Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 1st, 2006

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

If I can just crystallize this, as a parliamentary committee, as members of that committee, and as members of Parliament, and given the role of the Attorney General and his delegates as legal advisers to Parliament, we would be very grateful for legal advice, as we go through, on the constitutionality or lawfulness of each clause.

[Joe Wild]

Just to clarify, the function of the Department of Justice, and even the Attorney General, is not to provide legal advice to the committee. We can explain the legal underpinnings behind the policy rationale for the clauses in the bill, but it would be inappropriate for the department to provide legal advice to the committee.

The committee has a legislative clerk as well as law clerks, who are available to provide any specific legal advice the committee may wish.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I appreciate that, Mr. Wild, but the Attorney General of Canada is the legal adviser to Parliament.

[Joe Wild]

It's to Her Majesty the Queen, but I don't want to quibble on that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to stop the clock for a minute.

I'm not going to interrupt. It's your time and you can do whatever you like. I'd just remind the committee that there is an opportunity to ask these witnesses about the procurement section of the bill. You may wish to do that, or you may wish to go in your own direction.

Thank you. You can continue.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

No, I think we have concluded that point. Thank you.

Thank you for being here, Ms. Aloïsi. It's nice to see you again.

Your paper goes into this, but could you briefly express how the additions in Bill C-2 will strengthen the procurement process, which has been under pretty constant revision over the last few years and which, to my personal observation, is currently working very well, even though there may have been concerns in the past?

[Yvette Aloïsi]

The procurement auditor actually will complement the type of measures we have taken at Public Works and Government Services Canada recently to increase the fairness and transparency of the procurement process.

As you know, what is in the legislation is that this person will be able to review and assess procurement practices across the public service and provide some advice to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services in terms of improvement to the procurement process that could be put in place.

Also, this person will be able to review complaints. Those complainants who cannot go before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal below a certain threshold will be able to complain to this person. Not only that, but within the context of the administration of the contracts, if a vendor is not happy with the way something is done--payment is not made on time, and that kind of thing--this person will be able to go to the procurement auditor and indicate that he needs some kind of redress.

So this person will be able to look at trends across the public service in terms of procurement and make recommendations and produce an annual report that will be made public and that a parliamentary committee will be able to review.

So this is an improvement, complementary to what we have been doing recently.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want to put my first questions to Mr. Wild.

Mr. Wild, have you been involved with Bill C-2 from the start?

[Joe Wild]

Yes.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Before its first reading in the House, how much time did it take to draft it?

[Joe Wild]

We spent approximately six weeks drafting the bill and two more weeks, before the drafting as such, examining political issues, in order to be able to give the legislative drafters the necessary instructions.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So the bill, which contains more than 300 clauses, was drafted in six weeks?

[Joe Wild]

The drafting of the bill took six weeks, yes.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

All right. You repeated on two occasions that the department did not provide legal advice to the committee and that legal advice could not be given to committee members. What do you mean by that?

[Joe Wild]

I'm going to speak in English,

just for precision purposes.

It's generally not the tradition to provide legal advice to a committee. Again, generally, legal opinions of the department are not usually released to a committee. That's not to say those things can never happen. I am just reflecting what is the general practice.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

When you say committee members, are you talking about all committee members or all members except those from a party?

[Joe Wild]

I mean all committee members. We can provide technical explanations on the content of the bill, on the meaning of a clause and its impact, but we don't give legal opinions. The line may not be very clear. Perhaps it is more so for me, because it...

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It seems to me that this is the first time, in a committee, that I have seen a legal advisor from the legal department of the Treasury Board portfolio seated with the Conservatives from the first day of the committee, who is consulted by Mr. Poilievre and who gives him advice. When you see committee members, do you mean all committee members or all committee members with the exception of the Conservatives? How is it that legal advisors from the Department of Justice advise the Conservatives daily and regularly on the development and discussions concerning Bill C-2?

[Joe Wild]

First, in terms of sitting at the table, it's because that's where the table is.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You're welcome on our side.

[Joe Wild]

We're sitting at a table that's available so that we can work with our books. Normally, in other committee rooms, the table is behind the witnesses. That's just not the case here, so we were sitting there.

I have provided an answer to any member who has approached to ask me a specific question in terms of the meaning of a clause in this act. Certainly, in terms of any interactions that I've had with the Conservative members of the committee, again it has been in answering specific technical questions about what a clause means or what the implication is.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

All right. Thank you.

Madam...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could we just stop the clock for a minute here?

We're talking about whether Mr. Wild gives this committee advice. It's the chair's understanding that Mr. Walsh gives the Speaker advice, which in fact is this committee, which puts the committee in an interesting position. That's my understanding as to who gives this committee legal advice.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm sure it's judicious.

My question is for Ms. Aloïsi. In Bill C-2, no mention is made of the complaints filed with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, ruled admissible and in respect of which the Department of Public Works and Government Services is found guilty—I don't know whether you can use that word—of wrongdoing in the case of a contract.

I'm referring to a Globe & Mail article published on May 31, referring to a decision by the Canadian Foreign Trade Tribunal to the effect that there appears to have been wrongdoing in the Envoy case and in relocation cases with Royal LePage.

Can you tell us whether those decisions, once made public, should be subject to an investigation under Bill C-2 through the Integrity Commissioner, or whether they should be abandoned, as is currently the case? Is my question clear enough?