Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 4th, 2006

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I'll pass to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I'll just take the brief time on a little question about your comment that the bill is intended to significantly reduce the role of money in politics. Combined with your comment that this is really about the executive, not the legislative, and you're open to going wherever the committee might suggest, I wonder whether election cap spending, on the other side of the argument about how much money can be donated, might be considered. Do you consider that too widespread?

I also want your brief comment on the role of PACs, action committees outside of government to influence elections, if we really want to significantly reduce the role of money in politics, which I think was your wording.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

There are already statutes in place with respect to spending limits. They are modest. I can tell you, as a provincial member of the legislature, the spending limit is higher, and in the province of Ontario the rebate is only 20%, not 50%. Also, our campaign is only 28 days, as opposed to the smaller limit for a 57-day campaign that we had in the last election, which made it much more difficult because we had to run a campaign for twice as long.

I don't think that at this time we contemplate any changes with respect to spending limits. We've had spending limits for many years in parts of the country.

What was your last question?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It was on the role of action committees.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

The bill is also clear, and the statute is also clear, that the only people who would be able to contribute would be individuals, so organizations, political action committees, would not be allowed to donate money. That's not allowed today, and it doesn't change under this bill.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

There will be follow-up when time permits.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Rob Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, and I thank the minister for appearing.

Minister, one of the big changes under the proposed Accountability Act involves the public prosecution of offences the federal government has charge of prosecuting. We know there are 680 employees in the federal prosecution service, and more than that of legal agents who are in contract with the federal prosecution service.

Can you comment a bit, generally, on the Director of Public Prosecutions and how that is going to work and why there is the need for the new director?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you for the question.

The idea is not to create a new bureaucracy, but rather to take the Director of Public Prosecutions out of the Department of Justice and to allow this director to conduct prosecutions for offences under federal jurisdictions and try to strengthen its independence from the government of the day. The idea in terms of the appointment of an individual is we would have a process not dissimilar from the one that we had that appointed Justice Rothstein to the Supreme Court that would involve members of Parliament from all political parties on the consultation.

Some people said that the Supreme Court hearing wouldn't go well, and it was a credit to all members of the House and all parties. I thought, having watched the hearing on Justice Rothstein's appointment, that it was respectful. It was constructive progress in expanding accountability. It surprised a lot of people as well, so we're hoping this would be the same.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

I'm going to split my time with Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The Liberals are trying to create this bogeyman about third party interest groups. I just want to clarify for the record that these groups are allowed to spend $3,000 in a given constituency, which works out to about five cents per voter, if that. These groups, as it stands in Canada, almost can't function under existing laws. To suggest that they are some sort of threat or menace to our political system is a strange twist of facts. I suspect we'll see an amendment from the Liberals that would ban their activities altogether.

I wonder what implications that would have on the charter rights of everyday Canadians who are not part of a political party to participate in the democratic process. If, for example, EGALE organized a rally during an election and spent $30,000 on that rally, could they be prosecuted under such prohibitions? Could they face some sort of problem with the law? What recourse might they have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll speak specifically to the charter. There would be a significant charter issue if you banned third parties from being involved in political campaigns. I can speak from my own experience. In one campaign, I'm sure the better part of $60,000 was spent against me by third parties. It did have an effect: my vote went from 49% to 62% of the vote.

So no part of our legislation is affecting the changes brought in by previous Parliaments in this regard. But if you were to say to a group like EGALE or the CAW or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that they couldn't be involved at all in political parties, in political campaigns, in terms of advocating issues they care about, I think there'd--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

If you prohibited third party groups altogether, might the big rally that CAW held for Mr. Martin in the last federal election, supporting his candidacy, have been prohibited? Might they have been forced not to hold that rally or not to spend money on a rally related to a political event?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I can't contemplate that, it would be so against the charter, in my judgment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Why would the Liberal Party want to attack the charter in that way?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I am sure Mr. Murphy or Mr. Tonks would never do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want to get any provocations going here, although you are entitled to a point. I think your time is up.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would just like to make a short comment on the subject of Bill C-11 from the previous session. Then, I will ask you other questions.

Mr. Poilievre tells us that Bill C-11 had quite a few shortcomings. I will remind him that his party voted unanimously in favour of a bill that had a number of flaws. This means we should have several concerns.

I would like to share with you just a small portion of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada's position that I adopt as my own. The Institute's major concern is the delay in enacting Bill C-11. The Institute says that it may require some time before the federal accountability legislation is in place and that will result in a significant delay in putting in place the protection for which it has fought for more than 15 years. The institute suggests that the reason put forward by the government to justify its strategy is that it does not wish to implement Bill C-11 only to have to carry out a major revision once the bill has passed. In fact, with the exception of the tribunal, it says, there is very little difference...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me. Perhaps you could slow down.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, I am sorry.

There is very little difference regarding the changes made by Bill C-2, because the Public Service Labour Relations Board already exists and the reasons invoked by the government do not justify the delay in implementing these protections.

It is therefore clear that Bill C-11 would be completely eliminated after the application of Bill C-2, but from a legislative perspective, it is doable, realistic and would not be overly problematic. We will see a little later on what the will of the various stakeholders is.

My second question deals with another area. I have not yet studied Bill C-2 thoroughly enough to be able to answer this question. Could certain decisions of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal be subject to Bill C-2?

Let us suppose, for example, that a department puts out a call for tenders, that a company or organization is chosen, but that another organization realizes that the call for tenders was biased, skewed—think of Earnscliffe, at the time, for example—and that the other competitors working in the field realize that there is a problem, that they take the case to the Canadian Trade Tribunal and that they win their case alleging that the call for tender was biased.

Could this decision be subject to Bill C-2, when it becomes law, that is to say the decision to investigate the bad administration in the case of the competitive bidding?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You have asked two different questions. As far as the whistleblowers are concerned, we have followed the suggestion of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada to not throw Bill C-11 away. We will improve it. The good news is that the government will strongly support the rights and protective measures for our public servants. I have heard none of the three opposition parties complain that the changes contained in Bill C-2 did not go far enough, or were not positive. The members of Parliament will probably support these measures. Whether they are implemented in May or at the end of the year, the important thing is that the policies and protective measures be good ones. If we were to have one system in May and another in October or in December, that would cause me problems.

We are sending conflicting signals to our public servants. We have heard their real concerns. If you talk to the representatives of the Alliance...

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, I know, but it's better than nothing.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Public Service Alliance of Canada representatives say that we need more safeguards within the bill. The good news is that the current government, along with a critic such as yourself in opposition, will support stronger measures and implement them. These protective measures may be the second most important thing. The most important thing is for public servants to trust the protective measures and for others to know that reprisals against public servants are no longer acceptable.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's a good message for the public service. Thank you.

What about my second question?