Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Mr. Chairman, the only thing I can really say on this question is that with respect to the short title, in essence you're free to put whatever you want in the short title. It's a deeming provision, so you can call the act what you want to call the act. In terms of the question o

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Just to be of assistance, Mr. Chair, there are two schedules. Schedule VI, if it hasn't already been voted on, would need to be approved in that it touches the accounting officer. Schedule VII is the schedule that is gone as a result of the vote on clause 315.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If I may, actually the amendment proposed by the NDP takes the currently proposed paragraph 42(4)(c) and reduces it to just say, “the government of a foreign state, a provincial government or a municipality or any of their agencies”. Then the NDP introduces proposed paragraph (c.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  From a technical perspective, in terms of what I believe you're trying to accomplish—and the legislative clerks may have a perspective on this as well—my suggestion would certainly be that if you went with the amendment proposed by the NDP, as long as you dealt with clause 272, t

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The only reference to schedule VII in law would be in proposed paragraph 42(4)(c). This is effectively removing that reference to schedule VII, in which case it no longer makes sense to have a schedule VII to the Financial Administration Act. So you would need to do whatever you

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The preference certainly is to do away with the schedule if what's captured in the schedule is going to be done through definition. It's certainly easier I think from any reader's perspective to understand what's captured through the definition. If you

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It's certainly possible that regulations could be constructed, provided that we're only dealing with contracts under the trade agreement thresholds. So if you were talking about contracts under $100,000 for services...although even then you're going to run into a problem with the

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I think the issue with audit companies has primarily been dealt with by the profession itself, in that it is self-regulating, with its own rules around when you can act as an auditor, and that if you are going to act as the auditor for a company, you should not then be participat

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Mr. Chair, with respect to the question of “normally”, it's certainly a vague term in law. So there is a vagueness in the use of that word. Given that this is, again, being designed as a discretionary regulation that the Governor in Council would be passing, the Governor in Counc

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The passage of the clause would simply set up the authority to issue a regulation. If the regulation were ever issued--

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  --unless trade agreements were first amended to allow for the possibility of basically creating preferential treatment for non-lobby firms--in other words, if you somehow tried to get into the trade agreements that you could discriminate against a lobby firm in an open, competiti

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  All of them? It would take a matter of years, if not decades, I would think, of negotiation.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I think the issue you would face would be the agreement on internal trade. Assuming that the lobbyist registry only contains Canadian lobby firms or lobbyists who are Canadian, the issue, then, would be the agreement on internal trade. Again, for over $100,000 for services and ov

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, that I fully followed the question.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  In order to stay within the language we use in the Financial Administration Act, if the intention is to cover government procurement contracts, I would suggest that it should read, “information on government contracts for the performance of work, the supply of goods or the render