Evidence of meeting #23 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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We now go to the amendment under clause 75, which is a Liberal amendment on page 63.
Mr. Owen, L-6.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I'll move this, Chair.
By way of commentary, I'll simply say that we were quite impressed by a number of the witnesses who came before us, expressing concern that the five-year prohibition would dissuade anyone from coming into one of these positions. That five years puts right out of the realm of possibility that someone coming in from a university, a corporation, a union, or someone who could add some value to political discourse in this country would want an experience in government. Those sectoral moves can be quite valuable, in terms of the skills that people bring from one sector to another, and the five years might put a chill on people being willing to serve in public roles such as this.
So this is an attempt to reach the government's objective, but in a more realistic timeframe.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
To put it into the perspective of the private sector, non-compete clauses and such are never five years. It would be struck down.
Secondly, three years in the rhythm of government is quite a bit. I think that people who might have had influence would probably lose a lot of that currency in a three-year period. It seems reasonable.
The witnesses we hurried through were almost unanimous on that, and I think it's a good amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
(On clause 77)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We move to clause 77, which is the Bloc Québécois amendment, BQ-13, on page 64.
Monsieur Sauvageau.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
In the bill, the language proposed for this subsection is as follows:10.4 (1) The Commissioner shall conduct an investigation if he or she has reason to believe that an investigation is necessary [...]
We would like to amend this to read:The Commissioner shall conduct an investigation if he or she is requested to do so by a member of this Senate or House of Commons or has reason to believe [...]
We would like to enable a parliamentarian to call upon the Commissioner. When the Commissioner has reason to believe that an investigation is required, he or she would conduct one. However, we would add the possibility for a parliamentarian to request one.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I would like to get some commentary on this from our panel.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
One of the difficulties with this provision, and you are perfectly right, is that presently the Commissioner conducts an investigation “if he or she has reasons to believe”. So this is already a test of some sort.
If he receives a complaint, he must have “reasons to believe” that an investigation is necessary. This test would not apply when a parliamentarian requests an investigation. Therefore, once the Commissioner receives such a complaint, he would not investigate because of any “reason to believe”, but because a parliamentarian brings in a request to investigate. Do you understand? It looks like a double standard. It is a matter of fairness as to the Commissioner's approach.
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
However, the amendment says:
The Commissioner shall conduct an investigation if he or she is requested to do so by a member of the Senate or House of Commons [...]
I understand what you say, but the Commissioner can also conduct an investigation “if he or she has reasons to believe“.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
That is true. However, it does not mean that when the Commissioner receives a complaint from a parliamentarian, he investigates because “he has reasons to believe“.
If I understand your amendment correctly, the Commissioner receives a request from a parliamentarian who has a complaint and wants an investigation. Therefore, the Commissioner must conduct an investigation without necessarily having “reasons to believe”.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I never actually finished my point. I asked a question, and all of a sudden Mr. Sauvageau jumped in. I still want to stick with this.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
All right.
So what you're saying is that under the current wording, the commissioner has the right to investigate if he or she has “reason to believe”, but under the wording that is proposed in this amendment, that right turns into an obligation.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
There are two standards we're dealing with.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
To put it really as succinctly as possible, the commissioner can investigate if he has “reason to believe”, and thus he has discretion. The “reason to believe” can be based on information coming from any sources. But under this amendment, where the commissioner is requested by the member of the House or Senate, the commissioner has no choice.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Yes. With this amendment, the commissioner would have no choice but to carry out the investigation.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
So he doesn't have a “reason to believe” in that case.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Okay.
The words “reason to believe” are in his amendment, though.
