendment would have to be in writing to our legislative clerk.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:52:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm going to withdraw the subamendment. It doesn't feel material enough to spend time on it at this point.
Thank you.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:52:39 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Okay.
We will go to Mr. Johns and then Mrs. Vignola.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:52:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm going to be really quick.
We heard many times from the witnesses about their concerns around this. It's funny, because we write laws. I know I'm one of the few “not lawyers” at this table here. Okay, I'm sorry. There are only a couple of lawyers, but I think you get my point.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:53:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We're into lawyer-bashing now, I see.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: We'll go to Ms. Vignola and then Mr. Fergus.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:53:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
The commissioner this committee wants to meet this week is not a member of the Canadian public service. She's an expert from New York. The government is applying the NDP amendment before it's even been passed. So I don't see why this amendment would be an issue right now.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:53:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:53:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Just because this candidate is not a Canadian public servant doesn't mean that no candidate should ever be a public servant. We're neutral on that concept, and Harriet Solloway's appointment simply proves that we're seeking the best possible candidate. However, this makes it impossible to appoint someone who's had a career in the Canadian public service. It's just a little strange.
I'd like to ask the witnesses whether this criterion creates a conflict of interest in the amendment.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:54:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you for your question.
Just in terms of the trust, I want to point out that those working for the Auditor General, those doing internal audits for the government, are public officials, and I think we all strive, as public servants, to be impartial and to do the best job possible. That's one thing.
Second, when you read the amendment, it says that, at appointment, the person should not be employed in the public service. Let's say that I apply. If I quit government the day before I am appointed, I can still be appointed as a PSIC. I don't think that this will have an impact at all, given how it's written because it says that the Government in Council appoint “a person not employed”. No one is employed because they will have given their notice to the federal or provincial government, wherever they work, in order to take on that job.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:56:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
It's Mr. Housefather, and then over to you, Mr. Johns.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:56:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Mr. Chair, I was going to ask a question about what the witness just clarified.
My understanding—and I just want to get it repeated—is that, essentially, someone who is in the public service can apply for the job. What this amendment would require is that the person from the public service, if they were indeed selected, would simply have to resign from the public service immediately prior to their appointment and they could still be appointed.
Is that a correct understanding?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:56:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, it is, and that's what happens now, because you cannot both work for the government as a federal public servant and be appointed by the GIC.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:57:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:57:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Just to wrap up again, I've outlined the case around the concerns raised by the Auditor General, judges in the judicial review and the focus group.
I'm going to move to a vote, but this is something we've heard loud and clear, so I'm hoping that we'll support it.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:57:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Please conduct the vote, Madam Clerk.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:58:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
The vote is five yeas and five nays.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:58:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm going to vote against on this one. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We have NDP-20.
Mr. Johns.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:58:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
NDP-20 is no longer relevant, so I'll withdraw NDP-20 and NDP-21.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:58:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We just won't put them forward.
(On clause 34)
The Chair: We are now on G-10.1, which is on page 41.1 of our package.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
