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

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I just want to make sure I understand the meaning of this, as we intend--that is, it's the public office holder personally acting that causes it to be a conflict, but it doesn't foreclose on someone else soliciting funds on his or her behalf. Is that correct? It's the personal aspect of it that is the conflict.

[Joe Wild]

Yes, absolutely.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Why not correct the English instead of the French? Why not delete the word “personally”?

I understand. The word is already in the English version, but it isn't in the French version. Why wouldn't the latter be the right one?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Someone is going to have to deal with this.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

We have a failure in the law to concord between French and English on this particular point. We've put forward a proposal on how the concordance can be instituted in the law. If Mr. Sauvageau or anyone else has an alternative approach, they can put forward an amendment with 24 hours' notice, and we invite them to do so.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No, I'm sorry...

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

It's our amendment, so we've chosen to do it this way. That's the answer to your question.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In that case, I'll agree, but on one condition, that all translation changes require an amendment and 24-hour notice. I'm prepared to allow you to request a 24-hour notice from me for clause 16, but provided all the translation problems are corrected with a 24-hour notice.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know how we're going to operate with that.

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

We have amendments to the law. If the member wants to vote in favour of the amendment, he can do so. If he wants to vote against, he can vote against, but an arcane discussion over whether an amendment should have been introduced in English or French does not serve the purposes of this bill, or of any of the work we're doing here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau, as I understand it, there has been 24 hours' notice on every one of the amendments in this book.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, but we're told the French text has to be corrected because there was a mistake. Why shouldn't the English text be corrected instead? Why isn't it being suggested that the French version was correct?

Let's try to interpret it. This means that a minister can't solicit funds personally, but that he can ask anyone else to do it for him. That enables him to do indirectly what he isn't allowed to do directly. According to the French version, the office holder can't do it personally.

Even if it's only once in a hundred times, couldn't the French version be correct and the English version not? I simply want to emphasize that fact. Is that possible?

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

That could be possible.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Could it be possible in this case?

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

In this case, there's an amendment...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Speak through the chair, please.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

We have here an amendment that we put forward—

[An hon. member]

Could we ask--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre has the floor, please.

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

We detected that there was a failure to concord between the English and the French version. In this particular case, the drafters prepared the English version correctly and the French version incorrectly. It's perfectly possible that on other occasions they might prepare the English version improperly and vice versa, but in this particular case the amendment seeks to align the French with the English version.

I don't know if Mr. Sauvageau is trying to generate some sort of grand debate over the Official Languages Act here, but our amendment states that the French version is to be altered to match with the English version. It doesn't require a grand debate. If he would like to understand further why we believe this, and why the technical drafters are of the view that the English version in this case was right and the French version needed amendment, then I'd be glad to turn the microphone over to those experts. But I'm very confused as to why Mr. Sauvageau is making a point out of this, and I'm becoming suspicious as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understood what the amendment meant, but, after the debate that's just taken place, I'm no longer certain. I'd like to ask the legal counsel to explain the purpose of the clause and why the English version of Bill C-2 achieves the desired objective, but not the unamended French version.

[Patrick Hill, Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

If I may explain some of the background here, the provision that we have before us is effectively taken from the current Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Officer Holders. The provision that governs personal solicitation was added to the conflict of interest code in June 2004. We've taken that into the act.

I would just point out in partial response to Mr. Sauvageau's question, as I understood it, proposed section 18 of the Conflict of Interest Act that would be established through clause 2 has a general anti-avoidance rule. So if on the facts the commissioner were to determine that indirect fundraising somehow breached the principle in proposed section 16, that could be a matter for the commissioner to consider.