Journals of the Senate
55 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2006, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 39th Parliament
Issue 51
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
2:00 p.m.
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Bryden, Campbell, Carney, Carstairs, Champagne, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Cowan, Dawson, Day, Di Nino, Downe, Dyck, Eggleton, Eyton, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, Fox, Fraser, Furey, Goldstein, Grafstein, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Lapointe, LeBreton, Lovelace Nicholas, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Mercer, Merchant, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pépin, Peterson, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, St. Germain, Segal, Sibbeston, Smith, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Watt, Zimmer
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Bryden, Campbell, Carney, Carstairs, Champagne, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Cowan, Dawson, Day, Di Nino, Downe, Dyck, Eggleton, Eyton, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, *Fortier, Fox, Fraser, Furey, Goldstein, Grafstein, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, *Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Lapointe, LeBreton, Lovelace Nicholas, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Mercer, Merchant, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, *Nancy Ruth, Nolin, Oliver, Pépin, Peterson, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), Poy, *Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, St. Germain, Segal, Sibbeston, Smith, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Watt, Zimmer
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Kenny, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, tabled its fourth report (interim), as amended, entitled: Managing Turmoil, The Need to Upgrade Canadian Foreign Aid and Military Strength to Deal with Massive Change.—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-578S.
The Honourable Senator Kenny moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Furey, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
A message was brought from the House of Commons with a Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, to which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.
The bill was read the first time.
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino, that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading two days hence.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations
The Honourable Senator Champagne, P.C., tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Section of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) respecting its participation at the APF Bureau Meeting and the XXXII Session of the APF, held in Rabat, Morocco, from June 29 to July 3, 2006.—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-579.
Notices of Motions
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Segal moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Keon:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has the power to sit at 5:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, November 21, 2006, even though the Senate may then be sitting and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS
Pursuant to rule 25(2), the Honourable Senator Comeau, tabled the following:
Reply to Question No. 5, dated April 4, 2006, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Downe, respecting the Jean Canfield Building.—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-580S.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator LeBreton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, for the second reading of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Milne moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Order No. 3 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Second reading of Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
The Honourable Senator Di Nino moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson, that the bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cowan moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Jaffer, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino, for the second reading of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Reports of Committees
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Hays tabled the following:
Copies of letters dated August 18, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 22, 2006 to the Chair of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform, from the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of the Northwest Territories and the Minister of Government Relations in Saskatchewan, respecting Senate reform.—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-581S.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-204, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 8 to 10 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hays, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser, for the adoption of the second report of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform (motion to amend the Constitution of Canada (western regional representation in the Senate), without amendment but with observations), presented in the Senate on October 26, 2006.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Tkachuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Keon, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the tenth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, entitled: Passports and PASS Cards, Identity and Citizenship: Implementing the WHTI, tabled in the Senate on October 24, 2006.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau, for the Honourable Senator Angus, moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that further debate on the consideration of the report be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Day, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the adoption of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance (Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (elimination of bureaucratic patronage and geographic criteria in appointment processes), with an amendment), presented in the Senate on October 3, 2006.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Other
Order No. 20 (inquiry) was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the State of Literacy in Canada, which will give every Senator in this Chamber the opportunity to speak out on an issue in our country that is often forgotten.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator LeBreton, P.C. moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Order No. 15 (inquiry) was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy:
That the Senate urge the government to accompany all government bills by a social and economic impact study on regions and minorities in accordance to the Senate's role of representation and protection of minorities and regions.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted, on division.
Orders No. 17, 6, 11 (inquiries), 5 (motion), 19, 8, 12 (inquiries), 101 (motion), 9, 7 and 3 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Banks moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore:
That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration be directed to examine and determine, in light of recent discussions and in light of present Rules, procedures, practices and conventions of the Senate, whether it is appropriate or permissible that persons working in the offices of senators, including senators who are Ministers of the Crown, should obtain or attempt to obtain from hotels used by senators conducting business properly authorized by the Senate, detailed breakdowns including lunches or other costs included in hotel invoices, and including any and all sundry costs associated with the stay; and
That the Committee be directed to report its determination to the Senate no later than Thursday, December 7, 2006.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was negatived on the following vote:
YEAS
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Angus, Champagne, Cochrane, Comeau, Di Nino, Gustafson, Johnson, Keon, LeBreton, Nolin, Oliver, Segal, Stratton, Tkachuk—15
NAYS
The Honourable Senators
Atkins, Austin, Banks, Campbell, Cook, Corbin, Dawson, Day, Downe, Eggleton, Fairbairn, Fraser, Furey, Goldstein, Hays, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kenny, Lapointe, Mahovlich, Mercer, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Ringuette, Robichaud, Stollery, Tardif, Zimmer—31
ABSTENTIONS
The Honourable Senators
Nil
The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Banks, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore:
That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration be directed to examine and determine, in light of recent discussions and in light of present Rules, procedures, practices and conventions of the Senate, whether it is appropriate or permissible that persons working in the offices of senators, including senators who are Ministers of the Crown, should obtain or attempt to obtain from hotels used by senators conducting business properly authorized by the Senate, detailed breakdowns including lunches or other costs included in hotel invoices, and including any and all sundry costs associated with the stay; and
That the Committee be directed to report its determination to the Senate no later than Thursday, December 7, 2006.
After debate,
In amendment, the Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the motion be amended by deleting the word "and'' at the end of the first paragraph and by adding the following paragraph immediately thereafter:
"That the Committee be directed to take into consideration whether it would be appropriate or permissible for persons working in the offices of Senators to obtain from hotels replacement receipts for the Senator in whose office they work should the originals be misplaced or be otherwise unavailable; and''.
Debate.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the power to sit today, Tuesday, November 21, 2006, even though the Senate may then be sitting and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Johnson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has the power to sit today, Tuesday, November 21, 2006, even though the Senate may then be sitting and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
MOTIONS
The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Banks, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore:
That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration be directed to examine and determine, in light of recent discussions and in light of present Rules, procedures, practices and conventions of the Senate, whether it is appropriate or permissible that persons working in the offices of senators, including senators who are Ministers of the Crown, should obtain or attempt to obtain from hotels used by senators conducting business properly authorized by the Senate, detailed breakdowns including lunches or other costs included in hotel invoices, and including any and all sundry costs associated with the stay; and
That the Committee be directed to report its determination to the Senate no later than Thursday, December 7, 2006;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Comeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the motion be amended by deleting the word "and'' at the end of the first paragraph and by adding the following paragraph immediately thereafter:
"That the Committee be directed to take into consideration whether it would be appropriate or permissible for persons working in the offices of Senators to obtain from hotels replacement receipts for the Senator in whose office they work should the originals be misplaced or be otherwise unavailable; and''.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Tkachuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Angus, that further debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on the following vote:
YEAS
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Angus, Comeau, Di Nino, Gustafson, Johnson, Keon, LeBreton, Nolin, Oliver, Segal, Stratton, Tkachuk—13
NAYS
The Honourable Senators
Mercer—1
ABSTENTIONS
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Atkins, Banks, Campbell, Cook, Corbin, Cowan, Dawson, Day, Downe, Fairbairn, Fraser, Furey, Hays, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kenny, Lapointe, Mahovlich, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Phalen, Robichaud, Stollery, Tardif, Watt, Zimmer—29
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Banks tabled the following:
Copies of invoices of the Marriott London Grosvenor Square Hotel, dated September 8, 2006, copies of invoices of the Carlton Ambassador Hotel, The Hague, dated September 9, 2006 and copy of an electronic correspondence, dated October 2, 2006 (English Texts).—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-582S.
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
A message was brought from the House of Commons with a Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Judges Act and certain other Acts in relation to courts, to which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.
The bill was read the first time.
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading two days hence.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
A message was brought from the House of Commons in the following words:
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
ORDERED,—That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House:
Agrees with amendments numbered 1, 3, 13, 16, 17, 21, 26, 27, 32, 33, 55(e)(i), 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 72 to 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 103 to 106, 111, 112, 114, 117, 122, 124 to 127, 135, 144, 146, 152, 156 and 158 made by the Senate to Bill C-2, An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability; but
Disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 29, 98 and 153, because this House believes that amendments 2, 4 to 12, 14, 15, 18 to 20, 22 to 25, 28, 30, 31, 34 to 54, 55(a) to (d), 55(e)(ii) to (viii), 56 to 62, 65, 68, 69, 71, 80, 83, 85, 88 to 90, 92, 94, 96, 100 to 102, 107 to 110, 113, 115, 116, 118 to 121, 123, 128 to 134, 136 to 143, 145, 147 to 151, 154, 155 and 157 are in contradiction with the principles of the bill of effectively strengthening accountability, increasing transparency, improving oversight and building confidence in government and parliamentary institutions, and that these amendments contradict the stated policy goal of rebuilding the public's trust in the institutions of government; and
That this House considers this matter to be of significant importance and urges their Honours to respond expeditiously to this message.
More specifically:
Amendment 2 would weaken the Conflict of Interest Act by removing the prohibition on public office holders who have duties in respect of the House or Senate, or their families, on contracting with the House or Senate;
Amendments 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 15 would undermine the ability of public office holders to discharge their duties and substitute the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for Parliament or the public as the final arbiter of an appearance of conflict by expanding the definition of "conflict of interest'' under the Conflict of Interest Act to include "potential'' and "apparent'' conflicts of interest;
Amendments 6, 28, 30 and 31 would weaken the Conflict of Interest Act by preventing the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner from issuing an order to a minister or parliamentary secretary to recuse himself or herself from voting on or debating matters in Parliament when doing so would place them in a conflict of interest as well as limiting the timeframe within which an investigation may be carried out;
Amendments 7, 10 and 14 are an inappropriate intrusion into the private lives of public office holders and their families as they would narrow the exemption for gifts to public office holders from "friends'' to "close personal friends'' and require that any gift over $200 to a reporting public office holder or his or her family from any person other than a relative be disclosed to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and publicly reported;
Amendments 18, 23 and 24 would undermine the capacity of the Prime Minister to discipline ministers and maintain the integrity of the Ministry by eliminating the ability of the Prime Minister to seek "confidential advice'' from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to specific public office holders;
Amendment 19 would deter the public from bringing matters to the attention of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner through a member of either House, create unfairness to individuals who are subject to complaints whose merits have not been substantiated and undermine the Commissioner's investigatory capacity by deleting the provisions that would protect the anonymity of a member of the public and allow the Commissioner to complete an investigation before the matter were made public by requiring members of either House to keep confidential information received from the public about a possible conflict of interest until the Commissioner issued a report;
Amendments 20 and 22 would prohibit the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner from issuing a public report where the request for an examination was frivolous, vexatious or otherwise without basis thereby reducing transparency and requiring a public office holder who has been exonerated to publicize on his or her own a ruling to clear his or her name;
Amendments 25, 34 to 54, 55(a) to (d), 55(e)(ii) to (viii), 56 to 62, 65 and 94 are unacceptable because they would continue the separate existence of the Senate Ethics Officer contrary to the goal of a unified Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner who could bring a broad perspective to bear on conflict of interest and ethical matters;
Amendments 68 and 69 are unacceptable because they contravene the objective of reducing undue influence in the electoral process by raising the annual political contribution limits from $1,000 to $2,000 and providing for a "multiplier'' so that the contribution limit is increased by an amount equivalent to the limit for each general election held within a single year;
Amendment 71 would undermine the capacity of the Commissioner of Elections to investigate alleged offences under the Canada Elections Act. The amendment would shorten the overall limitation period from ten years to seven years after the offence was committed (reverting to the status quo) and change the knowledge portion of the limitation period from five years to two years from the time the Commissioner of Canada Elections had knowledge of the facts giving rise to the offence. This would not address the current problems with the limitation period that were identified by the Chief Electoral Officer and only provide an additional six months during which the Commissioner must complete several hundred concurrent investigations after an election;
Amendments 80 and 89 would undermine the authority of the Commissioner of Lobbying by removing the Commissioner's discretion to determine whether to report on the failures of designated public office holders to verify information filed by lobbyists and shortening the period of investigation and limitation period in which the Commissioner may conduct an investigation;
Amendment 83 would seriously weaken the scope of the five-year prohibition on lobbying by designated public office holders by allowing them to accept employment with an organization that engages in lobbying activities provided that they themselves do not spend a significant part of their time engaged in lobbying activities;
Amendment 85 would create significant uncertainty in the private sector and create an inappropriate incentive for corporations to prefer consultant lobbyists over in-house lobbyists as all employees of any corporation that contracts with the Government of Canada would be prohibited for five years from engaging in any lobbying activities with the department involved in the contract. The amendment does not provide for any exemptions from this prohibition and potentially subjects these individuals to criminal liability;
Amendments 88 and 90 would add a prohibition for obstructing the Commissioner of Lobbying and create a specific offence for the failure to comply with a prohibition on communication ordered by the Commissioner. The Bill already contemplates these matters in section 80;
Amendments 92 and 113(a) would not substantively amend the Access to Information Act provisions that apply to the Commissioner of Lobbying as proposed in the Bill. However, these amendments, which only go to form, would technically mean that the government institutions listed in section 144 of the Bill, such as the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, could not be brought under the Access to Information Act until the Commissioner of Lobbying is brought into existence;
Amendment 96 would undermine the merit-based system of employment in the public service by continuing to unfairly protect the priority status of exempt staff who leave their positions after the coming into force of the provision rather than requiring them to compete with public servants for positions in the public service;
Amendments 100 and 102 would unacceptably interfere with the exercise of authority by the Government by requiring the Governor in Council to only appoint the Parliamentary Budget Officer from a list of candidates submitted by the selection committee. In addition, these amendments would fix the membership of the selection committee rather than leaving it to the discretion of the Parliamentary Librarian;
Amendment 101 would unnecessarily complicate the procedure by which the selection committee informs the Governor in Council of their list of candidates for the Parliamentary Budget Officer by requiring, in addition to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, that the Leader of the Government in the Senate present the list;
Amendments 107, 109 and 110 would involve members of the Senate in the appointment and removal process for the Director of Public Prosecutions. As this is a body housed within the Executive branch of the government, the involvement of the Senate in the appointment process is inappropriate;
Amendment 108 would undermine the authority of the Attorney General to determine which candidates the selection committee should assess for the position of Director of Public Prosecutions. As this position is exercising authority under and on behalf of the Attorney General, the amendment is an unacceptable interference in the Government's exercise of its executive authority;
Amendment 113(b) would seriously weaken the audit and investigatory capacity of the Auditor General and Official Languages Commissioner. The amendment would limit the exemption in subsection 16.1(1) of the Access to Information Act so that it does not apply to records that contain information created in the course of an investigation once the investigation and related proceedings are completed and would undermine an investigator's ability to guarantee anonymity to a potential witness;
Amendments 115 and 116 would undermine the objective of greater transparency for the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology by providing the Foundation with specific exemptions that are unnecessary given the nature of its business which is similar to that of other government institutions under the Access to Information Act such as the Department of Industry and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency;
Amendment 118, which is related to Senate amendment 113(b), would seriously weaken the internal audit capacity of the Government by permitting the disclosure of "related audit working papers'' in addition to "draft reports'' under the Access to Information Act where a final report has not been delivered within two years;
Amendment 119 would reverse the policy on which the Access to Information Act was based, which policy was not changed in the Bill as passed by this House. The amendment would undermine the balance between discretionary and mandatory exemptions in the Access to Information Act by giving the heads of government institutions the discretion to override existing and proposed mandatory exemptions. In addition, the amendment would give de facto order powers to the Information Commissioner, who, as a head of a proposed government institution to be brought under the Access to Information Act by this Bill, would be able to disclose records obtained from other government institutions;
Amendments 120, 121 and 123 would undermine the objective of greater transparency by forever excepting from the application of the Access to Information Act information under the control of certain government institutions prior to when those institutions become subject to the Act and by removing the Canadian Wheat Board from the coverage of this Act;
Amendments 128 and 131 would undermine the objective of stronger protection for public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public sector by creating confusion as to the types of disclosure that are protected or not under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The amendments would confuse the clear parameters set in the Act to guide public servants who are considering making a disclosure by incorporating vague common law principles, which could lead to public servants making public disclosures that they think are protected, but turn out not to be;
Amendments 129 and 132 would unbalance the reprisal protection regime proposed in the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act by expanding the definition of "reprisal'' to include "any other measure that may adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the public servant'' and providing for a reverse onus, such that any administrative or disciplinary measure taken within a year of a disclosure is deemed to be a reprisal, unless the employer shows otherwise. These amendments would expand the definition of reprisal to include behaviours unlikely to be under the control of the employer and managers will be reluctant to take legitimate disciplinary action for fear of being the subject of a reprisal complaint, which would expose them personally to a disciplinary order by the Tribunal;
Amendment 130 would increase the risk of disclosure of sensitive national security information by subjecting the Communications Security Establishment and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act without additional specific disclosure protection measures;
Amendment 133 would extend the time limit to file a reprisal complaint from 60 days to one year. The amendment undermines the discretion of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner who already has the authority to extend the time limit beyond 60 days if he or she feels it is appropriate;
Amendment 134 would undermine the objective of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to balance appropriate and responsible protection from reprisal for public servants that make a disclosure without creating unintended incentives for vexatious or frivolous complaints. The amendment would remove the $10,000 limit on awards for pain and suffering, leaving the amount to the discretion of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal;
Amendment 136 would undermine the principles of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act by increasing the maximum amount for legal advice from $1,500 to $25,000, or to an unlimited amount at the discretion of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. The legal assistance is intended to provide any person who could become involved in a process under the Act with legal advice as to their choices, rights and responsibilities. In relation to reprisal complaints, the Commissioner investigates and determines whether a reprisal complaint should be brought before the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal and is a party before the Tribunal so that he or she can present the findings of the investigation. The amendment would make all processes under the Act far more legalistic and litigious;
Amendments 137 and 138 would give the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner the power to compel evidence and pursue information held outside the public sector. This amendment is unacceptable as it would increase the risk of challenges to the Commissioner's authority and jurisdiction without providing significant assistance to the discharge of his or her mandate under the Act, which is to investigate wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal related to the public sector;
Amendments 139 to 143 would increase the risk of harm to the reputations of those that are falsely accused of wrongdoing as the narrowing of exemptions provided to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and other heads of institutions under the Access to Information Act, Privacy Act and Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act would increase the risk of their names being released to the public;
Amendments 145, 151 and 154 would limit the capacity of the Governor in Council to organize the machinery of government, specifically with respect to the establishment of the Public Appointments Commission and the position of the Procurement Auditor, and as such are unacceptable;
Amendment 147 would explicitly require reappointments to the Public Appointments Commission go through the same statutory requirements as an appointment. The amendment is unnecessary and redundant because a reappointment is a new appointment and, as such, must conform to all relevant statutory requirements;
Amendment 148 would involve members of the Senate in the appointment of members to the Public Appointments Commission. As this is a body housed within the executive branch of the government, the involvement of the Senate in the appointment process is inappropriate;
Amendment 149 would create confusion as to the proper role of "appointees'' in the Governor in Council appointment process under the Salaries Act by expanding the mandate of the Public Appointments Commission to include educating and training appointees, who are not involved in the appointment process;
Amendment 150 would expand the term of appointees to the Public Appointments Commission from five to seven years and is unacceptable as that length of term is not necessary for the efficient and effective working of the Commission;
Amendment 155 would undermine the confidence of private sector suppliers in the government as a business partner and could increase the number of legal actions brought against the government by giving the Procurement Auditor the discretion to recommend the cancellation of a contract to which a complaint relates. The Procurement Auditor was not provided the powers, duties and functions to discharge a mandate that would include reviewing the legal validity of a contract award, but rather the mandate was focussed on whether government procurement practices reflect the government's commitment to fairness, openness and transparency in the procurement process;
Amendment 157 would increase the risk of disclosure of sensitive national security information by removing the ability of the Governor in Council to prescribe, through regulation, those departments would fall within the jurisdiction of the Procurement Auditor; and
That this House agrees with the principles set out in parts of amendments 29, 98 and 153 but would propose the following amendments:
Senate amendment 29 be amended to read as follows:
Clause 2, page 32: Replace lines 23 to 25 with the following:
"64. (1) Subject to subsection 6(2) and sections 21 and 30, nothing in this Act prohibits a member of the Senate or the House of Commons who is a public office holder or former public office holder from engaging in those''
Senate amendment 98 be amended to read as follows:
Clause 108, page 94: Replace lines 1 to 2 with the following:
"(4) Sections 41 to 43, subsections 44(3) and (4) and sections 45 to 55, 57 and 60 to 64 come into force or are deemed to have come into force on January 1, 2007.
(4.1) Sections 63 and 64 come into force or are deemed to have come into force on January 1, 2007, but''
Senate amendment 153 be amended to read as follows:
Clause 259, page 187: Add after line 12 the following:
"16.21(1) A person who does not occupy a position in the federal public administration but who meets the qualifications established by directive of the Treasury Board may be appointed to an audit committee by the Treasury Board on the recommendation of the President of the Treasury Board.
(2) A member of an audit committee so appointed holds office during pleasure for a term not exceeding four years, which may be renewed for a second term.
(3) A member of an audit committee so appointed shall be paid the remuneration and expenses fixed by the Treasury Board.''
ATTEST:
AUDREY O'BRIEN
The Clerk of the House of Commons
The Honourable Senator LeBreton, P.C. moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that the Message be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 28(2):
Summary of the Capital Budget for 2007-2011 of the Business Development Bank of Canada, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4).—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-574.
Summaries of the Corporate Plan for the period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2006-2007 of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). —Sessional Paper No. 1/39-575.
Report of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2).—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-576.
Copies of Orders in Council P.C. 2006-102, P.C. 2006-517, P.C. 2006-1047 concerning federal-provincial agreements with Quebec, Alberta, Ontario and Prince Edward Island, pursuant to the Farm Income Protection Act, S.C. 1991, c. 22, sbs. 12(7). —Sessional Paper No. 1/39-577.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 8:45 p.m. the Senate was continued until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.)
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The name of the Honourable Senator Mahovlich substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Jaffer (November 6).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The name of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Stratton (November 16).
The names of the Honourable Senators Cowan and Nolin substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Dawson and Nancy Ruth (November 17).
Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
The name of the Honourable Senator Mitchell removed from the membership (November 17).
Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
The names of the Honourable Senators Poulin and Jaffer substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Dawson and Chaput (November 17).
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology
The name of the Honourable Senator Fairbairn substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Peterson (November 17).