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

Evidence of meeting #18 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 public.

On the agenda

Bill C-2, An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael D. Donison Executive Director, Conservative Party of Canada

Steven MacKinnon National Director, Liberal Party of Canada

Eric Hébert Federal Secretary, New Democratic Party

Gilbert Gardner General Director, Bloc Québécois

David Zussman Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Michel Bouchard Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Justice

Pierre Lapointe Chief Prosecutor for the Attorney General of Québec, Department of Justice (Quebec)

Yvette Aloïsi Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Joe Wild Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice

10:55 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Yvette Aloïsi

Every decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal is subject to review by the Federal Court of Canada, and the decision to which you refer is no exception.

I therefore do not see the need for another process, because the decisions can be reviewed by the Federal Court, which, in the case you mentioned, referred the matter back to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for re-examination. A process is already in place in which decisions made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal can be reviewed by the Federal Court.

11 a.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Do I have the time... If the Federal Court says...

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

You don't; please be brief.

11 a.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Let's take, for example, a case in which the Federal Court ruled that there had been wrongdoing, that is to say that an official prepared a biased request for proposal. Wouldn't that directly violate the spirit of Bill C-2? Shouldn't we proceed with an investigation to determine the circumstances in which this apparent wrongdoing occurred?

June 1st, 2006 / 11 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Yvette Aloïsi

We have statistics on all complaints filed with the tribunal, and few of them are deemed valid. Furthermore, most of the time, the tribunal's decisions mainly concern the evaluation criteria used in awarding a contract.

The tribunal's recommendation concerns the review of the process. It's not really a matter of wrongdoing. Very often, it's concerned with technical matters: for example, the supply officer has not followed the process or the criteria were not appropriate.

11 a.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Thank you very much.

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We have a problem here. We have lots of time for your time, but this place has been booked for another committee, and they're sitting at the back of the room, glaring at us. I'm afraid we're going to have to adjourn.

I thank you very much for coming.

We will meet at 5 o'clock on Monday, in the room across the hall.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned