It's a legal term.
Evidence of meeting #17 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was make.
Evidence of meeting #17 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was make.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I don't think that's adequate in Ottawa, so we'll be aggressively pushing for an amendment that will in fact bar that practice.
Independent Journalist, As an Individual
Okay. You would somehow have to prove that the company, by working for the government on a particular issue, is also getting information from it that is going to help its clients, and that's very difficult to prove, that's all.
Independent Journalist, As an Individual
It's ethically beyond the pale, believe me. I have academics who are ethical wizards telling me it's a huge problem, which is why I raised it, and it's in my book. It's very hard to legislate; this is not an easy field to legislate in.
Independent Journalist, As an Individual
Or to make rules that people have to obey. With Chinese walls, you're basically saying somebody is unable to make that distinction in their head, which--
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
If they don't know the difference between right and wrong, then we have a real problem. This whole exercise is about elevating the standards of ethical practices in Ottawa.
Independent Journalist, As an Individual
It's certainly worth discussing, though.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Good afternoon, Ms. Curtis.
We seem to have reviewed all of the rules regarding lobbying. From what you have seen, does Bill C-2 protect us against lobbying by public servants internally? Let me give you an example. We have had an Information Commissioner who was a minister in a Liberal government. Under Bill C-2, would it be possible that such an individual could be appointed Information Commissioner?
Independent Journalist, As an Individual
Can you just repeat that? I'm not too sure what happened there. Sorry.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I see. Let me repeat my question. Does Bill C-2 protect us against lobbying from within? For example, is Bill C-2 strong enough to protect us in a situation where a public servant, in order to reach a higher level, would engage in a type of lobbying with his or her minister?
Independent Journalist, As an Individual
I don't think so. I must confess, I have not gone through this bill with an absolutely fine-tooth comb, but I don't think it treats that. I don't think it does. I don't think it's anything to do with what happens in government.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We still have a few minutes. Does anyone have any more questions or comments?
Do you have anything else you want to say?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We appreciate your remarks.
We will now recess for a short break.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We will reconvene.
Representing the Institut québécois d'éthique appliquée, we have two witnesses: the president, René Villemure, and the project manager, Michel Quintal. We also have Pierre F. Côté, the former Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec. Welcome to all three of you.
Both groups have an opportunity to say a few words to the committee, and then each caucus will have a question period of up to seven minutes.
Perhaps we could proceed with Mr. Villemure.
René Villemure President, Institut québécois d'éthique appliquée
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to appear before you today.
I am the President of the Quebec Institute of Applied Ethics. We reflect on ethical matters in the management of government and large organizations.
In my opinion, the introduction of Bill C-2 is an ethical moment that must be hailed. This type of idea was put forward a long time ago, but it is now in the process of becoming concrete. As the saying goes, no one is opposed to virtue. However, the challenge is to make this virtue concrete, and to go beyond good intentions.
Bill C-2 is ambitious. It deals with a number of matters that have some connection with ethics. However, it remains silent on a number of matters, and these are the things that disturb me as an ethicist.
I will deal with only two issues in the time I have today. First, I will make a few comments on the meaning of the words used in the French and English versions of the bill and their frequent inconsistencies. Second, I will put forward some ideas about the role of the commissioners of ethics, integrity and conflicts of interest.
Misnaming things simply causes more trouble. There is certainly a desire to do the right thing in this bill, there is an interest in ethics. But we need to know what is meant by ethics. It is consideration given in order to make fair decisions consistent with the values of the state. These values have a direct link to the common good. In a responsible ethical decision — since this is mentioned in the bill — the decision-maker has a choice of means for achieving this objective. The ethical consideration occurs before the decision is made, not afterwards.
We note that the terms “imputabilité”, “reddition de comptes” or accountability all refer to a time after the decision, whereas the word “responsabilisation” refers to a time before the decision. I think there is some inconsistency in the translation, because the terms are used as synonymous, and that gives rise to a problem. Words can sometimes change meaning. Sometimes accountability means “responsabilisation”, and sometimes it does not.
I have done some research on the meaning of the words. I noticed that the word “éthique” appears 45 times in the bill, while the word “ethics” appears 291 times. That is a problem. The word “responsabilisation” appears six times, while the word “accountability” appears 141 times. The term “reddition de comptes”, which is the accurate translation of “accountability” never appears in the bill.
Conservative
President, Institut québécois d'éthique appliquée
All right. I will repeat what I said about the number of times the words are used. The word “éthique“ is mentioned 45 times; “ethics” appears 291 times. The word “responsabilisation” is mentioned six times and “accountability” 141 times. The expression “reddition de comptes“, which is the exact philosophical translation of “accountability” does not appear once in the bill.
The meaning of the words used is more than just a philosophical hobby for us, it is something very important. All the French words used in the bill refer to the time before the decision, and all the English words refer to the time after the decision. In my opinion, therefore, the accountability sought in Bill C-2 is deontological rather than ethical.
My second comment has to do with the role of the ethics and integrity commissioners. First of all, it should be noted that it is a good idea to appoint them for a long period of time. However, these commissioners should be ethicists. We would stress that they should not necessarily be jurists, however, they should be ethicists. Such people do exist.
The duty of the commissioners goes beyond a strictly procedural context. They should try to pave the way toward what is just, even before or beyond procedure.
What is an ethics or integrity commissioner? The bill does not make this clear. It states that the person shall be appointed, but it does not say what he or she does or why they exist. In fact, my main question about the commissioner is whether the individual is an advisor or an investigator. That is a major distinction that should be made here.
Even though the term “commissioner” “ commissaire” is used 500 times, the duties are never mentioned. In the notes to clauses 72.01 to 72.061, there are many references to principles, rules and obligations, without ever naming the principles in question.
The bill contains many prohibitions, but I think it is rather short on ethics. We should remember that ethical actions cannot merely be a number of prohibitions. The subject is much broader than a simple accountability calculation. It includes accountability but it goes beyond that.
The lack of value principles in the bill could reduce the commissioner's role to that of a technician providing advice on how things should be done, rather than an individual who advises on why things should be done. Bill C-2 should set out broad principles and values people can use to deduce how things should be done. Simply saying how things should be done is of no use, if there are no reasons given for this. I think the 274 pages of the bill are very long on “hows” and very short on “whys”.
Thank you very much.