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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I guess we're also concerned about the revolving door of lobbyists. I was asking about lobbying being done by the same firms that get other contracts from government, the revolving door of the PMO to the lobbying firms that was past practice.

When you were dealing with Earnscliffe, was that your experience? Were you were dealing with people who were charged, had connections to the PMO politically, and were still working on your behalf doing opinion work?

[Laurent Marcoux]

The answer to your last question is no.

If I may return to your earlier question about documentation and whether there might be a difficulty with insufficient documentation, in the field of public opinion research that was not identified as a major concern by the Auditor General in the audit of 2003, except that she indicated that in a number of research projects some departments did not adequately describe the research project and they did not adequately identify the need for it or the usage to which it was to be put. That was identified in 2003 as one of her observations.

Since then, the communications policy procedures, I believe, stipulate that institutions must provide that kind of documentation when they undertake public opinion research and when they submit their plans to my directorate. We review those and comment and advise on them. We've also produced a kind of a guide, if you will, or a documentation checklist that we've provided to institutions to assist them in file documentation.

It wasn't identified as a large issue, but there were some concerns. They have been addressed in the administrative procedures of the government and in the work we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I may, I'm just going to respond to Mr. Sauvageau's question to our researchers about how long it would take, on average, to get through 317 clauses.

In the last meeting, I asked the minister about the number of clauses in this bill and about what kinds of clauses they are. If the committee remembers, the minister responded that approximately half of the 317 clauses are very technical in nature. So I don't really think, since they're not substantive or new regulations being brought in, that it would take us that long to get through those technical clauses.

Of the remainder, the minister indicated that the majority are actually regulations lifted from other acts, with slight modifications put into them so they can appear under Bill C-2. In fact, the only real new regulations are very limited--things like the establishment of a Director of Public Prosecutions, changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act, and those types of things.

So my comment is that I'm not sure how relevant it is to ask our researchers how long it would take, on average, to get through 317 clauses, since a lot of the clauses contained in this legislation are either technical in nature or are minor modifications to existing regulations that have already been planted in other acts and which we're just lifting out and putting into this act.

I guess my point is that most of the heavy lifting has been done. There are only a limited number of new regulations that we really, I think, need to concentrate on, because those are the ones that are new.

That's my comment, Mr. Chair, and I have no questions of the witnesses. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Round number one is finished.

We'll have Mr. Tonks for round number two.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for asserting the role of chair in terms of the respect we have for witnesses. From time to time, we have members of the public here also, and we should always afford the kind of respect they have a right to expect, whether they're from our staff or from the public.

Mr. Chairman, I've been interested in the part of the report that deals with supporting Parliament. I know the committee is interested in the role of the parliamentary budget officer that has been suggested in the legislation. Reading the legislation, I see that the role of the parliamentary budget officer is to close the accountability loop with respect to revenue raising and spending, rather than with respect to actually creating the budget.

My question, Mr. Chairman, is whether it would not be better, because there have been concerns raised with respect to creating more bureaucracy unnecessarily, to entrench the authority of a parliamentary budget officer in the Auditor General's office, as opposed to running a parallel role. It would appear to me that the infrastructure in the Auditor General's office would be available to the parliamentary budget officer without having to create additional backup.

That's my question, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Cartwright.

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

I think the important thing in considering an answer to your question is that the government was very conscious of the need not to create additional bureaucracy, which is why they chose to strengthen an existing entity of Parliament--the Library of Parliament--and use the existing resources and capacity and expertise there and simply augment that to provide a new service for members of Parliament.

The function of the parliamentary budget officer is designed, essentially, to be one of research to support members of Parliament, which is a very different role from that of the Auditor General. I think the government's decision to locate the parliamentary budget officer function in the Library of Parliament reflects a better matching of mandate than would be the case in the Office of the Auditor General.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you.

I'll give my time to Ms. Jennings.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Ms. Jennings, you're going on Mr. Tonks's dime, so you have a couple of minutes, if that. You have a minute.

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

Will I also have my own time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll have to go to the Conservatives if you don't wish your time.

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

I am just asking whether I will also have my own turn if I use Mr. Tonks' remaining time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

You have just said that, as opposed to creating further, unwieldy infrastructure, this position will simply be incorporated into existing infrastructure, in the shape of the Library of Parliament. If that is the case, why is the parliamentary budget officer being given hiring authority, rather than simply allowing the Library of Parliament to continue to operate as it normally does when providing other services to Parliament?

[Susan Cartwright]

My answer to the first question was that rather than create an entirely new structure, the government sought an institution of Parliament that had a similar and complementary mandate, which was the Library of Parliament. I was answering the question with respect to not having located the function within the Office of the Auditor General.

In terms of the hiring practices, it's not that there are no new additional people being required to strengthen the function for parliamentarians. That was not the intent of my answer. However, the intent was not to create an entirely new structure but to use existing capacity.

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

Given the logic you've just provided to this committee, why would that logic not also cover the issue of who would have the authority to hire the required personnel for this new officer? Why would that not be in the Library of Parliament as it now exists?

[Susan Cartwright]

My understanding is that the expertise required for those individuals who will support the parliamentary budget officer...that the hiring process would reflect input from those who were able to bring their own expertise to the hiring process.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

First of all, I would like to apologize. I thought that, initially, our questions had to be addressed only to Mr. Marcoux, rather than to the three witnesses. I had other questions.

If I may, I will answer Mr. Lukiwski. This is indeed a bill comprising technical and other amendments. However, when there is a desire to expedite the process, the director of political appointments can be appointed before the committee holds its first meeting. But when the issue is making decisions regarding Bill C-11 from the previous session, apparently we have to wait for the committee to do its work. This means the study of this bill is really a two-tier process. A number of amendments and sections raise a great many questions. I will give you two instances where, in my opinion, the opposition can demonstrate its willingness to do constructive work in a very practical way. But first, I have some questions for our witnesses.

Can the Integrity Commissioner be proactive, or does he have to wait for a complaint to be submitted? For example, the Auditor General of Canada investigated the sponsorship scandal, and found that funds had been misappropriated in one department or another. So we had to wait for the November 2003 report. If there had been an Integrity Commissioner at the time, could the Integrity Commissioner have initiated any action? In my view, the bill as it currently stands does not allow him to do so.

I have another instance that I would use to show Mr. Lukiwski why we have to study this bill so carefully.

[Joe Wild]

With respect to your first question, the integrity commissioner cannot self-initiate a complaint, in the sense that he requires someone to come forward and make a disclosure.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

There you are! I think that would be a good amendment for the bill, and one that would not delay its application.

I have a second question on a point that would make it possible for us to amend Bill C-2 constructively. I would like to talk about a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal concerning a government department that the court has found guilty, let's say, of issuing a biased call for tenders.

I could give you another example, the relocation of federal employees and PWGSC. When Scott Brison was the minister, the department decided to skew the contract so as to make it possible only for Royal LePage to respond to the call for tenders, thereby eliminating potential competitors, particularly Envoy. The CITT ruled that this was a case of misconduct.

Under C-2 in its present form, could that decision be investigated by the Integrity Commissioner?

[Joe Wild]

Again, not unless someone comes forward to make a disclosure.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that Bill C-2 is a step in the right direction. However, I have shown very quickly using these two examples that the bill could be improved if we take the time to study it. However, if we are forced to fast-track this bill, we will unfortunately not be able to examine it as we should. I have no other questions. In my view, those two aspects at the very least should be studied more carefully by this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Petit, go ahead, please.