Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 11th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

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

Mr. Chair, the motion reads as follows:

That the Committee seeks to complete its work on Bill C-2 before the House adjourns for summer recess in late June, 2006 and that if that work is not complete the committee will continue to sit into the summer without break until its work on Bill C-2 is done notwithstanding the adjournment of Parliament.

I can read it in French, but I gather the translation is probably pretty clear.

The reason for this motion is that I believe members of this committee are acting in good faith and they agree we need to complete this work as quickly as possible. This debate has been going on for several years now. The Auditor General presented her original report into the sponsorship scandal back in 2003. It's now midway through 2006 and we're still waiting for a legislative response from any government at a federal level. I think three years is a long enough time to talk. We now have a very comprehensive bill for which all parties have proclaimed their support.

This motion seeks to assert the committee's firm commitment to the passage of this bill before summer, and it demonstrates the willingness of members of this committee to roll up their sleeves and do the job, even at some personal sacrifice. We're all paid here not to talk but to do. I firmly believe that members of this committee from all different parties want to achieve something for the taxpayers who sent them here, even if it means sacrificing some of the personal time that is typically afforded to members of Parliament throughout the summer.

I'm proposing that we sit here until the job is done, Mr. Chair, and work vigorously to complete the task. At the same time, this motion allows us to hear as many witnesses as we need. In fact, it gives us more time to study, more time to consider, and more time to put forward amendments and to analyze clause by clause. In that sense, Mr. Chair, it represents the best of both worlds: we can complete our work for the Canadian people, and we can also take as much time as is necessary to complete the task.

Finally, we can send a message to the taxpayers who sent us here that we're serious about achieving what we promised we would achieve at election time.

Those are my thoughts.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

The motion is on the floor.

Is there debate? Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In my opinion, this was an excellent presentation by Mr. Poilievre on the common will of committee members to adopt Bill C-2 as soon as possible. However, I have noticed a few minor flaws and I would like to point them out.

First, if committee members are very sincerely united in their intention of providing as soon as possible a safety net for public servants who make disclosures, then it is possible for us to do it. In fact, the government holds this power in its hands. All we need to do is to pass Bill C-11 right away and then allow committee members to study Bill C-2 seriously.

Some say that if the members of the opposition were sincere, they would greatly accelerate the study of this bill so as to protect public servants. I think that this is a rather weak theory, given the fact that Bill C-11 does exist, and that the Conservatives obstinately refuse to implement it. This is the first problem.

The second problem is that we have heard about eight witnesses up to now, and they all told us that Bill C-2 was good but that it needed amendments. Now, Mr. Poilievre feels that he is on a mission, like Moses with the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. In fact, Moses had a perfect document straight from God. The eight witnesses we heard all told us the same thing, they were all in good faith and no one wanted to use delaying tactics; even if this bill is well drafted, we must look at it closely.

Can Mr. Poilievre and the Conservatives say that the eight witnesses who appeared before the committee, including Mr. Cutler and Ms. Fraser, were in bad faith because they suggested significant amendments to Bill C-2? I hope not. At least, if they look at the list, they will see that the witnesses are not members of the Bloc Québécois. I think that they came here as professionals to tell us that Bill C-2 needed serious study.

In any case, as we already said, we will go on maintaining that we want public servants to be well protected, first of all by adopting Bill C-11. Secondly, given that the Conservatives are obstinately refusing to adopt this bill with interim provisions, let me move the following amendment to the motion at hand:

That the committee seek to complete its work on Bill C-2 before the House adjourns for summer recess in late June 2006, and that if that work is not complete the committee will continue its work until June 30, 2006, and will then adjourn until the first Monday in August 2006, which is August 7, if need be, notwithstanding the summer recess.

If, over the last six months, there had been any will to protect public servants, Bill C-11 would have been implemented. I therefore move that we sit until June 30 and come back on August 7, if need be, to hear the other witnesses. And I do now so move. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now have an amendment.

Mr. Poilievre, and then Ms. Jennings.

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

I thank Mr. Sauvageau for having made that submission and that proposed amendment. I feel it's unnecessary, because the original motion already contains the possibility of sitting in August. One thing you can't get back in life—you can get back a lot of things that are lost—is time; once it's gone, it's gone. In other words, if it turns out that we're not able to complete our work by the end of August, we can't go back to say we're going to meet in July again, because July is already gone.

I would propose we stay with the original wording, because it allows us to meet in July, and if we're done, then August is free. If we need August, then we have it as well. Frankly, the existing motion covers the considerations Mr. Sauvageau has put forward, in that it leaves open the possibility of sitting in August as well.

Finally, I haven't heard from Mr. Sauvageau why August is better than July. If we have to sacrifice one, why would it be August and not July? I know there are as many constituency events that go on in August as in July, and if there are specific holidays that come to mind in any part of the country, Quebec included, I'm sure the committee would at that time make a decision to stop our function for those holidays and then get back to work as soon as they're over.

So I do not support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings.

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

I support the amendment proposed by Mr. Sauvageau, and I would propose calling the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I didn't fully hear the intervention from Ms. Jennings. Did she call the question?

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

I did, but I didn't realize you hadn't spoken. I apologize.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Nothing personal taken.

I would like to add a few comments.

I feel strongly that we're being asked to do something special here. We've been given this task, and it's a great honour to be part of this task to do something meaningful for the country. We're being asked to make some personal sacrifice by Mr. Poilievre's motion. We're being asked to take one for the team, as it were, and give a bit of our time above and beyond the pace we already keep as members of Parliament.

I, for one, want to be on the side of the people who are willing to roll up their sleeves. If we have to wear short pants to work because it's sweltering in the middle of summer while we're here, we should do that willingly. Frankly, I'm grateful for the opportunity to be a part of this. It's a noble initiative, and we should vote in favour of the resolution to stay here until the job is done--until we can proudly pass it on to its next step.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have an amendment. We will vote on the amendment.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I apologize; Mr. Sauvageau, and then Mr. Tonks.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Should the votes be tied, the chair can break the tie in such a way as to preserve the status quo. Will this rule be applied here?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Unfortunately.

Mr. Tonks.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to underscore what Mr. Martin has said in terms of the absolute requirement for us to expedite consideration of what is a major piece of legislation. I hope it isn't taken or inferred that because we aren't willing to meet in the summer, we are any less committed to that noble objective. That should be self-evident.

I would like to stress that there's a difference between being a member from Ottawa--with great respect--and being a member from British Columbia or the Yukon. We may have opportunities that would avoid having to meet during the summer and from an equity perspective be in the interests of the members.

I would suggest that the committee give consideration to meeting extra time. That was earlier presented as an alternative--that as we look at our work schedule over the next two months, the committee from time to time determine whether it wants to bring forward additional witnesses in order to expedite the consideration of the agenda in dealing with this bill. It would still achieve the objective Mr. Martin has so capably outlined, but it would at the same time avoid the necessity...for obvious reasons of family and so on, and it would protect the opportunity for members to get back to their families and their constituencies.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to ask for a brief recess.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I just want to make one observation. I share the feeling for the noble task we have before us and the importance and complexity of this piece of legislation. I think one thing that's been evident since this legislation was introduced in the House is that it has been cast as.... I paraphrase, but I think quite accurately, the President of the Treasury Board as saying this is the strongest piece of anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history. To me, Mr. Chair, that is raising the temperature beyond the situation in our country.

I refer to Justice Gomery's conclusions that the vast majority of public servants and politicians are honest, diligent, and effective in their work. Secondly, the fact that the Gomery inquiry was set up as it was, as he says in his comments, with the breadth of access to information, even up to the Prime Minister and former prime ministers and cabinet documents, demonstrates that Canada is one of the most accountable countries in the world. These are the conclusions.

That doesn't quite square with the rise in temperature that I think is being attempted to be given to this bill. It's very important. There are incremental improvements on what's happened over the years. We have an independent conflict of interest commissioner--

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

--we have political financing legislation, we have Bill C-11--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a point of order, Mr. Owen. We'll have to stop here.

Mr. James Moore.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I appreciate my colleague from Vancouver Quadra debating the findings of the Gomery Commission, but I believe Ms. Jennings a moment ago called the question. It was deferred for a second. Can we go to the question now?