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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thirty seconds.

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

As to your second question, I will answer in English because it is very technical.

The CITT would remain in place, I think establishing a procurement auditor at the Department of Public Works and Government Services, reviewing contracts below the CITT threshold. Right now they have nowhere to go. I think the measures proposed in Bill C-2 will be welcomed by small contractors, not just in the national capital region but right across the country.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Baird, more than anything else, I would ask you to give perhaps a sense of comfort to this committee about the bill that you've presented here. I say that inasmuch as this is a massive bill, at 270 pages and 317 clauses. My understanding is that you had about six weeks to put this together. It is a credit to you and your officials that you were able to do it, but it also begs the question that if you were able to present a bill as massive as this in that short period of time, some may question whether or not you encountered some bumps in the highway.

I would like you to give to this committee the sense of confidence that you and your officials have about all of these clauses that we are going to have to examine over the next few weeks. It seems to me there is a chance for error, although I wouldn't say omissions, in the work you have tried to present here. It's an awful lot of work you completed in a very short period of time to have 100% confidence in what we're going to be seeing here. I would just like some general comments on that.

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

I can give credit to my ADM, Susan Cartwright, who led a huge team of talented public servants who worked hard to put this proposal together. I also give credit to Joe Wild, from the legal side, who worked with a dedicated team of folks from the justice department to help draft it.

I suppose like any legislation, we may say “six” where other people prefer “half a dozen”, and we may say “tomato” where people would rather say “tomahto”. We are open to doing things that can strengthen the bill or clarify it or provide a greater degree of comfort. I think I spoke to Mr. Owen about that. We're certainly open. We're open not just because we're a minority government; we're open because if we can make the bill better, or clarify it, that's a good thing.

There's no doubt it's a comprehensive bill, I acknowledge that, but in terms of its thickness, a lot of it is designating, for example, all the deputy heads, listing who they all are for the agencies within government. One of the things we've done is to separate the chair and CEO positions for crown corporations--the Dairy Commission, the National Capital Commission, and other things. So when you look at that, the bill is a little bit smaller than it might at first seem.

In addition, a lot of the proposals in this are ones that have been discussed. Mr. Owen spoke at great length at the beginning of his comments about the work that the previous government had done. A lot of it builds on that work. There have been substantive discussions around this place. We just talked about former Bill C-11. We had a huge number of hearings in the previous Parliament on that issue. We also have the benefit of the Auditor General's report.

I am satisfied that this is a pretty good bill, but like everything else, we're all human beings, and no one is perfect. I've often found that in the legislative process we may come forward with a proposal wanting to accomplish acts, and people may have concerns that this may not be the best way to accomplish it, or would have greater comfort if it were done a different way. That's why, if members of the committee have advice, or you hear other advice on these things, we're certainly open.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Just generally, Minister, how many of these clauses would you consider to be technical clauses or, say, amendments from other acts?

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

An estimate would be about half, 50%.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Then I suppose that cuts down on the amount of work we're going to be looking at if it's just technical, or an amendment that's put in from an existing act. I'm just trying to get a sense of how much time we're going to be looking at each clause here.

Thank you very much.

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

Again, a lot of these issues just build on reforms. We had Bill C-24 with respect to election financing. This goes a little further. We had Bill C-11 on whistle-blowing. This goes a little bit further. We had changes to audit reform. This goes a little further.

These are all bills that the previous Parliament would have discussed. I think only a few of us here are rookies.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Dewar. You have five minutes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank my colleague Pat Martin for providing some time for me to ask some questions. I also want to thank Mr. Baird for being here.

I'm going to turn right to whistle-blowing, because that's been a concern of mine. I want to get straight to the point about the $1,000. I won't engage in a long discussion other than to say that I don't think this was something that the people I talked to who blew the whistle and suffered the consequences wanted. In fact, each and every person I have spoken with and dealt with around whistle-blowing has said that they did it because it was the right thing to do. It was the ethical thing to do.

However, those people have had their lives destroyed, torn apart, and they are currently still suffering for it. I'm thinking of a couple of people from within Health Canada, at the veterinary branch, who still, to this day.... You know, we talk about taxpayers' money, but taxpayers' money is being spent putting people under the microscope for blowing the whistle.

Does the government have any provisions to deal with those people who have blown the whistle, to turn the attention toward supporting them, and to not continue what's been going on within government to go after them? I don't see any of those provisions in Bill C-2.

I want to talk a bit about compensation. I want to talk a bit about suspending, if you will, the process that people are now engaged in. I would prefer that we didn't say “that's in the courts”, or “that's in the tribunal”. If you want to do the right thing, the right thing to do right now is to call off the dogs, so to speak, on these people. I'll say that out front.

The other thing I want to suggest is that when we look at whistle-blowing, we have to look at how far the reach goes. When we look at the federal dollars that go into research within universities, I can tell you that I've talked to many people who are engaged in research. They're concerned that they aren't going to be protected. Notwithstanding the fact that federal dollars, taxpayers' dollars, go to universities for research, when they speak out or blow the whistle on issues that have to do with public health--we know the situation with drinking water, we know it with drug research--they're isolated and left out in the cold.

I'm wondering if you could respond to those two points.

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

I know the case before the courts was handled by Justice lawyers, and just as you said too, it was pretty good timing.

I won't talk about a particular case, but I did notice you had a press conference the other day with some individuals who would be affected. There is nothing in Bill C-2 that is retroactive in that respect.

If you have any ideas or suggestions, I would be very happy to talk to you, as a member of Parliament, about how those things may be addressed. I can't talk about a particular case, but obviously if there is a fair process that could be expedited, I'm certainly all ears to listening and reflecting on any ideas and suggestions you have.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

On the second point, when you're looking at institutions that receive federal money for research, will we see changes to the whistle-blower act that will protect them?

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

If there are some amendments that are realistically implementable, I'm very open to considering them. The public can complain. I think the intention is that we'd be very open to that. If you go a ways to strengthen the bill in that respect, those objectives are very complementary to the direction we're going.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you for that.

If I have a couple more minutes, I'd like to turn attention to the fact that there are some other concerns--and I've voiced them before with your colleague--about making sure there is still an avenue for people to appeal after that fact, notwithstanding that there is this tribunal proposed.

But I'm going to turn my attention now to lobbying. There has been a lot of discussion in this town about how to strengthen the Lobbyists Registration Act and to have further oversight. Indeed, it's in this tome right here.

My concern is something that had been proposed by my predecessor, Ed Broadbent, and that is that when someone has been lobbying government they should not be in the queue or be given government contracts. I think the reason is pretty obvious, that if you have this kind of revolving door....

In fact, I've spoken to a couple of people in this town who lobby government, and they said that it's pretty clear: you decide what you're going to do, you set up an office and a business, you stick to that, and you don't have the.... It should be a separate circle instead of a vend diagram between someone who is being paid to lobby government and who then turns around and receives government contracts.

So to have clear lines here in terms of who does what and who receives government contracts--I'm just wondering if you could speak to that.

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

I guess it would depend on what type of government contract. Say you had an interest in a company in Vancouver that sold tires to the Department of Transport and then you were a lobbyist in Ottawa. If the two things didn't touch, I suppose that would be awfully difficult to justify. On the same point, if you talk about someone who is paid as a lobbyist and who is also giving communications advice on similar issues with the same people, that's obviously a fair issue for the public to scratch their heads and be concerned about. I guess it would be how you'd construct ways to grapple with that.

On the first issue, there is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal under Bill C-2, and you can also seek a judicial review of a tribunal decision.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I appreciate that. But on your last point and response, just quickly, if you look at--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Time.

The Chair has discovered that he has a new tool; it's a bell, and your time has expired.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This brings me to the next issue.

We have now gone through the second round. Do I have unanimous consent to proceed with another round? Don't everybody speak at once. I'm following your rules. Do you wish to proceed to another round? I don't hear any opposition.

[Some hon. members]

Do we need another round?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No more? We do not have unanimous consent.

I want to be clear--

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

I am available to work with my colleagues. Should they have any questions, I am always available to meet with them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Please, Mr. Minister. You've got to leave me with these people. You've got to let me deal with them.

Monsieur Sauvageau.