:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. NDP-25 is so moved.
To give you some background on this, Mr. Chair, we were very clear about our thoughts on ensuring that there was public disclosure of government information, not just in this process but indeed before the last election. The public has a right to know that information, but the means by which it can know has to do with public information, and this would give it the means to be able to get that information.
This amendment will ensure that there is public disclosure of basic information on government contracts--and we've seen this recently, in fact in the House today. It is akin to having a window into how our money is spent, how your money is spent, how my constituents' money is spent.
Without this, the transparency of government operations is limited, in my opinion. That's why we put forward this motion. This wasn't something we came up with during this process. In fact, it reflects something we heard from witnesses and from people who want more transparency. Adding this amendment requiring public disclosure of basic information on government contracts will allow for that.
I guess we could have some insight from Mr. Wild on this, but I think if we want to make sure that indeed we're being as transparent as possible, we need to allow for public disclosure of the information on these contracts and the background thereof.
Just in summary, Mr. Chair, I think when we look at the concerns we have had—on the government side, or all of Parliament—where are the origins of this bill? The origins were in the fact that we had concerns about how contracts were done and how the accountability instruments and rules were ignored.
It just seems common sense that we would allow for public disclosure. In fact, even the government right now—indeed, it might be nascent—is engaged in this. So I would think that we should put this amendment forward and put this into play, so that we could actually have full public disclosure of contracts, of which we had many concerns with the recent sponsorship scandal. So it baffles me why we wouldn't do this.
I would hope that people would support it—not because it's our amendment, but because it just makes good sense. It won't paralyze government. They'll have a chance to bring it forward and, in the end, Canadians will have public disclosure of contracts, which I would suggest is one of the reasons why we're here today discussing this bill.
I would hope for members' support on this amendment.
Thank you.
Again, through you to Mr. Wild, I agree with the sentiment of this amendment. Indeed, Mr. Dewar is correct that the reason the voluntary, proactive disclosure of contracts over $10,000 was put in place was the difficulties with the sponsorship program, and that's been going on for over a year now—and perhaps two years.
If there are 400,000-odd of those being posted, I'm wondering what the expense and the complexity to government would be, as one matter. Where or at what level does it become impractical by way of cost, but also in terms of impact? If we've got 400,000 or so now being posted and we were to go to any contract—$100 or $500—are we going to lose what's most important, the focus and emphasis of it on the larger contracts, by just flooding the web with millions of contracts perhaps?
I approve and support the concept. I'm just wondering where it becomes impractical.
:
Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that I do want to raise with respect to this amendment--it's the amendment, less so the subamendment perhaps--is that it is unclear to me, in the scope of what we're doing under proposed section 42, when the amendment refers to government contracts.
I just want to make a point here. We were very careful in the language we chose in proposed subsection 42(1)--kind of the chapeau part of the section, if you will--to talk about contracts, meaning any legal agreement that would be considered a contract. So it's larger than just a services contract or a goods contract; it would include employment, a real estate agreement, a lease, anything.
And we were very specific in proposed paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) to narrow...where necessary. So, for example, under (b), where it's meant to only apply to government procurement, if you will, we were very careful to talk about contracts “for the performance of work, the supply of goods or the rendering of services”.
I'm not sure what the intention of the motion is.
If it's actually meaning all government contracts, which would include transfer payments, grants and contributions, all real estate, leases, procurement of goods, procurement of services, then, quite frankly, we are probably talking over a million; I don't know if we're going to get into millions, but we are talking a very large number. It would be well above the 450,000 procurement contracts.
So I just want to raise that there is an issue in terms of what this particular amendment is actually focusing on.
:
I move amendment NDP-26, Chair.
If we take a look at the intent of this section, we are looking at how we regulate and deal with areas of government, and one of the areas of government that is very important to us is how lobbying is dealt with. We've discussed lobbying before, and we've discussed contingency fees. We've discussed the registry. We've discussed the fact that lobbying needs to be cleaned up in this town. I won't go over the horror stories of what happens when lobbying is not regulated.
What we need to do is make sure this is going to be something that is all-encompassing. We have one crack at this for now, and that is to make sure that lobbying is something that is done responsibly--and there are responsible lobbyists in this town.
When I look back to what we had put forward in our ethics package that Mr. Broadbent moved before the election, one of the key things he wanted to make sure of was that we wouldn't have people who are lobbying government turning around and receiving government contracts. It's a very basic notion. In fact many of the people I know who do lobbying, who are responsible lobbyists--which is the majority of them--know that to be an ethical way of doing their jobs.
You decide what kind of lobbying you're going to do. You set up your operations such that you lobby on one particular area, and you don't confuse things. In other words, it's like two separate circles; it's not like a Venn diagram. When we have people who are lobbying government one day turning around and getting government contracts the next, we end up with this kind of Venn diagram. It's not only confusing, but I would say it's not ethical, because you're receiving contracts from people one day, the next day you're lobbying, and it goes on and on.
Canadians aren't aware of this, by and large. Most people outside of this town didn't know this was an issue until recently. We want to make sure this is dealt with. We want to make sure that people who are lobbying one day don't turn around and get a contract the next day. We want to put up a wall that doesn't have holes in it, so there are no tunnels that people can crawl through to get to the other side.
What this amendment does is ensure that contracts for the performance of work, the supply of goods, or the rendering of services not be awarded to firms that normally lobby the Government of Canada.
I have talked to people about this. To a person, no one disagrees with this. I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with this. If there are other concerns, let's have them. But in terms of the ethical behaviour of how people lobby and how they receive contracts, it's pretty clear. People in my constituency don't have connections that they can one day turn into lucrative contracts. That's the kind of thing we need to steer away from.
That's the essence of this motion, the motivation behind it. It's to finally cement the difference between what it is to lobby and what it is to garner influence from that lobby, which is to be able to get government contracts.
:
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 government contracts regulations, which require an open and competitive bidding process. So then you're really talking about contracts under $25,000.
For contracts that are under $25,000 for services and goods, you could potentially, I guess, create a regulatory regime that would discriminate against a certain class of service providers--maybe. The only reason I say “maybe” is that I just want to be very careful about that potential. So the government would be faced with the task of trying to find a way to carve a set of regulations that would be narrow enough in the monetary amount of contracts that it could still incorporate.
I keep saying “discriminatory” because in the procurement world that's what it is.
If you were going to do that, as long as you kept it under $25,000 you would probably be okay. But even under $25,000, while it's not a regulatory requirement, the government still tries to compete where possible. It's just the notion that if you have an open and transparent bidding process, then you only have the relevant factors coming into play on the actual criteria that you sent out and that companies are coming back and bidding against.
I'm struggling with trying to figure out how we could do the regulations. The only thing I keep coming back to is that if we were staying under $25,000, then it might be possible to do the regulations.
:
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 have a schedule sitting there, along with the definition, then you can run into legal interpretive problems, as you have a schedule listing certain bodies, but they're all captured by a definition, and then, if for some reason more bodies get captured by the definition but they're not scheduled, it starts to become very confusing and difficult to figure out what's going on.
So certainly if the motion that creates (c.1), so you have a separate stand-alone exclusion, if you will, for the council of a band and so on.... The schedule at that point becomes redundant, and certainly from a technical perspective and for those of us who have to live with trying to interpret the Financial Administration Act every day, it would be a welcome gift to remove the schedule.
:
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to move this final amendment, the first proposed by the Bloc Québécois.
The word “accountability” appears on page one of the bill, in the English version of the table of provisions, while the word “responsabilisation” is used in the corresponding French version of the table. If we look at the Roman numerals on page one, we note the reference in the table of provisions in the English version to “An act providing for conflict of interest [...] oversight and accountability”. The French version merely notes: “[...] et de responsabilisation”.
The word “accountability” appears in the short title in the English version. The wording of the English version is therefore consistent. However, instead of “responsabilité”, the French version employs the word “imputabilité”.
So then, there's a mistake somewhere. There's no question about that. The error is contained, in our view, in the short title: “Loi fédérale sur l'imputabilité”.
We're proposing that the title of the act be changed to “Loi fédérale sur la responsabilité”, to ensure consistency with the word used in the table of provisions in French.
If Mr. Petit is entirely correct about this, then it shouldn't say: “Loi prévoyant des règles sur les conflits d'intérêts et des restrictions en matière de financement électoral, ainsi que des mesures en matière de transparence administrative, de supervision et de responsabilisation”.
Instead, it should say: “et d'imputabilité”, assuming he's right.
Furthermore, upon further investigation, the word “imputabilité” is actually used incorrectly in French in this context. The Office de la langue française suggests that people avoid using this word because, and I quote:
En français, seules de choses comme une action blâmable ou une dépense budgétaire sont imputables. Le term imputabilité désigne en fait la possibilité de considérer une faute ou une infraction come attribuable, du point de vue matériel et moral, à une personne donnée. On parle donc d'imputabilité d'un délit à une personne, mais non d'imputabilité de la personne.
That explanation comes from the terminology library of the Office de la langue française as well as from the translation service of the House of Commons.
Clearly then, since there is an error in the table of provisions and in the short title, we're asking, through amendment BQ-1, that it be rectified.
:
You know what? We're not there yet.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I wish you hadn't even started that.
There will be an opportunity for members to speak once we've concluded everything and we have all of this out of the way. The chair would like to start off, and then members can join in--if we ever finish this.
All right. So we have voted on clause 1 as amended.
Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Before you all run out of here, the chair would like to make a few comments--it's my prerogative as chair--and other members may wish to add to this.
This has obviously been a difficult time. We have finished, and I would like to thank all members of the committee for helping me out, because there were some times when I needed help. I do appreciate all that help.
However, there are others who we should thank, and this is going to take a while, so hold off your applause. It's like the end of a movie, you know, when they list all those things. This is what this is--the credits.
First of all, I certainly couldn't have been up here without the clerk, Miriam Burke. I want you to give her a special hand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I'm going to list some names from the committees directorate--and I wasn't familiar with that term--Caroline Martin, Melissa Mastroguiseppe, Lise Tierney, Sharron Scullion, Robert Hoffman, and Diane Lefebvre.
From the legislative unit are Michael Lukyniuk, Susan Baldwin, Joann Garbig, Wayne Cole, and Mike Macpherson.
Let's give all those people a hand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Then there are all the other committee staff, the interpreters, the console staff, and the messengers. Let's give them a hand, particularly those guys back there.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: From the library--you should know some of these names, but we're going to list them because there are quite a few--we have Katharine Kirkwood, Kristen Douglas, Nancy Holmes, Sebastian Spano, Margaret Young, Wade Riordan Raaflaub, Lydia Scratch, Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Alex Smith, Jack Stilborn, Sam Banks, Philippe Le Goff, Tara Gray, and Brian O'Neal.
I want you to give all those people a hand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Then we have these two people here, Mr. Wild and Ms. Cartwright.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: And if you could, please pass on your thanks to the people who have helped you and have from time to time come here. We do appreciate all of your work and your putting up with the committee. You've been very good to us.
Thanks to the House of Commons law clerk, Mr. Rob Walsh, and his staff.
Some hon. members: Hear, Hear!
The Chair: Finally, there are the publications staff who are working on the various copies of the bill and who produce the report. There are quite a few of them, so let's give those people a hand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Now you have a chance for any special comments--as long as it doesn't get too political.
Mr. Owen.
:
I'd like to thank all of the people on the committee, obviously, but also the people behind the scenes: the people who actually fed us, the people who brought us information when it was required, the people who gave us technical assistance, the people who are doing the translation, and all those people who are helping us as staff for the respective political parties as well, because they've had to go beyond the norm, whatever the norm is.
I'd like to say, as someone who is new, like Mr. Murphy, this was a very interesting first time. Some have mentioned it as trial by fire, but I think in the end it was a genuine learning experience for me, not only in terms of process and procedure--and God help us if we have to go through anything quite like this anytime soon--but in terms of the breadth of information and the knowledge that I gained from the witnesses, from our technical panel, and how government works.
Someone mentioned that sometimes legislation is like making sausage. It ain't pretty sometimes, but in the end you come out with something, hopefully, you can be proud of. If we look at how this committee has worked and how we are able to move this along, hopefully we can see some of the same kind of sensibility in the House.
I will finish off by thanking you, Mr. Tilson, for shepherding us along. I appreciate your support throughout.
:
I'd like to focus my thanks particularly on the people who were involved in the early stages of drafting. A lot of the work they did prior to the politicians even getting involved was very difficult, grinding, thankless labour, and they did it with incredible professionalism under trying circumstances and nearly impossible timeframes. They met them with grace and never missed a beat.
I'm not going to name all of them right now, but there are a tremendous number of people, many of whom I see in this room, who were there from Treasury Board, from Justice, and from other parts of the public service, PCO, to put together this package and then ultimately support it throughout all of its stages.
I'd like to thank all of the services and the people who have been supporting us throughout, Mr. Chair, yourself as well. I'd like to thank my staff, who have been incredibly dedicated. James Kusie comes to mind, who works in my office and tries his best, sometimes to no avail, to keep me on track. Thanks to the minister as well for entrusting me with this task and for keeping the faith and the promises that we made.
I'd also like to thank the other members of the committee. Though we had some very direct and heated exchanges, some of them very colourful, I want you to know that despite the moments when the adrenalin was higher than it should have been, I respect all of you deeply as people and fundamentally believe that all of you are here for the right reasons. I believe that those reasons have been achieved in what is a very good final product.
Thank you.