Evidence of meeting #163 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pay.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
So they have been communicating with the department about the integrity regime as part of the compliance agreement.
4:10 p.m.
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility
If I might add, it wouldn't surprise me if SNC was on that list of 300, but I can't speak to whether it was or not. It's the second biggest engineering firm in the country. It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't know for sure.
4:10 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
We'll just confirm right now that they were on the list. They were one we did receive comments from. They are not the only one, but they were on that list.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
For the minister, do you and your government feel that a 10-year suspension from federal contracts is too severe a penalty for companies convicted of criminal charges?
4:10 p.m.
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility
I don't think that question can be answered in isolation. Based on the feedback we received and the international best practice, we determined that, if we were going to expand the scope of potential triggers, i.e., offences that could result in debarment, or the business ethics violations of kind of a business ethics that might be included.... If we were going to expand the scope of offences, we needed to have a sliding scope of punishment, if you will.
We couldn't justify giving a company a 10-year ban for a labour code violation an equal ban as, say, a terrorist conviction.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I think that's something you heard in the consultation, that the severity of the offence committed should determine the time period of suspension.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
In your opinion, is the bribery of public officials a pretty serious offence? Where would you put it on the scale of seriousness?
4:10 p.m.
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility
If I'm going to be most responsive to your question, I would say that's not my call to make. We have an independent registrar of suspension and ineligibility who makes these determinations and to whom I've delegated absolute authority. I don't have any say in that.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
But you're the minister signing off. Are you not signing off on the integrity regime, and doesn't government have a role in sending...?
4:10 p.m.
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility
We will be signing off on the policy changes, but the application of that policy falls directly to the bureaucrats.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Do you not think it would be appropriate to have, in a policy like the one on the integrity regime, some discrimination between more serious charges and less serious charges? That would be an option. I'm just curious to know whether you think that the bribery of public officials is a very serious offence or you think it's not a serious offence. Where does it fall on the scale for you and for your government?
4:10 p.m.
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility
Our government doesn't have a position on the hierarchy of offences. I think it's determined on a case-by-case basis based on all of the factors applicable in a case. It would be inappropriate for me to make that call.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
There's discrimination in the Criminal Code, for instance, between the severity of offences. Legislation is passed to discriminate between more serious and less serious offences. I'm a little puzzled, frankly—
4:10 p.m.
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility
We will set the policy parameters.
February 27th, 2019 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, does this have to do with the estimates, really?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
Fine, yes, it's about the integrity regime, but not about the application of the integrity.... It has nothing to do with the estimates.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Madam Mendès, I'm not giving any extra latitude to this, but I am listening very intently to the questions and the answers.
The minister spoke at length in her opening statement about the integrity regime. Mr. Matthews talked about the number of individual companies as well as organizations and industries, and Mr. Blaikie is questioning on the integrity regime and exactly the scope of seriousness. I think that's relevant, and I would ask him to continue his line of questioning.
If I think it's coming to—there's a certain line—I will certainly intervene, as I have done on many occasions before, and I think you know me to be as fair as I possibly can be on these situations. I have not heard anything yet that would cause me to intervene with Mr. Blaikie.
Continue, Mr. Blaikie. You have three minutes and 42 seconds left.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Essentially what's happening in these estimates is that the government is asking for about $2.5 million to implement an integrity regime. Now, we have a variety of offences within the Criminal Code, and nobody thinks that somehow government shouldn't have an opinion about whether certain types of offences are more severe or not or that the code shouldn't automatically discriminate between certain types of offences that are obviously more offensive than are other types of offences. I don't think it would be inappropriate in the integrity regime to make a discrimination between certain kinds of offences as being more serious or less serious.
The minister herself has said that some offences are more serious and others are less serious. I'm asking her how serious she thinks it is that a company bribes public officials in order to get work. I'm frankly a little miffed that I can't get an answer. I thought it was an easy one.
4:15 p.m.
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility
I guess I'm hesitant to start creating a list ranking offences, and I wouldn't want that to become in any way a strict pronouncement on what the registrar, who is independent, should take into consideration.
4:15 p.m.
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility
What I will say, though, is that the severity of the offence will be one of the factors taken into consideration by the registrar.
Bill, can you...?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
No, it's okay. I don't need an explanation from an official. I think I'm asking political questions about the nature of the integrity regime, and I'm disappointed that I can't get an answer. We leave it up to judges, for instance, to make decisions about the severity of particular offences before the court, but that doesn't mean that we can't, in our law, distinguish between certain offences that are more serious or less serious.
I'm just puzzled that I can't get an answer to that. I'm interested, because I do think that—you've said you want to add more charges and expand the scope, recognizing that new charges may be of a lesser severity than are the existing charges. The question is why can't the 10-year period apply to the existing charges that were recognized as being quite severe, or do you think that the severity of the existing charges was overrepresented in the original policy?
4:15 p.m.
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility
Sorry, I didn't understand that was the question.
What I will say is that we are making a policy choice, if this new policy is adopted, to add flexibility in the registrar's determination of both the severity of the offence and several other factors that they will take into consideration in the decision around debarment and the debarment term.