Evidence of meeting #28 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 contracts.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to reconvene the meeting. I hope you all enjoyed the break.
We're going to do some voting. We've finished with clauses 309 and 310.
The amendments start on clause 315, so shall clauses 311 to 314 carry?
(Clauses 311 to 314 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 315)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We have a number of amendments. These are on regulations on contracts. If we could turn to page 191, it is a proposed government amendment, G-59.
Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes, I so move, and I will invite any commentary that the panel wishes to offer.
Joe Wild Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment is to clarify that in the areas in which the Governor in Council may make regulations under proposed section 42, those regulations are not restricted to contracts involving the payment of money by Her Majesty but include the payment of money by crown corporations.
That is necessary because when you go through the different headings, the (a), (b), (c), and (d) of those types of regulations, (d) is the one with respect to the follow-the-money authority for the Auditor General, in order to ensure that this authority would also apply to crown corporations. We need it to be clear in the first part of proposed section 42 that the Governor in Council would have the authority to issue regulations that apply to contracts providing for the payment of money by not only Her Majesty but also crown corporations.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. NDP-25 is so moved.
To give you some background on this, Mr. Chair, we were very clear about our thoughts on ensuring that there was public disclosure of government information, not just in this process but indeed before the last election. The public has a right to know that information, but the means by which it can know has to do with public information, and this would give it the means to be able to get that information.
This amendment will ensure that there is public disclosure of basic information on government contracts--and we've seen this recently, in fact in the House today. It is akin to having a window into how our money is spent, how your money is spent, how my constituents' money is spent.
Without this, the transparency of government operations is limited, in my opinion. That's why we put forward this motion. This wasn't something we came up with during this process. In fact, it reflects something we heard from witnesses and from people who want more transparency. Adding this amendment requiring public disclosure of basic information on government contracts will allow for that.
I guess we could have some insight from Mr. Wild on this, but I think if we want to make sure that indeed we're being as transparent as possible, we need to allow for public disclosure of the information on these contracts and the background thereof.
Conservative
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Certainly the proposed amendment would increase the discretionary authority of the Governor in Council to make regulations under proposed section 42. It would add another subject heading, which would be regulations respecting the requirement to make public certain types of information related to government contracts.
Just for the committee's information, I thought it might be important to point out what occurs now with respect to proactive disclosure of information on government contracts. Currently departments are proactively disclosing information on contracts over $10,000. That is currently done pursuant to informal Treasury Board policy. Treasury Board is working on a policy requirement in this area, which would bolster the disclosure practice that is in place today.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thanks, Mr. Dewar.
Mr. Wild, just to get some idea of the volume we're talking about, because the previous government, which I was part of, put in the voluntary.... As you say, it wasn't a formal requirement, but they automatically posted contracts over $10,000. I believe there was some discussion at the time about the volume involved.
Do you have an opinion on that or some information on what complications might be caused by this volume of posting?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
The government certainly does a significant amount of business in contracting. Mr. Chair, the honourable member is probably well aware of that, given his previous service as Minister of Public Works and Government Services. We would be talking thousands and thousands of contracts worth billions of dollars. So per annum, the government is entering into thousands and thousands of contracts worth billions of dollars.
I don't have exact figures, but...450,000.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It's amazing how people have this at their fingertips, isn't it?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
It is.
So we're talking in the ballpark of 450,000 contracts per year that are over $10,000. That's a fairly large number, so obviously there is a fair amount of time spent in terms of the current proactive disclosure requirements, which are done primarily through websites.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Martin--sorry, Mr. Dewar. I can distinguish the two of you, believe it or not.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Just to synthesize the information, then, this is something that was being addressed but not insisted upon, if I can put it that way. Is that correct? It's something the government is working towards and the departments are doing?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
The Treasury Board has requested that departments do this. It has not done so through a formal policy. Its suite of policies around contracting and procurement is currently under review, and when that review is completed, this notion of proactive disclosure in terms of a policy requirement will be created.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Further to that, if this were to pass...indeed, when any legislation is passed, there is a time for government to respond, a reasonable amount of time, and typically that depends upon what the requirement is. If this were to pass, this would be something that wouldn't have to be done the day after it had been proclaimed. That would be common sense.
If that were to be amended so that contracts...and I think the web would be a natural place to put it, then the government, the departments, would have time to respond to make sure they're in line with the legislation.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Mr. Chair, the question really raises a question of instrument choice. There is a kind of choice here. You could do proactive disclosure of this information through policy. You could do it through simple guidance, which is what's been done to date. Certainly the government's view is that this guidance has worked and that departments are, by and large, complying with this. Policy tends to be the more natural choice the government uses when we're talking about detailed things that are really internal administration of the government. Regulations would be another choice.
Regulations tend to create a more onerous, stricter interpretation in the sense that they're a more formal legal instrument, so they require time and effort to craft properly and so forth.
It's certainly true that if the amendment were passed and Bill C-2 came into law with that amendment, there wouldn't be a requirement the day it comes into force to actually do this. It would take the step of issuing regulations for a requirement to do this.
It goes back to, as I say, really a question of instrument choice. The government is working on a policy instrument to do the very thing that is contemplated by the regulatory proposal that's been put forward in the motion.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Wild.
Just in summary, Mr. Chair, I think when we look at the concerns we have had—on the government side, or all of Parliament—where are the origins of this bill? The origins were in the fact that we had concerns about how contracts were done and how the accountability instruments and rules were ignored.
It just seems common sense that we would allow for public disclosure. In fact, even the government right now—indeed, it might be nascent—is engaged in this. So I would think that we should put this amendment forward and put this into play, so that we could actually have full public disclosure of contracts, of which we had many concerns with the recent sponsorship scandal. So it baffles me why we wouldn't do this.
I would hope that people would support it—not because it's our amendment, but because it just makes good sense. It won't paralyze government. They'll have a chance to bring it forward and, in the end, Canadians will have public disclosure of contracts, which I would suggest is one of the reasons why we're here today discussing this bill.
I would hope for members' support on this amendment.
Thank you.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you.
Again, through you to Mr. Wild, I agree with the sentiment of this amendment. Indeed, Mr. Dewar is correct that the reason the voluntary, proactive disclosure of contracts over $10,000 was put in place was the difficulties with the sponsorship program, and that's been going on for over a year now—and perhaps two years.
If there are 400,000-odd of those being posted, I'm wondering what the expense and the complexity to government would be, as one matter. Where or at what level does it become impractical by way of cost, but also in terms of impact? If we've got 400,000 or so now being posted and we were to go to any contract—$100 or $500—are we going to lose what's most important, the focus and emphasis of it on the larger contracts, by just flooding the web with millions of contracts perhaps?
I approve and support the concept. I'm just wondering where it becomes impractical.