Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I just want to ask the clerk one question.

Okay, I'm going to say this now, so that everybody is clear. I appear to have been in error. I apologize for what I said before. You'll have to disregard it. We can vote on BQ-4 or NDP-1.1 and G-15 and G-16. If BQ-4 carries, we don't vote on the others. If BQ-4 fails, then we can vote on the others.

Mr. Sauvageau, I have Mr. Martin and then you.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, that's what I understand now: it's really a contest between NDP-1.1 and BQ-4. You can have one or you can have the other, but you can't have both.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You can't have both.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay. Well, I'm in favour more of NDP-1.1, the reason being, in all seriousness, that in BQ-4 what the Bloc contemplates is that the conflict commissioner would have to investigate everything brought to that office, because there's no screening contemplated; there's no process whereby you could eliminate frivolous or vexatious complaints. In fact, any reference to “frivolous and vexatious” has been deleted. There's a whole paragraph related to this in Bill C-2 that's been taken out by the Bloc's amendment, as they see it.

To eliminate the member of Parliament as the one to make the reference to the commissioner would, I too think, open the floodgates to bombard the commissioner, making that office virtually dysfunctional.

Our recommendation is quite different. It doesn't deal with the same issues at all. In fact, most of the mandate and powers of the commissioner would remain as contemplated in Bill C-2. The only change we seek to make with NDP-1.1 is that when they're talking about the obligation of the member to identify the alleged contravention and set out reasonable grounds—“under subsection (5)” is the language in Bill C-2—we would suggest it should say:

The member shall identify the alleged contravention and set out the reasons for believing a contravention has occurred.

In other words, the language in Bill C-2 prejudges that the grounds are reasonable, or it leaves it up to the member to make the determination whether the grounds are reasonable or not. We believe they have an obligation to set out their reasons for believing that a contravention has occurred, but this doesn't give additional weight to what they have to say in that way.

Our recommendation in NDP-1.1 is far more modest than the Bloc's. We believe the Bloc's is a substantive amendment that changes the mandate and the powers of the commissioner in such a drastic way that I'm surprised it was in order, in fact, because it really does alter the whole concept of what the office of the commissioner should be.

So I speak strongly in favour of voting against the Bloc amendment and voting for NDP-1.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I sense less enthusiasm than there was for my other attempt, but I'm going to continue using Mr. Poilievre's example.

Let's suppose 50,000 complaints are filed in the West with regard to firearms. I did a brief calculation with the help of Mr. Murphy, whom I thank. There are 75 ridings in Quebec, 125 in Ontario and about 30 in the Maritimes. That leaves about 70 ridings in the West. That means that each member of those ridings receives about 8,000 complaints.

That's exactly what I was saying. I would distinctly prefer that complaints be sent to the Integrity Commissioner, who would have a standard letter saying that those complaints are considered vexatious or frivolous. As Mr. Poilievre has just shown, and I completely agree with him, pressure groups shouldn't bog down the members from the West and prevent them from working. Moreover, this is an area where we have no candidates and no members. Consequently, I'm working for them in this case.

Second, this addresses the remarks of the law clerk and the parliamentary advisor of the House, who says this removes a privilege from parliamentarians.

Third, it's also out of respect for Mr. Martin. Unless the Official Languages Act is completely inadequate in this country, I've never heard it said that the Commissioner of Official Languages would be overwhelmed with complaints because there wasn't a member as a barrier. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has regional offices, including one in Montreal and one in the Maritimes, to facilitate citizen access.

Fourth, I would remind you that we all agreed that government officials were fundamentally honest. However, if there are 50 complaints in the first week, that's because there are a fair number of dishonest people, but that's not what we were saying at the start.

So, out of respect for the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, out of respect for public servants, whom we believe are honest, out of respect for what already exists, that is the mechanism of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and out of respect for Mr. Poilievre, who has told us that the offices of the members from the West, who are, in the majority, Conservatives, should not be obstructed by people who are opposed to the firearms registry, I believe we should support the position of the Bloc québécois.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. I have Monsieur Petit, Ms. Jennings, and Mr. Martin.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have a question and a comment to make. I'm speaking to Mr. Wild, since it appears he's a law clerk who drafted the document.

If agreed to, amendment BQ-4 will amend the proposed section 44 in the act. In proposed subsection 44(1), we want to delete the expression “has reasonable grounds to believe” and replace it with “who believes”. Isn't there a big difference between the words “has reasonable grounds to believe” and the word “believes”? The person must no longer have reasonable grounds to believe that...

In view of the case law, if we agreed to this amendment, we'd be faced with all kinds of problems. Regardless of who files the complaint, from the moment we replace the words “has reasonable grounds to believe”, an expression we are all familiar with in Canadian law, with the word “believes”, how are we going to make it, since the word “believes” used alone is not the equivalent of “has reasonable grounds to believe”? The case law will overwhelm us and we won't be able to go any further under this section. We may cause a problem in which an individual, no matter how well intentioned he may be, who does not have “reasonable grounds to believe” may well be prosecuted, precisely because the word “believes” is not the equivalent of “has reasonable grounds to believe”.

I'd like the committee to consider my comments, since the texts on the evidence are diametrically opposed. The word “believes” is being proposed in one case, and “has reasonable grounds to believe” in the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a question for somebody.

Mr. Wild, would you like to answer?

[James Stringham]

May I, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Stringham.

[James Stringham]

Yes, that is a possible interpretation, and we would also point out that proposed subsection 44(1), which sets out reasonable grounds to believe, actually tracks the existing language in the Parliament of Canada Act, section 72.08, which deals with requests from members. The reasonable grounds to believe that appear in proposed subsection 44(1) actually can be found in the existing act--the predecessor to this, if you will.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have Ms. Jennings, and then Mr. Martin.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the counsel very much for the explanations they've provided to Mr. Petit.

I've carefully examined clauses 43, 44 and following, precisely because they concern the accountability of parliamentarians. We'll see how the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill continues, but I must inform my Bloc québécois colleagues, with some regret, that we think the only problems with clause 44 are those raised by Mr. Walsh, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel. On the other hand, we believe that amendment NDP-1.1 from Mr. Martin corrects these deficiencies in the wording of proposed section 44.

So we can't support the Bloc's amendment.

However, I'd like to emphasize that, when the members of the House of Commons considered the possibility of adopting a code of ethics for members, particularly regarding conflicts of interest, and creating an independent Ethics Commissioner position, they wondered what person should have the power and even duty, in a way, of filing a complaint alleging that the conduct of another parliamentarian violated the code that would eventually be adopted, and that was.

What concerned most parliamentarians was precisely that a member, regardless of political allegiance, might be the subject of numerous frivolous, vexatious and other complaints, whereas the Commissioner had no power to sanction a person other than a parliamentarian.

The House—I don't remember whether the result of the vote was unanimous, but it was definitely a majority vote—deemed that the only persons in power to file a complaint had to be parliamentarians, who themselves were subject to the code of ethics.

The Liberals therefore will not support the Bloc québécois amendment. We're going to support the New Democratic Party's amendment instead.

We are ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would only reinforce or perhaps clarify one point.

The last time Mr. Sauvageau spoke, he mentioned that we want the commissioner to be the one to determine vexatious or malicious complaints, but his amendment takes out the very section that contemplates giving the commissioner that ability. Under the heading “Mandate and Powers of the Commissioner”, there would be no adjudication as to malicious or vexatious complaints.

That's a necessary or key component of any office of this nature. In fact, in some offices of this nature there are very stiff penalties associated with making a malicious complaint. For instance, in the whistle-blowing section, if you make a malicious complaint—if you're really just trying to perform industrial sabotage with your whistle-blowing—and the officer of whistle-blowing determines that, you're up for stiff sanctions for throwing a wrench into the works. It's another good reason not to support the Bloc amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will now proceed to G-15 on page 26.

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

I so move.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to move to NDP-1.1.

You're right, Mr. Martin, you have to move it first before we can do anything.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I would just remind you that this is a rather late addition, which is why it isn't in the textbook put together by the clerk for us. This is part of Mr. Walsh's recommendations to deal with some of what he deemed to be shortcomings of Bill C-2. This is not some kind of a pinko fabrication; this actually comes from the law clerk. If that gives anybody any more confidence in it, let's hope it influences your vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have Mr. Owen, and then Mr. Poilievre.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'm not sure where I'll take this, but perhaps I can ask Mr. Wild to give us some advice on this, or one of the counsel.

The provision in here that we set out the “reasons” as opposed to the “reasonable grounds”, does that create a complication with proposed subsection 44(1), in that it may raise the same sort of issue? I'd like your advice as to whether we should use exactly the same language.

[Joe Wild]

If the amendment to proposed subsection 44(4) is going to be adopted, then proposed subsection 44(1) should be amended to coincide with it.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Chair, and to the mover, I would then like to suggest a subamendment, so that the amendment would read, “vention and set out the reasonable grounds for believing”, rather than just “the reasons”, so we don't have that apparent contradiction. I don't actually believe there's any difference.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have an amendment to the amendment.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])