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

Evidence of meeting #20 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 amendment.

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

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

James Stringham Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office

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

Warren Newman General Counsel, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Department of Justice

Susan Cartwright Assistant Secretary, Accountability in Government, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

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

Are you finished? Is that supposed to explain?

I thought I understood why this amendment was being brought forward. The discussion between Monsieur Sauvageau and Monsieur Poilievre muddied the waters for me. My question to you is on the objective of proposed section 16 and why you state that the English version attains that objective and the French version, as it is now written, does not and therefore it is necessary that the French version be amended by the government amendment G-10.

Is that clear? You did not answer my question, so I've now given it again, slowly, clearly, and I'd like an answer.

June 7th, 2006 / 4:10 p.m.

Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office

Patrick Hill

The proposed section that's before you was drafted in two languages. The English version is the version that reflects the policy decision, namely, that personal solicitation be directly governed by the act. There was an omission on the French translation.

The background I've given is simply to say that the origin of the clause itself, and by extension the policy behind the clause, tracks directly from the prior code.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

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

So proposed section 16 in the English version is a trustworthy, fidèle, reflection of what exists today in the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, whereas the French version is not.

4:10 p.m.

Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office

Patrick Hill

That's correct.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

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

So there was a typo.

4:10 p.m.

Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office

Patrick Hill

Yes, that's correct.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

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

It would have been so easy if you could have just said the English is exactly--

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

You know what? Anything seems to go in this committee, leading questions, cross-examination, but I think he's answered the question, Ms. Jennings.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Chair, please, I'm trying to be calm, I'm trying to be polite, and I'm trying to get clarity here. Clearly, if I get clarity, then it's going to be a lot easier for everyone else sitting around the table.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Okay. Are we all happy? Then we're going to vote.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Okay. We're on to page 16.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

So moved.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Moved by Mr. Poilievre. Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We're on to page 18.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

So moved.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

So moved.

I'm skipping over pages, you're absolutely right. The pages I'm skipping over are identical in French, and that's why I'm skipping over them.

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

You can simply say it, Mr. Chairman.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Okay.

Mr. Owen, do you have a comment on page 18?

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

I'm just wondering whether that should be qualified as “federal public sector entity”.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Stringham.

4:10 p.m.

Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office

James Stringham

Mr. Chairman, as a point of information, the term “public sector entity” is defined in the act, and it's a vestige of the code, the reference to the federal public administration. We used the term.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Okay. Page 19 is the French version. No more discussion.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We're on to page 20. Page 19 is the French.

I indicated that, Mr. Lukiwski.

And just so we're clear, page 20 includes page 21--both French and English. So page 20, it's a government--

Mr. Poilievre.