Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of April 2, 2008
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill S-219, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (elimination of bureaucratic patronage and establishment of national area of selection), met this day at 6:17 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Terry Stratton (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: This meeting is for the motion to begin clause-by-clause consideration of Senator Ringuette's bill.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-219, An Act to Amend the Public Service Employment Act (elimination of bureaucratic patronage and establishment of national area of selection)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title be postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chair, I have some amendments that I will be proposing on clause 3. This is a private member's bill, and I believ it is appropriate that we have a brief discussion out of respect to our colleague.
When Ms. Barrados was a witness, she expressed concern about this clause as it relates to the national area of selection. She felt quite strongly, in effect stating that the bill would unduly limit discretion of the public service staffing.
We should also remind ourselves that we all agreed that since Ms. Barrados has been in this position, great improvements have taken place. As a matter of fact, we were all pleased that, under her tutelage, so much had been dealt with. There is no reason to believe that that will not continue.
In that vein, I propose an amendment to clause 3. I have provided two versions and hoped that Senator Ringuette would look at the two versions. These were the items that were dealt with by Ms. Barrados. She had suggested that she wanted to retain the authority of making regulations. There was some concern that that would be too wide.
The second suggestion she had is where she, in effect, details the exceptions. They are (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
I am happy to start with one of the amendments and see if it gets passed, or start with the other one, if it would be an easier amendment. I suggest that Senator Ringuette give us an opinion.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, Senator Di Nino, for your interest and for submitting these two possible amendments to clause 3. However, I would like to remind the members of this committee that this bill deals with positions that are advertised. It is my guesstimate that throughout the public service, the positions that are advertised are probably not even 20 per cent of the total. I believe Ms. Barrados gave us the figures yesterday to support that.
Therefore, I feel the two amendments that are proposed are not required. The flexibility within the system is there. From my perspective, it is already exaggerated. I can understand that Ms. Barrados is caught between certain wants and a group of people telling her, no. That is not necessarily us.
I have not yet seen any seasonal jobs, any jobs for six months or less, or any part-time student jobs advertised on the public commission website. You will have noticed that in the last four years, I go to that site regularly to see what is happening.
This is not necessary. It is not even the current part of the advertised jobs. I do not agree with the two proposed amendments to clause 3.
Senator Di Nino: Officially, I will do this one at a time so that we can deal with and dispose of them however this committee wishes.
Mr. Chair, I move:
That Bill S-219 be amended in clause 3 on page 1,
(a) by replacing line 22 with the following:
``national area of selection, except in circumstances prescribed by regulations made by the Commission.''; and
(b) by replacing line 25 with the following:
``any selection or ap-''.
We also have it in French. I move that, Mr. Chair.
The Deputy Chair: Any discussion? Are you ready for the vote?
All those in favour of the amendment will say ``aye.''
Senator Di Nino: Aye.
The Deputy Chair: All those opposed will say ``nay.''
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Deputy Chair: It looks like the ``nays'' have it. Do you want a recorded vote?
Senator Di Nino: No. This is fine.
I go to my second alternative on that. I move:
That Bill S-219 be amended in clause 3, on page 1,
(a) by replacing line 22 with the following:
``national area of selection, except in the circumstances determined by the Commission, including:
(a) the appointment of persons not ordinarily required to work more than one third of the normal period for persons doing similar work;
(b) the appointment of persons performing duties of a seasonal nature;
(c) an appointment for a specified period of six months or less;
(d) in cases of urgent operational requirements; and
(e) an appointment for part-time student employment under a program identified by the Commission.''; and
(b) by replacing line 25 with the following:
``any selection or ap-.''
The Deputy Chair: Is there any discussion? Are you ready for the vote? All those in favour?
Senator Di Nino: Aye.
The Deputy Chair: All those opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Senator Di Nino: I have another amendment to suggest, which hopefully will be accepted, because it does not seem to be unreasonable. That deals with the coming into force.
Senator Ringuette: We have to approve clause 3 before we move to clause 4.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, we cannot move on. You are on clause 4.
Senator Di Nino: It is a new clause. You are right.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any other amendments to clause 3? Therefore, shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: On division.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chair, I would like to suggest that we should add a clause 4, which would deal with the coming into force of the bill.
When we asked Ms. Barrados whether January 1, 2009 would be a reasonable date, I believe she said — I am not quoting but paraphrasing — that she thought she could do it, but she would be more comfortable if the coming into force would be no later than January 1, 2010.
Therefore, I move:
That Bill S-219 be amended on page 1, by adding after line 27 the following:
``4. Section 3 comes into force on a day, not later than January 1, 2010, to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.''.
The Deputy Chair: Any discussion with respect to this amendment?
Senator Ringuette: Again, I appreciate Senator Di Nino's proposed new clause. We are already one year delayed into what was a promise. We have to expect that there have been some possible technical issues. The new deadline is December 2008. That is a year later. Being the reasonable legislature that we are, we have accepted Ms. Barrados' goodwill.
However, that being said, going to January 1, 2010 is exaggerated. I truly believe that if it is the will of the members of this committee to have a deadline within the bill, then it would be agreeable to look at January 1, 2009. However, January 1, 2010 is two years away, for a bill that has already been brought forward for the last four years. That is the degree of efficiency that we have in the system.
May I remind my colleagues that it was in 2004-05 that we had the new Public Service Employment Act, Bill C-2, in front of us, and the Treasury Board had given $42 million to the Public Service Commission to put into place the right technology to move toward this. We are looking at the funds being received in 2004. I can understand the purchasing process, the implementation process, and so on, but I certainly do not agree that January 1, 2010 is an acceptable additional time frame. If my colleagues feel that we have to put a date in the bill, I would agree with January 1, 2009.
Senator Di Nino, do you want me to propose a subamendment?
Senator Di Nino: No. I feel that is totally unfair to Ms. Barrados. The bill says December 2008. What are we giving her; an extra few days?
Senator Ringuette: This is an extra year.
Senator Di Nino: You said January 1, 2009.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, which is already a year later than it was supposed to be.
Senator Di Nino: Ms. Barrados said December 2008 in her recommendation. She will do what she has to do. She has already told us that by the end of 2008 she will have that completed. To ask her to complete it by January 1, 2009 is not doing her any favours.
We have to understand that each and every one of us has been tremendously impressed with the performance of this department since Ms. Barrados has taken charge. She and her team have accomplished a great deal. She gave us some statistics. I do not want to try to remember what they were, but certainly all of us congratulated her. To show no goodwill toward her I feel is inappropriate.
She said, ``No later than a year from my commitment to you to do it by the end of this year.'' That is not an unreasonable request.
Senator Ringuette: May I add that yesterday Ms. Barrados also said that an additional six months would reassure her that everything would be in the right order to implement the bill. If you are agreeable, why do we not look at January 1, 2009? That would give her the additional six months that she was talking about yesterday.
The Deputy Chair: My recollection is that she was would have this implemented by the end of 2008.
Senator Di Nino: Ms. Barrados said by the end of 2008.
The Deputy Chair: When you say January 1, 2009, there is not much difference.
Senator Di Nino: It is not a concession; it is an insult. I apologize for that. I do not mean it that way. If she said to you her intent is to complete this by December 2008 — which, if I look at the information, it is there — then to say to her we will give her an extra day I feel is more of an insult.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Di Nino, you have to bear in mind that there has already been an additional year in regard to her previous commitment. There can be some glitches in the system and so forth.
Senator Di Nino: I believe she has performed a miracle.
Senator Ringuette: December 2008 is her new commitment. Yesterday, when you asked what was the additional time frame that she would feel comfortable with to ensure that it was all implemented, she said that she could use another six months.
Senator Di Nino: From December 2008, at least.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, that is why I said to you that I am ready to compromise to July 1, 2009.
Senator Di Nino: You said January.
Senator Cowan: You said January.
Senator Ringuette: I am sorry.
The Deputy Chair: That is why we could not understand what the extra day was for.
Senator Ringuette: I am sorry.
Senator Di Nino: I would prefer the other date. However, out of respect for Ms. Barrados, if for no other reason than to indicate that we are listening to her, I would accept a compromised change to July 1, 2009.
Senator Ringuette: Do we need to rephrase the amendment?
Senator Di Nino: I will rephrase it now. I move:
That Bill S-219 be amended on page 1, by adding after line 27 the following:
``4: Section 3 comes into force on a day, not later than July 1, 2009, to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.''.
In other words, the only change to my amendment, in both languages, is July 1, 2009, also in the French version.
The Deputy Chair: Do you want it read or are you satisfied? All those in favour of this amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Opposed?
Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry? This is the amendment.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: We are finished with the contents of the bill.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Di Nino: On division. If you had accepted all my amendments, I would have gone along with it.
Senator Cowan: You got more than you expected.
The Deputy Chair: Shall I report the bill to the Senate as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.