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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Me too. Please proceed.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If I have a moment left, I'll ask something that is maybe in the domain of these guys, then.

I ask questions about lobbying. Minister's staff...is that your area? Minister's staff and the exempt staff bumping into the public service and out again.

[Susan Cartwright]

I'd be happy to answer your question.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

In the current situation, there's been a lot of balking about...people don't like the fact that ministers' exempt staff can be plunked into the public service as a lateral transfer. It isn't fair to the other public servants who may have been waiting for a promotion into the EX range when somebody from a minister's office comes and takes that promotion opportunity. What, in Bill C-2, will preclude that from happening?

[Susan Cartwright]

The provisions in Bill C-2 will remove the priority list that currently exists, which permits exempt staff to move into the public service, as you describe.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It will eliminate the list altogether?

[Susan Cartwright]

It will eliminate the list, and it will replace that with an opportunity for exempt staff who have met a period-of-service requirement, a three-year period that currently exists for the priority list access. It will enable those individuals to compete in internal competitions within the public service for a period of 12 months. At the end of that period of 12 months, they'll be able to compete, as would any other Canadian, in external competitions. There will be a period of time, obviously, when those who have met the criteria to gain access to the priority list will remain on that list, so there is a period of 12 months when the two systems will overlap. But once those individuals have been moved off the priority list, then the only mechanism available for exempt staff to enter the public service will be through competition--access to internal competition for 12 months--and beyond that, external competition.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Poilievre, unless there is unanimous consent, you have about three minutes.

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

I don't need them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have less than three minutes, Ms. Jennings.

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

Thank you.

Part 1 of the bill is entitled “Conflict of Interest Rules.” Section 4 defines the meaning of conflict of interest.

Subsection 6(1) of the bill, entitled “Decision-making,” states:

6. (1) No public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.

Subsection 6(2), entitled “A debate or vote,” states:

(2) No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall, in his or her capacity as a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, debate or vote on a question that would place him or her in a conflict of interest.

If I understand the wording of subsections 6(1) and 6(2) correctly, this means that, if the bill were in force, ministers Emerson and O'Connor could neither participate in a debate in the House nor vote on certain issues. For example, if there is a debate or a vote in the House in connection with the softwood lumber agreement, Mr. Emerson could not take part. Similarly, if there was a debate or vote in the House on new instruments or equipment on which his former clients might bid, Mr. O'Connor could not take part.

Is this correct?

[Joe Wild]

Mr. Chairman, it's difficult to answer a specific fact situation in that matter, partly because certainly we don't have all the facts, and also because it's not our job to provide legal advice to the committee as to whether or not a specific scenario would or would not be within these provisions. To explain the nature of the provision, it is clear that what is happening in clause 6 is a requirement that if a minister believes or should reasonably believe that he or she is in a conflict of interest, then that minister should not participate in debate or vote on a question that relates to that conflict.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much. That concludes the time for the three of you.

Ms. Cartwright, Mr. Wild, and Monsieur Marcoux, thank you very much for appearing this morning. There will be a short recess of a few minutes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I call the meeting to order again.

We have a number of people before us. Good morning.

I gather the lead is from the Privy Council Office, Kathy O'Hara, deputy secretary to the cabinet, machinery of government; and we have Marc Chénier, counsel for the democratic renewal secretariat; Dan McDougall, director of operations, legislation and House planning; and Patrick Hill over there in the corner is an officer with machinery of government. Those are great titles.

Ms. O'Hara, do you have some preliminary remarks to make?

[Kathy O'Hara, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

I would only clarify that we are here to answer questions about the political financing section of the bill, the proposed Conflict of Interest Act, and the appointment of agents of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Seven minutes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, witnesses.

I'm very concerned that the talk is to keep the money out of politics, to limit the money out of politics, to take money as power out of politics and to rest on our laurels that, because of reforms made and reforms to be made, financing for political campaigns will come out of the public purse through what I essentially call the rebate in the retail end of politics that you get for each vote—the meat count, as it were.

What concerns me is that we have in this country creeping influence of, for lack of a better word, PACs—political action committees. I know it's an American word, but I think we're turning to an American-influenced era with this government. That's my personal opinion; I can't expect you to answer to that comment, which is very political.

My question, which is very analytical, or through which I hope I can get some analysis from you, is whether you can envision a way that the influence of think tanks and parties from outside of our country can be constitutionally limited in any way. Do you think that the Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) case really stands for the proposition that limits are okay but nullification is not? I turn to the point about unions and corporations, which are mere extensions of people in this country and which are shut out here.

Is there a constitutional issue, do you think? And is there a way to limit outside influence in campaigns? While there's the talk of keeping money out of politics, I can see quite the reverse happening, when you look at the fundraising stats for the Conservative Party since the beginning of the year.

So that's my concern. Like that side over there talks, I too want to keep the money out of politics, but is there a better way to do it?

[Kathy O'Hara]

If I understand, the first question is whether we think the ban on contributions from organizations—unions and corporations—is constitutional or meets the constitutional test. The answer is yes. It will be up to a court, obviously, to decide that ultimately, but the government is of the view that there are very strong public interest arguments to support a ban. Two provinces have such a ban in place, and in fact one has had a ban in place for 25 years. Other countries have instituted such a ban. So we feel there's a good case to be made on this ground.

You had a question about limiting outside influence. I'm going to defer to Marc on that, because while there are no provisions on that in this legislation, as you may know, there are already provisions in the Canada Elections Act that relate to this issue. Marc would have that detail.

[Marc Chénier, Counsel, Democratic Renewal Secretariat, Privy Council Office]

Yes, there are a number of provisions in the Canada Elections Act. For instance, there can't be any foreign broadcasts of political election advertising into Canada. Also, there are limits on third party advertising in Canada. So only a Canadian corporation, or a Canadian union that has bargaining rights in Canada, or a Canadian citizen and a permanent resident in Canada is allowed to expend money on election advertising.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

To follow up on that, if I may, let me get this straight. Under the new law, a union that expressed its view through its leadership and wanted to be part of a political objective for or against some particular issue cannot, through its union, contribute to a party, but essentially must wage its own advertising or influence campaign. That's essentially the new allowed influence of a union, let's say in New Brunswick, that wants to stop the clear-cutting of forests.

[Kathy O'Hara]

Yes. It can undertake lobbying activities and it can undertake third party activities.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

But it can't contribute to the party that it may support.

[Kathy O'Hara]

That's right.