Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 9th, 2006

[Laurent Marcoux]

I believe that the new requirement to produce a written report has been included in Treasury Board's communication policy. Treasury Board Secretariat officials have further elaborated on these responsibilities in the department's administrative regulations, which stipulate which elements of the report's content are to be made public. The federal government has, therefore, included this new responsibility both in policy and in administrative regulations.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Does Bill C-2 not simply make an existing and effective administrative policy law, or does it go further?

[Laurent Marcoux]

It goes a little further. Obviously, the primary change is enshrining what was once an administrative policy in law. However, while the administrative policy did not stipulate when the report had to be made accessible to the public, the bill does. That is a fairly significant substantive difference that has been added to the existing responsibility set out in the bill.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you. With your permission, Mr. Marcoux, I am going to put my next question to our researcher. As I know that it is important to Mr. Poilievre that we respect our allotted time, I am going to use my time to ask this question.

Would it be possible to carry out some research — and I do not need this for tomorrow morning — on the average time that it has taken, let us say over the past 20 years, to adopt a bill comprising 317 clauses? Does it take an average of two weeks, two months, nine months? I would like to have some figures on this, because every time we ask a question, we get told that we are trying to filibuster, when, in fact, we are only seeking to carry out a meaningful study on the matter. If we knew the average time it took, we would be able to show that we are just trying to be thorough and rigorous in our work, as opposed to simply acquiescing to the Conservatives' desire to move ahead quickly.

I apologize to Mr. Marcoux for having used my time to make this statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The answer is yes.

Mr. Sauvageau, you still have a couple of minutes left, unless you are finished, in which case we'll move on.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I have finished, Mr. Chairman. All good things must come to an end.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

One of the details we would like addressed in Bill C-2—and I'm not clear if Bill C-2 will do this for us or not—is the fact that firms that get contracts for public opinion research may also be lobbyists to the government. In other words, they are serving a dual role. Has it been your experience, Mr. Marcoux, that this is the case with some of the contractors you've contracted to do public opinion research?

[Laurent Marcoux]

I can tell you that the procurement instruments the department has put into place are focused exclusively on public opinion research. In other words, there are no standing offers or supply arrangements that provide for a mix of services between public opinion research and lobbying. So the procurement instruments that exist for public opinion research and the coordination process and the procurement process are focused exclusively on public opinion research.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Who is the largest private contractor that currently does public opinion research?

[Laurent Marcoux]

I believe the largest volume of work goes to a firm called EKOS Research Associates, but I would have to confirm that. In fact, I'll ask one of my colleagues in the room to confirm that before we leave today.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Sure. That would be fine.

What was the CIO office? They say it no longer exists. What does it stand for again?

[Laurent Marcoux]

It was the Canada Information Office.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's the Canada Information Office. Is that Roger Collet?

[Laurent Marcoux]

Yes, he was the executive director. He was succeeded by Marc Lafrenière.

The Canada Information Office ceased to exist in 2000, I believe, and was replaced for all intents and purposes by Communication Canada, which also no longer exists as of 2004, I believe.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's certainly a shadowy area. All we know is that a lot of the unsavoury things associated with the sponsorship scandal, we assume, took place under that same kind of rubric of CIO and Communication Canada, and the Guités and the Collets, etc. We've always assumed there is a lot of opportunity for abuse within the awarding of the public opinion research as well.

Mr. Owen cited the Auditor General's report, but you made reference to oral contracts being given or oral reports being presented. One of the first observations that the Auditor General made was the appalling lack of documentation associated with what she was finding, certainly with what Mr. Guité was doing.

Is there an apprehension that Bill C-2 may in fact create more of this oral culture and drive more work underground as we go forward with improvements to access to information?

[Laurent Marcoux]

No, I would think not. By stipulating as a matter of law that public opinion research reports must be in writing and made available to the public, I think it would work in exactly the opposite direction in terms of a culture of transparency and openness, if I understood your comment.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Wild, maybe I could ask you too.

This is one of the fears. One of the recommendations of John Reid, at least, was that there be mandatory documentation, and not only in the public opinion research sector but throughout government operations, and that it would become an offence not to create paper associated with the activities of government.

Is one of the concerns the reason you didn't include that in Bill C-2 , that you would drive this work underground, where nobody would commit anything to writing, other than a post-it note, for fear of ATIP at a later date?

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

Mr. Chairman, at least part of that question is certainly one that goes to policy that perhaps would be better suited for the minister.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I don't know why you came here as a witness. Every time I ask you a question, you say that it's policy and you can't answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, I'm not going to let you attack the witnesses.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, I know full well that he knows the answer to the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There is no way you are going to attack the witnesses, so get that clear.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm not attacking him. He never answers any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to move on if you continue to do that.