INST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE, DES SCIENCES ET DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April, 3, 2001

• 1531

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I'm going to call the meeting to order. I would ask the cameras to please leave the room. Thank you.

Pursuant to the order of reference of the House dated February 27, 2001, our order of the day is main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120 and 125, under Industry.

I am very pleased to welcome here today the Honourable Brian Tobin, the Minister of Industry, to discuss estimates.

I want to remind committee members that we have invited both the minister and the ethics counsellor to appear to discuss and consider the report on the 2001 and 2002 main estimates, as well as to provide information relating to future expenditure plans and priorities of the department. All my previous rulings on what's in order and what's not in order are still binding on this committee.

The minister will begin with an opening statement, and then we'll move to questions.

Minister, I turn it over to you.

The Honourable Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry): First of all, Madam Chairman, may I thank you and members of the committee for the speedy way in which you have invited me back to this committee to address the issue of estimates and the plans and spending priorities of the Department of Industry. We are very grateful for the early opportunity you have so kindly provided.

I thank members of the committee for their presence here today, so I can elaborate on the plans and priorities of the department. I note as well, in passing, something I would seldom, if ever, do, Madam Chairman, the interest of the media in the plans and priorities and spending estimates of the Department of Industry.

Madam Chairman, when I was here three weeks ago, I spoke at length to members of the committee about the government's vision for Canada's future in the new knowledge economy. That vision contained two priorities: creating an innovative culture in Canada, and branding Canada a world-leading innovator. I'm here today, at your request, to outline Industry Canada's plans and priorities, as found in part III of the main estimates, and to explain how they support the vision I outlined several weeks ago on behalf of government.

Industry Canada's mandate is to help make Canada a more productive and more competitive society in today's global knowledge economy and to improve the standard of living and the quality of life of all Canadians. Industry Canada has a leadership role in establishing and helping to implement the government's micro-economic agenda, which supports these objectives. We believe our work at Industry Canada has had a very positive effect on all Canadians, and that's part of the reason the shorter version of the report on plans and priorities is entitled Making a Difference.

Industry Canada's main estimates for the fiscal year 2001-2002 total $1.2 billion, compared to $4.5 billion for the entire industry portfolio. The department employs, Madam Chairman, some 5,600 employees, compared to a total of 17,000 for the full range of the portfolio responsibilities.

• 1535

Our work at Industry Canada is focused on five strategic objectives. All of these, while they function separately, at the end of the day work together to create and support an innovative economy.

The first of these is innovation. Our goal is to help build a world-leading economy driven by innovation, by ideas, and by talented Canadians. Research and development all across this country is fuelling productivity and economic growth, and at the end of the day that research and development, when the knowledge that flows from it is commercialized, creates jobs for Canadians.

Although the pace of innovation has been faster in Canada relative to other G-7 countries, our level of innovation capacity still remains near the bottom. So while it's important for us to trumpet our success in the movement that we've seen, it is equally important for us to acknowledge that Canada, if it stands still relative to our main trading partners, runs the risk of being left behind.

We need to become more innovative at an even faster pace. Our competitors are not standing still. Indeed, there is a significant innovation gap between Canada and our main competitor, the United States. As we saw last week in a report in one of the major national newspapers, the productivity gap between Canada and the United States also continues to grow. That in part is attributable to our relative position on the innovative scale.

Industry Canada is promoting innovation as a critical success factor across all sectors of the economy. It's playing an instrumental role in renewing our knowledge infrastructure. Industry Canada is promoting strategic partnerships between the research and business communities to encourage a higher level of commercialization and the adoption of innovative products and services. We're supporting the development and application of practices and technologies that will benefit the environment as well. But more needs to be done faster to narrow our innovation gap and to make Canada a world-leading innovator.

As this committee well knows, no discussion of innovation would be complete without reference to the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Madam Chairman, there have been many comments, some in support of this program, others designed to make it more relevant, more effective, more present in a greater number of areas all across this country. We have taken those comments on board, I want to assure members here, at Industry Canada.

To date the government has awarded $3.15 billion to CFI to support infrastructure renewal in our universities, colleges, research hospitals, and not-for-profit institutions. The CFI has three special funds that are specifically designed to help small universities and colleges build their research capacity. They reserve a certain amount of funding for each small university and college, and applications from these institutions to gain access to the reserve funds must pass peer review assessment. These financial resources ensure that small research institutions can build excellent research capacity.

I think it's worth noting that when we talk about this ongoing debate between the smaller number, if I can put it that way, of universities that have had more success in accessing CFI funding, as opposed to the many across the country that haven't felt they've had an equal chance to participate, that equal chance to participate, or the lack of it, is probably more a function of capacity than it is a function of fairness in the basic program, given that the program is designed to reward excellence through a peer review process.

So, Madam Chairman, we'll be talking more about and working more towards building capacity everywhere in this country. Just yesterday, Madam Chairman, in Montreal my colleague the Honourable Martin Cauchon, on behalf of Technology Partnerships Canada, Industry Canada's program, announced two initiatives designed to help small and medium-sized Canadian aerospace and defence firms better meet the challenges of the global economy. These programs will invest a total of $39 million to fund what we anticipate to be 40 or more projects over the next three years, assuming full take-up.

I want to assure the committee that Canada's innovation efforts are paying off. Last month, at the California State University at Northridge Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, a piece of Canadian technology called Victor, which is a talking book machine, won a head-to-head duel with its only competitor, a machine from Japan. Industry Canada was an early partner in this with Visuaide, a small Montreal company that employs some 52 people.

• 1540

At the same conference, a new video telescope for low-vision people came onto the market. Industry Canada was also a partner in this new technology, which allows people with very low vision to see faces, very often for the first time.

Our second objective is to make Canada the most connected nation in the world. New technologies are transforming the way we communicate, the way we learn, work, and play, and it's essential that all Canadians have access to the opportunities that such innovations offer. Industry Canada is working to make sure that Canadians have affordable access to the Internet through the Connecting Canadians Initiative, and this is an area in which I think we've had some substantial success.

Through the SchoolNet, we connected all our schools and libraries to the Internet over two years ago. Indeed, we were the first country in the western world to achieve that circumstance. The Community Access Program is providing affordable Internet access in rural, urban, and aboriginal communities.

Another way in which Industry Canada is contributing to the connectedness agenda is through Technology Partnerships Canada. For example, we invested $6.2 million in MOSAID Technologies here in Ottawa to help it design more powerful and economically efficient computer chips. This will lead to better access and more secure data communications, which is a critical success factor for electronic commerce.

If one looks at where the next generation of substantial capital investment is going to be in this country, in terms of the spectrum option and the next-generation personal communication devices, clearly the movement, the commercial use of data and data transfer, represents a striking opportunity for Canada and for Canadian commercial enterprises.

Speaking of commerce, building a fair, efficient, and competitive marketplace is our third objective. This is critical to attracting investment, enhancing trade, and encouraging innovation. Both businesses and consumers must have confidence in the products, services, and transactions of the marketplace.

Industry Canada is responsible for the marketplace frameworks that directly affect Canada's ability to be in the forefront of the knowledge economy, including intellectual property, competition law, and consumer protection frameworks. As we know, with respect to some of these items, legislation is now working its way through Parliament.

Our fourth objective is making sure that the world knows that Canada is a world-leading location for investment. International investors are making their decisions based on such factors as the availability of talented people, a sophisticated knowledge infrastructure, a competitive business climate, and dynamic companies driven by innovation.

Although we're doing well in these areas, we must remember that the United States is our major competitor. It's the largest and most dynamic knowledge economy in the world today. We can't afford just to do well vis-à-vis the U.S.; quite frankly, our objective, as the chair of the Toronto-Dominion Bank said recently, must be to do better.

Industry Canada is working with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade through Investment Partnerships Canada to develop and coordinate an investment strategy targeted at key global markets.

Working with Canadians to increase Canada's share of global trade is our final objective. Canada is the most open of the G-7 countries, and we rely on trade for jobs and growth more than any other industrialized country. The knowledge economy has resulted in a growing global market for knowledge-intensive, innovative products and services. Industry Canada is working to familiarize Canadian companies with these global markets and to encourage more companies to make their products and services export-ready. For example, Industry Canada was one of the founding members of Team Canada Inc., Canada's trade promotion partnership that now includes 23 federal departments and agencies.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government promised to make Canada one of the most innovative countries in the world, to make Canada one of the top five countries in the world for R and D performance by 2010. The magnitude of the society-wide effort required to reach this target, I submit to you, has not been seen since the creation of Canada's modern social safety net.

Government saying it, government wanting it, government prepared to do its part will not move Canada the distance it must go unless there's a buy-in by provincial government, by the private sector, and by the community at large, a commitment that understands that unless we are innovative, unless we are technologically advanced, unless we invest in R and D, unless we pursue and reward excellence, then Canada runs the risk of falling behind.

• 1545

The government will need to more than double its own R and D spending, and Canada will need over 100,000 new researchers and scientists. But as I said, we here in the Government of Canada can't meet the challenge alone. We need a national action plan. We need to engage other partners all across the spectrum of governance, the private sector, and university institutions. Our collective actions must be more than incremental; they must, in short, be transformative.

As Minister of Industry, I've been given the task of bringing this cause to shape and to top of mind with the people of Canada. It's an area where this committee, the industry committee, can play a critical role.

Whenever someone thinks of Canada, I want them to think of innovation. I want them to call to mind things like this month's space mission on April 19. As members will know, Canada's next-generation robotic arm, the Canadarm2, will arrive at its new home, the international space station. This highly advanced piece of Canadian robotics, which is world-leading, is our country's newest icon in space technology and innovation. Without it, the space station quite simply could not be built. It will be a proud moment for all Canadians when the Canadarm2 hands over its pallet to the original Canadarm, as two generations of Canadian-made space robots, emblazoned with the Canada wordmark, work together for the first time.

As outlined in our report on plans and priorities, Industry Canada's goal has been to help Canadians make the transition to the knowledge economy. We've been doing this through targeted actions based on five strategic objectives: innovation, connectedness, marketplace frameworks, investment promotion, and trade. But there remains a gap between the scale of the challenge and our actions in train.

In order to meet the goals we've set for Canada, we need to drive home to all Canadians the importance of innovation to achieving a higher standard of living and quality of life. We need to communicate our commitment to creating a culture of innovation. We need to inspire key stakeholders with the vision, show leadership, and take action; and we need to brand, or rebrand, Canada as a world-leading innovator. As a country, we quite simply cannot afford to fail with respect to these objectives.

I look forward to working with my colleagues around the cabinet table, with colleagues in governments across Canada, and with this committee to help make that vision a reality.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister Tobin.

We're now going to begin with questions, and for those who came in later, I'll just remind everyone that we are here on estimates and plans and priorities. Those are the questions today.

Mr. Penson, please.

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, and welcome to the minister and his staff.

I know the minister has certainly been busy talking about a lot of industry issues in the House of Commons the last few weeks, including the Canada Business Corporations Act, the ethics counsellor, and the Business Development Bank. I know that's a huge department, and I'm not sure how you keep up with the challenge. There are 13 departments.

I'd like to talk about the productivity issue at some point, but I think we have some unfinished business that needs to be talked about here first.

The Canada Business Corporations Act, as I see in the plans and priorities, is one that you've identified for some challenges and changes in the next year. I have serious reservations about the enforcement. I have a few questions I'd like to ask and then get you to react.

On several occasions I've asked you in the House of Commons about the Grand-Mère Golf Club's compliance with section 50 of the act, and I haven't received an adequate response. I would ask that you address this issue today to tell us whether the Grand-Mère Golf Club was within full compliance of the Canada Business Corporations Act, including the registration of obligations.

I also want to ask you about the Business Development Bank. We know the Prime Minister was actively involved in talking to the former president of the Business Development Bank on several occasions about the loan sought by Yvon Duhaime. I'm wondering whether you believe it's appropriate for people in the position of the Prime Minister to be phoning and talking to the Business Development Bank about loans for constituents. Would you encourage other MPs? Is there a process by which the other MPs can also be involved in phoning the president of the Business Development Bank?

The Chair: Mr. Penson, I have a point of order.

Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): On a point of order, the concern of MPs speaking on behalf of constituents, I humbly submit, has nothing to do with estimates.

• 1550

Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Chair, the Business Development Bank appears four times in the estimates—

The Chair: Mr. Penson, Mr. Cannis is quite correct about that, so if you have a question about the estimates, could you please address it?

Mr. Charlie Penson: I have a question about the estimates. The Business Development Bank is mentioned four times in terms of Team Canada's strategy, subject to the Business Development Bank's mandate review in Parliament and the Business Development Corporation Act.

I think it's pertinent to ask whether the minister intends to set up a process so that ordinary members of Parliament can phone and have direct contact with the president of the Business Development Bank, reminding the minister that this is a crown corporation of government that he's responsible for. I would ask the question whether—

The Chair: Mr. Penson, we've a number of questions on the table, and since we each have five minutes—

Mr. Charlie Penson: That's why I'm getting my questions on the table—

The Chair: Well, no, we have five minutes for questions and answers, so I have to let the minister answer your questions that are on the table.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'm asking the questions—

The Chair: Mr. Penson, you're out of order right now.

Mr. Charlie Penson: —the Business Development Bank—

The Chair: Mr. Penson, you are out of order. I'm going to allow the minister to answer the questions.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'm asking the minister if I can phone the president of the Business Development Bank, like the Prime Minister does.

The Chair: Minister Tobin, would you like to answer the question?

Mr. Brian Tobin: Thank you very much for your very thoughtful questions on the estimates. I do appreciate those.

I have a couple of comments. First of all, you've made many statements and I think asked a number of different questions, including about the BDC, the mandate of the BDC, and how the BDC is to function.

In response to your earlier questions on whether members of Parliament have the right to make representation to organizations like the BDC, the answer is yes. In fact, I didn't come here today prepared to table, nor do I think it's necessarily appropriate to table, but many members of Parliament on all sides of the House have made representations either directly to the BDC, or through the minister regarding the BDC, seeking to put forth the case of a constituent or a proponent. So there's nothing unusual about a member of Parliament, be they sitting in the opposition side or be they sitting on the government side, or even be they sitting in the government, making representation on behalf of constituents.

Mr. Charlie Penson: To the president?

Mr. Brian Tobin: Well, you'd have to ask the president, or you'd have to have the BDC here and ask how many people make representations at what level. But there is, quite literally, within BDC an outreach program that's designed to make the organization accessible to the community at large and also to members of Parliament. My colleague, the Deputy Minister of Industry, sits on the board of BDC and may want to add a word about that program for greater information of members of the committee.

Second, the new chairman of BDC, Mr. Cedric Ritchie, among his other duties is looking at the operation of BDC. Certainly in his discussion with me he is very much aware of my interest in seeing that BDC be accessible, on a business-like basis, to small and medium-sized businesses across Canada in particular.

If BDC were to function just as a private bank functions, there really wouldn't be a case to be made for an organization called the Business Development Bank. The purpose of the bank is to be out there in communities and places and with proponents of private sector development and innovation who might otherwise not have access to a commercial lending institution.

To finish my comment, Mr. Ritchie certainly intends—he's told me so—to move across the country in as many locations as possible, to talk with members of the business community and in particular the small and medium-sized business community, to listen, to put his ears on, to come back, and based on that kind of experience, to recommend changes if any are appropriate in the way in which the BDC operates. And, by the way, I'm sure he'd be ready to come and talk to this committee.

I should say the BDC—

Mr. Charlie Penson: You can't have 301 members of Parliament phoning the president of the Business Development Bank and lobbying them or putting pressure on them. Certainly the Prime Minister was the ultimate employer of the Business Development Bank's president, and he ended up losing his job, I guess, as a result of that pressure—

The Chair: Mr. Penson, you're out of order now.

Mr. Brian Tobin: If you're looking to engage me in debate such as would occur in the House of Commons, my natural reluctance to engage in such exchange prevents me from participating. I'm trying to answer your questions because there are some substantive questions there, and I think they deserve a response.

• 1555

With respect to two other issues that you raised—or one other issue certainly—one was the issue of how the corporation's directorate functions, how it does its work, and what information flows out of that work, etc.

As you know, because I think I said so in Parliament, precisely because this has been a very partisan debate, precisely because members of several opposition parties have asked from day one, “How can we rely upon the information forthcoming from that review when the Minister of Industry, who's been defending the Prime Minister, ultimately will have the review report to him?”.... That's the question that's been raised.

Because that question was raised, the deputy minister and I, in discussing the matter, came to the conclusion that for greater certainty, the corporation's directorate's review of the files and the actions that flow from that ought to be done under the direction of the deputy—not under my direction or that of any member of my staff. So I'm going to ask the deputy, since he's carried out that responsibility, to respond to your question.

Mr. Peter Harder (Deputy Minister of Industry): Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Penson, in answer to your question, let me make a couple of points.

I would refer you to the press release of March 27, 2001, which had appended to it some of the correspondence that's relevant in the particular case you raised. But your question is in a broader context, and I'll answer more broadly and then get to the specific.

The corporation's directorate has a budget of $4.792 million and 74 employees. The Canada Business Corporations Act makes very clear what its responsibilities are and how it engages in those responsibilities. There are approximately 150,000 small, private, Canadian business act corporations that should file under the act, and they do. Compliance activities regarding these filings by corporations are limited to the filing of annual returns and examinations following written complaints from aggrieved persons.

We do not have within our resources nor within our mandate the compliance of issues pertaining to internal governance of private corporations. We do act on specific requests, and in the case that you raised, you will know that Mr. Howard Wilson wrote to Richard Shaw in consequence to a letter that the leader of the opposition sent Mr. Wilson with respect to a particular corporation, the Grand-Mère Golf Club. That examination was undertaken under section 21 of the Canada Business Corporations Act. And you will know—

Mr. Charlie Penson: And the result of that is what we want to know.

Mr. Peter Harder: That is what I was discussing, if you would give me a moment.

As you will know from the news release, what we are able to say publicly—the act makes very clear what we can say, and all of the examination was of course conducted in accordance with the act—is that the company was not in compliance with all of the aspects of the act, and that we sought to ensure that they would be in compliance. They responded by saying they would do that within days. They have complied, or they have responded to that, and as you might know—because you visited our website at Strategis—that has taken place.

I should also point to a letter from the lawyer representing the corporation, which, while sent to Richard Shaw in the corporations directorate, was tabled by Howard Wilson—I believe it was document 7—and was released not through the Business Corporations Act, because it's prohibited, but because the corporation gave its consent. That document describes and answers some questions with respect to the state of the documents.

I am unable to comment any further in respect of the examination or comment further on the letter from Mr. Paquet to Richard Shaw.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Harder.

Mr. Alcock, please.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, I want to thank you. It's not that long ago that you were here and we raised a number of questions with you, in particular, one regarding the activities of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. I appreciate your noting that in your opening remarks and your willingness to engage with us on that.

• 1600

I thought you might be interested to know I actually brought my little machine down here simply because I downloaded, in anticipation of the meeting with the president of the CFI this morning, the latest information from their website at seven this morning—if you want to check the time, Mr. Harder—just to see whether my assumptions could be proved out here. It turns out that to date, the foundation has distributed some $958,931.

One of the concerns that has been driving some of the members here is this issue of building an innovative capacity in Canada, a Canada-wide innovative capacity. There is a concern that some of the tools we're using right now have, for one reason or another, become focused on a very old model.

I draw your attention to the meeting you had this morning with Michael Dell, who has probably one of the most innovative companies certainly in North America if not the world today in making very rapid use of networking technologies and rapid response to his markets. Yet we have an institution that we have given an extraordinary amount of money to that seems to function in accordance with a very old model of where innovation is found and where research is funded.

I thought you might be interested to know that according to their website, the University of British Columbia is one of the five universities that they indicate as being the sorts of places where innovation is found. It's interesting that they're all very old-style, large universities, and it's interesting that those who drove this decision tend to be presidents of them. But that one university received more money to date than all of the universities in six of our provinces—Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the four Atlantic provinces—combined.

When we talk about building innovative capacity across this country, in all regions of this country, I think we have the wrong tool. I appreciate your willingness to take on a review of this. I certainly think this committee has an appetite to raise some pretty serious questions as we move down to the road to a broader innovation agenda. I think it's fair to say that we support what you want to do, but there are some serious questions being raised about the tools we have currently chosen.

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Brian Tobin: I certainly think the information that has been relayed to the committee by Mr. Alcock speaks for itself with respect to the issue that has been raised by members of Parliament across the country—and by the way, not just by members of Parliament from the western provinces or the Atlantic provinces. Indeed, we've had members of Parliament from Ontario and Quebec—and Madame Jennings has been one of those who raised this issue as well. I think it must be said there has not been a representation that says let's lower the bar in terms of rewarding excellence, or let's change the method of analysis in terms of peer review, but rather, let us find a way to reward excellence wherever it is found, even if it is in small centres.

I would say two things to you. One, it is clear to me that in some circumstances some of the smaller universities have not been successful in accessing funds in the way they would like because there is a capacity problem. In fact, I flew back here after the weekend, shared a plane with the chief scientist of Health Canada, who also happens to be the vice-president in charge of research for Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I asked Dr. Kevin Keough, in that circumstance, why Memorial wasn't participating more than is the case with respect to genome research.

The answer, which I thought was a courageous and clear-headed answer from Dr. Keough, wasn't that they're not getting a fair shake. His answer was, “Minister, I have to be honest and tell you, we do not have the capacity we need to have in that particular area if we're going to stand peer review and if Canada is going to invest in excellence. So what we need from you and from the Government of Canada, through its programs, is the ability to build our capacity so that we can apply for and receive on a competitive basis a share of the funds that are available.”

That describes that circumstance. That won't be true, Mr. Alcock, in every circumstance, and I think you know that.

I am very much seized by the issue you've raised. I think, given the example you just gave us, we can't afford as parliamentarians not to be seized by this issue, and I won't prescribe an instant solution.

• 1605

I will say that I share your view. There has to be an opportunity for smaller centres of excellence—and I stress the word “excellence”—to participate in these national programs without losing the desire and the need of Canada, with the dollars we have, to reward excellence. That's the conundrum. I certainly would be open to advice from the committee as to how we can achieve both these objectives—excellence and presence—in a great many more places across Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Temiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Minister, here goes my first question. There are other issues that interest me, but I am not convinced that we would be able to discuss them as I would like to see them discussed.

You made $3.1 billion available to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, an organization independent from the government that you have no influence over and whose projects are evaluated independently. Could you briefly explain to me why it is advantageous for an organization to be independent from the government?

[English]

Mr. Brian Tobin: Well, for the same reason that...

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor].

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Tobin: That is impossible for the time being, but after...

[English]

Next time out.

[Translation]

Next time out.

[English]

For the same reason that, in virtually all of the funding programs that the Government of Canada provides, we seek, in order to ensure transparency and confidence, a process of peer review. That's true of Genome Canada.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Well, that's what we want.

Mr. Brian Tobin: Well, that's true of Genome Canada. With respect to Genome Canada, for example, selecting the five regional centres, that's being done by an international panel of experts—not even individuals from this country—so that what's being supported is the science, the research, and the possibilities arising from it, as opposed to some notion of giving a share to every jurisdiction based on population.

Let me give you an example of where this can work for you sometimes. Fifty-two percent of all Technology Partnerships Canada's funding in the last year has found a home—a good investment—in the province of Quebec.

Now, you might be tempted to say to me that this is improper because it's a larger percentage of funding than is the population of the province of Quebec, but I would argue with you. I would say that because the program is designed to support the aeronautics and defence industries, we ought to support those industries where they exist, and we ought to support excellence where it occurs, and we ought to invest in areas where the return will be greatest.

Notwithstanding the position taken by some—perhaps not you as an individual—that everything ought to be done on a per capita basis, it happens that sometimes the per capita system, when we're talking about rewarding excellence, will work for you. Sometimes it will work against you. In the case of TPC, Quebec has a contribution, if one looks at geography, greater than its population, but it's one that's warranted based on peer review. I know you're delighted to hear that.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes. The second part of your answer did not necessarily relate to my question, but I do take note of the numbers, that we are aware of.

You stated that confidence and transparency are important for the Canada Foundation for Innovation to retain its credibility. Could we not apply the same reasoning to the case of a person who reports to you, namely the Ethics Counsellor? According to strategic planning, the Ethics Counsellor reports to you. Could we not apply the same principles of trust and transparency and to appoint someone who is independent from the minister or the Prime Minister and who reports to Parliament, this in the name of the very principles you invoke, transparency and efficiency, to give out money to organizations such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation?

[English]

Mr. Brian Tobin: Let me respond to you by saying this. I think members of this committee—members of Parliament generally—should think about some of the language that has been used in the debate on both sides back and forth over the last period of time, as emotions have run hot. But the ethics counsellor is independent. I report to the ethics counsellor, just as every other parliamentarian and every other minister reports to the ethics counsellor in exactly the same manner. The ethics counsellor is charged with making judgments independently—entirely of his or her own volition.

I have been the premier of a government. I have formed cabinets. I have had a conflict commissioner or ethics counsellor, in effect, report to me whether ministers are in compliance or not in compliance, etc. The judgment is to find an individual whose judgment is unquestioned and whose career, background, and reputation for fairness and integrity are such that.... The role that is required is not an easy one. It can be difficult, as we see in circumstances like this one in the last period of time.

• 1610

I would ask the question whether it's appropriate, because you don't like the answer being given, to question the integrity of the individual involved. Some people wrote the RCMP and asked for an investigation. The RCMP said they'd look into it. Some time later the RCMP said they had looked into it and there's no basis for any further investigation; they've closed the file. Rather than accepting that judgment by the RCMP, some questions were then raised about whether or not the RCMP knew what they were doing.

We're in a partisan, adversarial environment. It's quite legitimate to come after me. It's quite legitimate for me in the context of Parliament to go after you. I think it is not legitimate, and I don't think it takes any courage at all, to attack the impartiality and the credibility of an individual who, by definition, cannot respond in kind in the same manner. I would ask the member whether he's attacking the integrity of the individual who is the ethics counsellor.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I am pleased that you asked me the question. I will be able to answer.

I do not believe that an individual who reports to you or to the Prime Minister, for some of his duties, is capable of being totally independent. If that were not true, you would keep the Canada Foundation for Innovation under your wing and you would not let the Auditor General be independent from the government as well. There are therefore ways to ensure greater transparency. I am answering your question and you will answer mine afterwards.

There are ways of ensuring that an individual, or the institution he or she is in charge of, inspire greater confidence and enjoy greater credibility. This is what I wanted to say to you. If you apply this logic, as you have in the case of the Foundation, of the Auditor General and of other organizations, you create an independent position. It suits you that this official not be as independent, and no one...

[English]

Mr. Brian Tobin: I want to say to the member I'm delighted to hear his words, because, in making the case you're making, I think you've supported the position of members on the government side of the House. Because just as CFI reports through Parliament and the budget of that agency through me, so too does the ethics counsellor, who is quite independent of me. I don't tell him how to make judgments. I have no idea what the many thousands who file with the ethics counsellor have filed. I have no idea what arrangements are made. I have no idea what advice is given.

The only individuals that I can comment on in all of the thousands that come under the jurisdiction of the ethics counsellor are my own filings. I can't comment on any other. I'm not consulted about any. He's completely at arm's length. He's completely independent, and he reports through me to Parliament in the same way that CFI does. So if that's the basis of giving you a measure of confidence, you can leave here positively hopping on your heels as you go out the door.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Brien.

[English]

Mr. Savoy, please.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for coming, Minister.

I want to speak to value-added. You've made value-added a priority, and I'm talking about expected results in relation to Industry Canada's goal for value-added. In my riding, at McCain Foods—probably the pre-eminent value-added agrifood company in Canada—they've taken value-added to a new level with agricultural products. And I cringe every time I see a load of unsubsidized logs crossing the border, because we know that it could be further processed down the line.

I know that you were talking about accelerating the commercialization of R and D—and certainly I applaud that—through use of laboratory services and specialized equipment at the CRC innovation centre. To what extent are the SMEs and start-up companies prepared to use these facilities, and has Industry Canada looked at a regional approach to providing these services—for example, subcontracting out to private firms who have similar capacities because one CRC innovation centre does not effectively, in my mind, serve the entire country? So has subcontracting these services to private sector firms in the various regions across Canada been looked at as a possible solution?

Mr. Brian Tobin: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I'd like to thank the member for his question. Of course his own experience in the private sector and as an innovative private sector participant is certainly well noted, Madam Chairman, by this department.

Let me just say, with respect to the particular issue you raise, that some of those questions perhaps could be better answered or better addressed by my colleague, the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

• 1615

Without wanting to prejudge without talking to my colleague, Mr. Thibault, I agree with your notion that we have to do whatever it takes in this country to accelerate the pace of innovation. That means looking at all options, and looking to the private sector as a delivery agent is important.

Quite frankly, Canada has done well in embracing new technologies—e-commerce, e-business, e-learning—but we shouldn't be smug. We run the danger that if we pat ourselves on the back too hard about how well we do things, we may create a sense of complacency that could be dangerous.

Mr. Alcock in an earlier meeting talked about Michael Dell of Dell Computers. Dell Computers is doing a $50-million-a-day business online—$50 million a day online. Of their business, roughly 50% is online. This is a company that started in the early 1980s, out of a college dorm room. He had $80,000 a day by the time he left an academic environment and went into business full-time. He has made this notion of e-commerce not something sexy, or interesting, or exciting, or innovative, but reality. It's what separates him from the competition.

In Canada, we've taken the first steps with the private sector. Larger companies have done a better job of getting online. Smaller companies have been far less effective in getting online with their products.

So I would say to the member that if there are proposals or suggestions that he and the committee could bring to the table about how we could better deliver services and integrate the small and medium-sized business community into an innovative agenda, then certainly I would be open to any suggestions he might bring. I think I can say that on behalf of my colleague, Minister Thibault, as well.

The Chair: Mr. Savoy, another question?

Mr. Andy Savoy: Yes. The second issue is the sustainable cities initiative, which I think you're both very familiar with.

For the information of the committee, the sustainable cities initiative is where Industry Canada goes in with a Team Canada approach, and then actually stays for a while and develops contacts in various municipalities and cities around the world. Then they actually identify the sustainable challenges of those specific cities. Then they recruit Canadian companies or look at identifying Canadian companies with those resources to solve those problems.

So it positions us very well. I think to date they've done six cities—five cities, the sixth is on line. To date, $4 billion in opportunities has been provided. Not only are we good global citizens with regard to helping other developing countries and their cities, we're also good international solution providers. Also it's good for our economy, because it's good for our exports. So it's very consistent with your fifth priority, your fifth strategic objective on trade.

So with that in mind, can you speak to the sustainable cities strategy, or the sustainable cities initiative? Does this program fit in with Industry Canada's plans?

Mr. Peter Harder: Yes. In fact, Mr. Savoy, it's one of the priority areas for the department, and it's one in which we work with the private sector, as you know.

From work that you have done, you'd know that it's done an outstanding job of showing opportunities outside Canada for Canadian innovation and Canadian entrepreneurs.

There are a couple of events coming up in the near future that will highlight that program in a broader sense. I don't think a lot of people are aware of it. It's one of those candles under a bushel, and we want to put a little more shine on it.

The Chair: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Nystrom, please.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions pursuant to his responsibility for the estimates of the ethics counsellor, and supplementary to Mr. Brien's questions.

Back about two years ago, I had asked whether or not there was a conflict between Mr. Chrétien and the issue in Shawinigan, and I got a response from the ethics counsellor on May 6, 1999, saying that there was no conflict. So this is when I first started getting involved in the issue.

The minister knows that we've not been pursuing this every day in the House of Commons, but from time to time we ask questions on it, so I want to pursue it a bit today.

I wanted to—

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, I remind you that we're here on estimates, and you may not be aware of the ruling of the chair that the code of conduct under the ethics counsellor does not come within the mandate of this committee.

• 1620

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm aware of that. I'm only asking questions on what Mr. Tobin has already spoken about. I know what the purview of estimates are. I've been around here for quite a while.

I want to ask him whether or not he thinks it is proper that the ethics commissioner does not report to the House of Commons. I have no problem at all with the integrity of Mr. Wilson. I think he is a fine gentleman, and I have no problem with his work in terms of the mandate he's trying to fulfil. But he does report to the Prime Minister. In many of our provinces, the ethics counsellors report to the legislature and not the premier. It seems to me at least there's a perceived possibility of conflict of interest there since he's reporting to the very gentleman that he's investigating.

I wonder if the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for some the estimates of the ethics counsellor, would be willing to make a recommendation to the Prime Minister or to the House that we change who the ethics counsellor reports to.

It's a very straightforward question, and you're a man of few words who can answer it directly.

The Chair: Minister, I'll allow you to answer it if you wish. I would think it's a question that would be more appropriately addressed to the Prime Minister at another time.

Mr. Brian Tobin: I would agree with your observation, and despite having agreed with it, will risk nevertheless giving a comment.

It's very well known that in Canada there are a number of different ways in which this office functions in terms of the reporting mechanism. When I was Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the office was empowered by Parliament after a deliberation among party leaders, and reported to Parliament or to the legislature. But the reality is, at the end of the day there still needs to be a reporting relationship or dialogue between the premier or the prime minister who forms a cabinet about the compliance of the members of the cabinet, because the prime minister or premier, who ultimately makes that selection, has to be aware of whether or not his ministers have complied with the rules, both those that have been laid down by the legislature in an act of legislation and any additional rules or requirements that may be required by the prime minister or premier, depending on the province in question.

Quite frankly, I was very heartened by your comment in acknowledging the integrity of the individual, because that is what is paramount in having a system that works, having somebody whose integrity, on the basis of one's life experience, ought not to be questioned—or to go further, there is no reason to give question to that.

As for the Prime Minister and the ethics counsellor, because that's really where the debate and the discussion is with respect to these matters, I'm not privy to that discussion. As to what advice I may or may not give as a minister of the crown on these questions, if and when they arise, that's something I'd share with the Prime Minister.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Okay. We couldn't take you into our confidence? We wouldn't tell anybody if you tell us what you're going to advise the Prime Minister. There's nobody here who would report that, I'm sure.

You made a comment on the Business Development Bank, too, that it's not improper for a member of Parliament, representing a constituent, to phone the Business Development Bank and maybe make a case for that constituent, and so on. But do you think it should be proper for a minister of the crown to do that? A minister of the crown is a bit different from an ordinary member of Parliament, because you're part of the executive. Or is it proper for a prime minister who is the chief person in the executive to make that kind of representation, particularly when the representation is made on behalf of a former business partner?

Mr. John Cannis: On a point of order, Madam Chair, I don't mean to be disruptive, and I know my colleague here is an experienced parliamentarian, but I know they were kind of late coming to committee, so maybe for the benefit of all again, you'd be so kind, if it's not asking too much, as to read the motion we supported so that everybody is clear on what we are here to do.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm only asking the question because the Minister of Industry had already talked about members of Parliament being able to talk to the Business Development Bank, and I certainly agree with that. But I wonder, then, by extension, if it's proper for a minister to make the same—

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, maybe we could try to limit our questions and how we phrase them. It's a lot easier.

Mr. Brian Tobin: If I might, let me just remind Mr. Nystrom, who I've known for the 21 years that I've been around, who is a man who is very careful and selective and deliberate about his language and the words he uses, that he has already expressed here his confidence in the individual, his confidence in Mr. Wilson and his integrity, and so on, and for that I want to compliment him.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but in essence that's what you said. Then you asked me, do I have a problem with the Prime Minister and/or ministers making representation as MPs on behalf of their constituents.

• 1625

The individual you have expressed your confidence in has in fact addressed that question and has come to a conclusion about it. He said the Prime Minister, based on the rules available, had not been in conflict. So let me draw you to a measure of comfort based on your own analysis of the character and the integrity of the individual who made the judgment and remind you of the judgment.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I asked my question very carefully.

The Chair: This is your last question.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I said the commissioner or the counsellor has great integrity based on the rules. Now I'm asking the minister whether or not he thinks it is proper that we have rules that will allow a minister of the crown, or the Prime Minister in particular, to lobby a bank for a loan on behalf of a former business associate. Do you think the rules are the proper rules?

All the ethics counsellor is doing is interpreting the proper rules and making a judgment based on those rules. Now I'm asking you, as the person responsible for the Business Development Bank, whether or not you would like to see those rules changed.

Mr. Brian Tobin: Madam Chairman, let the record show that one of the longest serving, most knowledgeable, most experienced, most distinguished members of Parliament, and not a Liberal member, has just indicated here that based on the rules as they existed at the time, based on the judgment of a man of integrity, the Prime Minister was not in violation of the conflict rules.

I thank you for that observation.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: That's what you said.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam Chair, thank you.

Welcome back, Mr. Tobin.

Minister, I want to talk about something that I think affects a great number of Canadians. It deals with something that hits them in the pocketbook and is currently the subject of deliberations in the Senate. I'm referring to Bill S-17, the pretext for that of course being the WTO ruling.

We've come a long way in the past few years with respect to the great battles between generics and brand name, and I certainly don't want to invite that in the discussion here. Rather, I want to deal with the specific aspect of Bill S-17 that could be, with your consent, opened up or discussed with respect to infringement.

My understanding of law is that based on prima facie evidence, the question of infringement on a patent can already be taken before a court. A court can deliberate on that, yet we have, not by Parliament's consent and certainly not by this industry committee's consent but rather by fiat, by a minister having introduced this at report stage in 1992, a rather retrograde example of where an industry has been able to pretty well guarantee that the introduction of new and innovative products at a competitive price....

You've stated here in your summary about Canada needing to become more innovative, and even at a much faster pace than our competitors. Given that no other country, to my knowledge, has such a provision as subsection 55.2(4), which I'm referring to in particular, that allows a brand-name patent holder to simply declare infringement and tie up potentially new, less expensive drugs coming into our health care system, is there not an opportunity for you now to at least allow this industry committee to do what it was not allowed to do in 1993 and 1992, to open up and discuss this issue as a means of levelling the playing field, ensuring that Canadians have affordable drug care?

Mr. Brian Tobin: Madam Chair, let the record show, and if it's not already evident let me declare, that the member who has just spoken is far more expert on the provisions governing the regulations associated with this act than I am. Therefore I am severely handicapped and disadvantaged in attempting to respond to him in a manner appropriate to the seriousness of the question that has been asked.

I understand where he's coming from, and we've had this discussion before this committee and in other places. What we're doing now as a government is attempting to respond, as you've acknowledged, to the WTO ruling. We have until August to respond, to be in compliance. So the purpose of the bill is fairly straightforward. It's fairly clear and contained and is meant to be purely a response to the ruling of the WTO.

The issues that arise out of the question raised by Mr. McTeague are legitimate and genuine and require a more proper debate, not one that's hurried by a WTO deadline. I said the last time that I came before this committee, and indeed I said it again when I appeared before the Senate committee, that I thought there ought to be an opportunity at an appropriate time—in my mind, later this year, because we now have several pieces of legislation to deal with before Parliament—to come back for a broader debate and discussion.

• 1630

Mr. McTeague knows better than I do that were we to attempt to open up these questions, with the dramatic difference of opinion between the brand-name companies and the generic companies, we would never come to a successful conclusion of consideration of that bill in time to meet the WTO deadline. I would ask his indulgence.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Yes. I appreciate the answer.

The Chair: Maybe you could ask another question on the estimates, because we're here on the estimates.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Yes, that's correct, it is. It is dealing with this.

Mr. Minister, I appreciate that, but of course with the deliberations we've already lost probably a good month's worth of work on this committee. Goodness knows what will be conjured up in the future and will detract us from the things that I think Canadians believe to be important.

You mentioned in your opening statements concern with respect to the marketplace and the structure. You confined your comments in terms of competition law. Could you give us an illustration of—

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): On a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: I assume, Madam Chair, that you have changed the rules relative to the questioning of the minister, because Mr. McTeague has gone on at great length questioning the minister and receiving answers in fact on questions that have nothing to do with the estmates. So I assume that in fact there has been a change in the policy of the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Brison, there has not been a change in the policy of the committee. Mr. McTeague has been advised to ask his question on the estimates now.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Minister, could you give us an illustration of the resources that you've made available under the estimates to deal with changes to the Competition Act?

Mr. Peter Harder: That's a very good question.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Probably the most cogent you're going to get today.

Mr. Peter Harder: I would report to the members of this committee that increased resources have been made available to the Competition Bureau because of their workload. I don't have the precise details of those numbers with me. But I should point out that we are in discussion with Treasury Board on how to handle workload issues because of the demand nature of them.

The commissioner of competition and I are seeking even further resources, should they be needed, for exactly the kind of work that would be envisaged.

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Brian Tobin: I have one comment, and it is to say that unquestionably there is going to be a need to ensure that Mr. von Finckenstein and his staff are able to do the work that is required of them, and in particular the very issue we talked about, globalization, etc., really puts an extra burden on that office. The deputy is leading the discussion with that particular agency, which reports through Industry Canada.

Let me assure the member that the issue he raises is a valid one. We recognize it is a question of how much and over what period of time.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McTeague. Thank you, Minister.

I will finish this round, which will entail Mr. Brison and Mr. Bélanger, before I move on to our next witness.

Mr. Brian Tobin: I thought you wanted to get rid of me.

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question for the minister is did the Prime Minister contact anyone at the BDC, a board member or an executive, after Mr. Beaudoin had made his decision to pull the loan to the Grand-Mère?

Mr. Brian Tobin: Madam Chairman, is this the same member who just raised the rule of relevance, or is this an imposter posing as Mr. Brison?

Mr. Scott Brison: No, there can only be one imposter at the table, Mr. Minister.

The Chair: Mr. Brison, do you have any questions on the estimates?

Mr. Scott Brison: The fact is, Madam Chair, as you're aware, both the BDC and the ethics counsellor derive their estimates from this ministry, so as a result—

The Chair: You can ask questions about the BDC, but not the code of conduct, very clearly.

Mr. Scott Brison: No, Madam Speaker, you've made it clear, you are acting as a partisan puppet.

The Chair: Mr. Brison, you're out of order.

Mr. Scott Brison: You are not acting as a chairperson of this committee.

The Chair: You're out of order, Mr. Brison. I'm going to move on, Mr. Brison. Very clearly, you're out of order. You can ask questions on the estimates and the plans and priorities, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: You're being a partisan puppet.

The Chair: Mr. Brison, you're being very disrespectful, as usual. You are out of order. We're finished.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Madam Chair, I've had a chance to look at the documents in question, part III of the report on plans and priorities for the 2001-2002 estimates, and one of the five areas of priority identified is the marketplace. I want to ask the minister a couple of questions on that.

• 1635

First, I want to congratulate the department for setting up the Canadian consumer information gateway. It's a very good site available for Canadian consumers and well used. But there are some things in here I'm not too comfortable with. One of them relates to the challenges and the gaps to be addressed in the planning period.

You're dealing with “Consumers need more information concerning whether or not food products are made with genetically modified ingredients”. And on the flip side, or the right of the page, where it says “Activities”, you say “Provide advice to the Canadian General Standards Board standards committee and participate in developing a voluntary labelling standard...”.

Are we prejudging the exercise that is now going on in terms of public consultation on the need for labelling of genetically modified food products?

Mr. Brian Tobin: No, Madam Chairman, we certainly are not prejudging that issue at all. I want to assure the member that this is not the case.

With respect to consumer advice, or warning, of course that would flow out of the appropriate determination with respect to the nature of products. It's meant to be a consumer service but it's certainly not meant to be prejudging the broader issue.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fair enough. Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Brian Tobin: You're referring to the gateway, the site you can get into from a variety of different federal government departments, or through the Government of Canada online. But I should note that the particular information you're referring to would flow from the Department of Health and from the consumer affairs branch.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

My second question follows on Mr. McTeague's questions on the Competition Bureau's resources. It is my understanding—I've been told this, and if I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected—that the Competition Bureau has the ability, as an agency, to appear before other government agencies, regulatory board bodies, such as the CRTC.

At one point we had, in another committee in the previous Parliament, representatives from the bureau appearing before the heritage committee, and I asked the members representing the bureau if they could provide us with a list of the frequency with which the bureau has made representations on behalf of consumers to the CRTC. I have yet to see this, so I would repeat that question.

Also, I hope that some of the resources we will be allocating to the Competition Bureau will allow them to also make public representations on behalf of consumers when the need implies they do so. That's a wish more than a question.

My final question is on what's not in here, Mr. Minister. There's no reference inside here to the internal trade secretariat except to maintain its $550,000 allocation. We have a series of public initiatives, national initiatives, dealing with freer trade, yet I'm wondering why we are not treating the internal trade agreement, which was signed I think back in 1994, as a priority. Is it because it's all implemented, or is it because we've given up?

Mr. Brian Tobin: Thank you for the range of questions.

First of all, with respect to the role of the Competition Bureau and appearing before other regulatory agencies, that's a request for information and we'll assure you that you'll get the information. I must say it probably has happened, but very rarely.

With respect to the wish you've stated.... I'm sorry, what was your last point?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Internal trade.

Mr. Brian Tobin: No, we haven't given up, but it's a difficult file, as you well know.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You would be very well positioned to reflect on that.

Mr. Brian Tobin: I could reflect upon that, actually.

There is tentatively another meeting scheduled of ministers—or it's to be scheduled, it hasn't yet been formally scheduled—to look at the energy chapter, in particular.

I think one can look at the fact that in our bilateral relations with the United States, President Bush has identified privately in his dialogue with the Prime Minister, and indeed a few days ago identified publicly, his desire to respond to some of the U.S. energy challenges by entering into, in effect, a North American energy accord. He publicly identified Canadian resources, or assets, as part of the solution to the U.S. energy problem.

Against that backdrop what you're raising as an issue becomes all that much more important. We would in this country find ourselves in a fairly strange circumstance were we on the one hand to be entering into even more arrangements to provide fuller and fairer access of Canadian products into the U.S. marketplace when that same unrestricted access didn't exist within Canada.

• 1640

This is something the deputy minister and I, and others, have discussed literally in the last few days. It's something we intend to address on a more expedited basis over the weeks and months ahead. I hope to have a meeting of ministers from across Canada very soon.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.

I would like to first apologize to the members who weren't able to ask questions on the estimates. We do have another witness waiting.

Minister, I don't know if you have any final comments for the committee.

Mr. Brian Tobin: I would only note, Madam Chairman, the tremendous interest by all members of the committee in the estimates of the Department of Industry. This is something that really warms the cockles of my heart.

The Chair: We appreciate you taking the time to speed your agenda to be with us this afternoon. We appreciate your patience with the committee. We look forward to meeting with you again.

We're going to suspend while we exchange witnesses.

• 1642

• 1646

The Chair: I'm going to remind committee members, for those who weren't here earlier, that we are here to discuss the estimates and the plans and priorities. We've invited Mr. Wilson here to do that. Mr. Wilson has an opening statement, so I'll invite him to make it.

Mr. Howard R. Wilson (Ethics Counsellor, Department of Industry): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm delighted to be here again before the committee. It seems like only yesterday.

I'm joined, Madam Chair, by Ted Thompson, who is assistant deputy minister, business law, in the Department of Justice and senior counsel to Industry Canada.

I welcome this opportunity to again discuss the responsibilities of the Office of the Ethics Counsellor and to take questions from the committee on our activities.

In June 1994 the Prime Minister of Canada appointed me as ethics counsellor. As ethics counsellor, I have responsibility in two related domains: conflict of interest and lobbying. The Office of the Ethics Counsellor is responsible for the administration of the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders, the Lobbyists Registration Act, the LRA, and the lobbyists' code of conduct.

First, with respect to the 1994 conflict of interest code, its provisions apply to members of the cabinet, parliamentary secretaries, members of ministers' political staff, and essentially, all full-time Governor in Council appointees, in other words, the senior members of the executive branch of government. This involves approximately 1,200 full-time and 2,100 part-time public office-holders. Full-time appointees are subject to the specific obligations of the code regarding their assets, liabilities, and outside activities, whereas part-time employees are only subject to the principles of the code. The code does not apply to members of the House of Commons or the Senate, except to the extent that they are ministers of the crown or parliamentary secretaries.

[Translation]

In relation to the Lobbyists Registration Act, your committee has now launched its review of the Act. We are looking forward to your report and recommendations.

Since my last appearance before the committee in May 1999 in the context of the estimates, we have been called upon to examine and report upon several cases.

At the request of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I produced and made public a detailed report regarding allegations of conflict of interest that had been made against the Minister of Finance. It was alleged that he was in a conflict of interest because of his involvement in a Cabinet decision relating to compensation of tainted blood victims.

[English]

Under the lobbyists' code of conduct, after a thorough preliminary investigation was completed, I concluded there was no need to undertake a formal inquiry into allegations that the chair of the Red Hill Creek Expressway review panel had contravened the lobbyists' code of conduct.

At the international level, the office has been very active in responding to requests to participate in both bilateral and multilateral meetings. I presented a paper on ethics and governance at the second global forum “The Democratic State and Government in the 21st Century”, held in Brazil in May 2000 under the chairmanship of President Cardoso. We have had direct dealings on conflict of interest matters with the Chinese government, and we have provided technical expertise to the governments of the Ukraine, Namibia, Morocco, Brazil, and Argentina.

Finally, my office was heavily involved in the preparation and hosting of the International Institute for Public Ethics conference held in Ottawa in September 2000, which I chaired. This conference was attended by over 350 individuals from the public and private sectors, including representatives from foreign governments and international organizations, in all representing some 30 countries.

• 1650

The office also participates in an informal network that groups conflict of interest commissioners from all the provinces and territories and the federal government. This is the Canadian Conflict of Interest Network. We meet annually. We met in Victoria in 1999 and in St. John's, Newfoundland, in 2000.

[Translation]

Whether we are dealing with conflicts of interest or lobbying matters, transparency is of paramount importance. In this regard, we have been progressively enhancing the Office's website. For example, the website has been expanded to include links to the provincial conflict of interest commissioners offices and we put all of our reports on the website.

My office is also currently in the process of improving the look and ease of access to the Lobbyist Registration Branch's website. These enhancements are being made in order to make it more user friendly. We are also in the process of transforming the Office's Conflict of Interest business processes into an e-commerce environment.

[English]

I have a final point. My overall budget allotment for the 2001-2002 fiscal year is $1.965 million, of which $1.683 million is for salary and $282,000 is for operating and maintenance. The ethics counsellor personnel utilization for the same period will be a total of 23, which is a reduction from the 27 we had in 1994.

Madam Chairman, I look forward to the questions of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.

I'm going to remind committee members once again that the committee passed a motion to invite the ethics counsellor to appear on estimates and to provide information relating to the future expenditure of grants and priorities of his area. Very clearly we are here to discuss that today. As I stated at the beginning of this meeting, for those who weren't here, my ruling of last week applies. The code of conduct questions about members of Parliament are clearly out of order and not part of the mandate of this committee.

I will try to maintain order and decorum at this committee. The witness is here to answer questions and not to be maligned. We will try to do this in a very respectful manner.

I'm not sure who is asking the first question.

Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you also to the ethics counsellor for being here.

We are here in consideration not only of the estimates, but of the plans and priorities related to the department and certainly to the ethics counsellor.

I also appreciate the respect the Prime Minister has for the ethics counsellor. He even alluded only today in the House of Commons that in fact you would be here today, sir, to take questions. He holds you in high regard. I appreciate his reference that we can ask questions of you related, actually, very specifically to the Grand-Mère. He made direct reference to that, and you're held in high esteem.

The Chair: Mr. Day, I have made a very clear ruling of this committee. The method of this committee is such that, with all due respect to the Prime Minister and what may have been said, I will be abiding by the ruling of this committee. This committee will entertain questions on the estimates and plans and priorities. We will not delve into the code of conduct.

Mr. Stockwell Day: In fact, Madam Chair, I appreciate your reference to that.

In two different places in his opening statement, the ethics counsellor has in fact reflected upon several cases he had to report on in the context of the estimates. Those are his own words. Further on in his report, he talks about dealing with conflict of interest, or lobbying manners, where transparency is of paramount importance. He has clearly opened the door, as has the Prime Minister. I know you would not want to overrule either one of those individuals.

My first question....

The Chair: Mr. Day, I'm going to tell you once again, he has not opened the door. I'm being quite clear on this committee. I was very clear last Thursday when I talked to the committee members about what would be happening today.

The motion Mr. Penson put forward is very clear. With all due respect, you are welcome to phrase questions with regard to the estimates and plans and priorities. I'm sure you're quite capable of doing so.

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I have a point of order. Madam Chairman, since you mention my name, I have the Industry Canada 2001-2002 estimates, part III, in front of me. It's also a report on plans and priorities.

The Chair: Definitely.

Mr. Charlie Penson: That's exactly why we have the ethics counsellor here. It's pretty clear from his opening statement, he has introduced a lot of topics we want to ask him about. So I think it's perfectly in order that we continue in that vein.

• 1655

The Chair: Mr. Penson, I'm just trying to be very clear from the very beginning, because I will be very clear throughout this meeting.

Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I would like to challenge your ruling, Madam Chair, based on the fact that the ethics counsellor himself has given a report to us today, which I very much appreciate, and he has referenced twice a variety of cases—

The Chair: Mr. Day, my ruling is not debatable. If you're challenging my ruling, then we'll vote on my ruling.

Actually, there is a challenge of my ruling.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I asked for a point of order before Mr. Penson did. You didn't hear me so I allowed you to speak to Mr. Penson.

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I was one of the members who voted in favour of Mr. Penson's motion to ask the ethics counsellor to come before this committee to discuss the main estimates, and I find it appalling that his leader would attempt to go outside of the scope of the actual motion. I think it's out of order.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings, I think you're actually getting into an issue of debate.

We have a challenge of the chair's ruling. We'll take a vote on that challenge. Shall the ruling be sustained?

(Chair's ruling sustained: yeas, 8; nays, 7)

The Chair: The ruling is sustained by a vote of eight to seven.

Now we're going to return to questions on the estimates. Do you have any questions on the estimates, Mr. Day?

Mr. Stockwell Day: Yes.

To the ethics counsellor, sir, you speak in a number of different jurisdictions directly on the area of conflict of interest. I noticed that in your report. Have you ever seen anything in other countries as outrageous as you just saw right here?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I'm certainly no expert on parliamentary procedure, sir.

Mr. Stockwell Day: In further speaking to the ethics counsellor, I'm just curious why in the performance of your duties you wouldn't see that the documents between 1993 and 1999 would be relevant in terms of the procedures taken by Mr. Jonas Prince and the Prime Minister.

The Chair: Mr. Day, we seem to be straying once again. We're here to talk about the estimates and plans and priorities, and that doesn't fall within them.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I'll try to live within this most unrealistic ruling.

As a matter of record, then, sir—

Mr. John Cannis: You have no respect for your own motion.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Stockwell Day: In the performance of your duties—and I appreciate the pressure you're under—you sent a letter to Lorne Nystrom on May 6. In subsequent correspondence you used the words of Ted Hughes—as you know, he's a former B.C. Commissioner of Conflict of Interest—to exonerate the Prime Minister for his intervention with the Business Development Bank, but you left out a paragraph in which Mr. Hughes said—

The Chair: Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: This is a general question on performance of the duties, Madam Chair. It's totally realistic.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Stockwell Day: He said: “I have ruled that a minister must not make personal representation on behalf of a constituent in such a forum...”—as a commission, board, agency, or tribunal established by government. “A minister acting in such a way would always be seen as a minister of government and that is a position of responsibility that he or she cannot shed at will and it would be improper to appear in an advocacy role of this kind”.

You didn't use that when you were responding to Lorne Nystrom, and I'm wondering why.

• 1700

The Chair: Mr. Day, we're here to talk about the estimates and plans and priorities.

Mr. Charlie Penson: This is plans.

The Chair: The estimates clearly deal with year 2001-2002 and future plans and priorities of the ethics counsellor.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, this has nothing to do with the Prime Minister. This has nothing to do with something that you must be sensitive to.

The Chair: I'm just trying to keep us on topic.

Mr. Stockwell Day: You're being a little bit jumpy there. This is very general and has to do with the performance of the duties of the ethics counsellor.

Mr. John Cannis: On a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis: Madam Chair, the honourable member often talks about respect. If he wishes us to all be respectful, let's respect the motion that was put on the table.

I kindly ask us all to respect the motion. If you could please repeat the motion for them that we've supported on our side, then there are parameters to work with.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, my question is very general. It's about the future plans of the ethics counsellor.

The Chair: In fact, although I don't think the question is in order, I will defer to the ethics counsellor if he wishes to respond.

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes, Mr. Day, I do recall quite clearly.

I don't have the documents in front of me, but when I was before the committee in May 1999 there was a discussion of that point.

The question Mr. Nystrom had posed to me concerned the involvement of a constituency assistant in assisting a constituent in dealing with the Business Development Bank of Canada. So my letter only dealt with that aspect.

I was not being selective. I was really addressing the point at issue in May 1999.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.

Your last question, Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Then in terms of future plans, you had referenced Ted Hughes, the B.C. conflict of interest commissioner, in terms of performance of the duties of said commissioner. He said very clearly in the letter you reference that “a minisister acting in such a way”—that's somebody who had made personal representation on behalf of a constituent in a forum such as a commission, a board, an agency, or tribunal established by a government—“would always be seen as a minister of government and is in a position of responsibility that he or she cannot shed at will and it would be improper to appear in an advocacy role of this kind.”

The Chair: Mr. Day, your question, please.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Please, Madam Chair.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Do you intend to enforce rulings along those guidelines?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Mr. Day, during the election campaign both you and Mr. Clark wrote letters to me about that issue. I wrote back to you during the election campaign about the question of whether there were rules applying to ministers dealing with crown corporations.

I also said, Mr. Day, in the letter that in the coming weeks I would be examining the question of whether there had been an evolution in the way crown corporations were being governed since original decisions had been taken in 1994 on the grounds of quasi-judicial tribunals. I think it's a matter of public record that I have made recommendations and they are being considered.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Day.

Ms. Jennings, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

I want to talk to you precisely about the resources you have available to you. You've mentioned your budget and you talk about the fact that your personnel has actually been reduced from 27 to 23. I know you have the gentlemen from the justice department, but what kinds of expert resources do you have on the legal side to assist you when a question arises concerning a possible conflict of interest or a possible violation of the code of ethics where legal documents are at the root of this?

The Chair: Ms. Jennings, if we could keep our questions away from the code of ethics, that would be appreciated.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Pardon.

The Chair: If we could keep our questions away from the—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, my question was precisely about the resources available. I gave an example. What resources does the ethics counsellor have available to him in terms of legal staff?

Mr. Charlie Penson: The chair is out of order.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm much better than you guys. I'm able to get the information out in a question that is in order.

• 1705

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Jennings. I apologize.

Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Howard Wilson: As mentioned in my opening remarks, I currently have a staff of 23. There are a number who have legal training, and others who have had considerable experience dealing with practical business issues and questions of how we manage our affairs.

When it comes to formal legal advice, I turn to the Department of Justice. Mr. Thompson and his colleagues working within the Department of Industry are available to me, and we speak frequently.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Because your legal advice comes from the Department of Justice, I assume there are legal counsel. Mr. Thompson, I'm assuming, would be able to answer this.

Do you have legal advisers available to you who know a little bit about the civil code of Quebec and how contract law in Quebec operates?

Mr. Howard Wilson: They are not only expert on that, but also expert in terms of contract law in the province of Ontario, where I believe....

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Would it be possible to provide the names of these expert legal counsel to this committee? We could then provide them to members of the opposition, who seem to be sadly lacking in their knowledge of contract law, both in Ontario and Quebec.

Mr. Reg Alcock: She's straying, Madam Chair.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm sorry. I apologize, Madam Chair.

Mr. Howard Wilson: The Department of Justice provides legal counsel to the Government of Canada. They aren't in a position to provide legal counsel to others, although Mr. Thompson would be in a position to describe the legal status of several documents I released last week.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Jennings.

Who will be next, Monsieur Brien or Monsieur Duceppe?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I will share my five minutes with Mr. Duceppe.

Mr. Wilson, you just said that you are an expert in business law of Ontario. Do you also know the business law of Quebec?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: I have been given advice that there is essentially in substance no difference in terms of the contracts that have been discussed between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Here is my follow-up question. Do you have at your disposal all the in-house resources or...? For example, let us take the hypothetical case of a conflict of interest in which a Prime Minister or a Minister would be involved. If this conflict of interest involved complex or seemingly complex transactions, would you call on external resources for advice on, for example, the value of a given contract, its real extent and all its implications? Or would you rely on information provided by that Prime Minister or Minister?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: You should understand that the 23 people in my office are extremely skilled and very experienced in terms of their responsibilities, which I have described: conflict of interest code, the Lobbyists Registration Act, and so on. These are people who have done this work on a daily basis for considerable time.

To your broader question, am I in the position to get the best possible advice from Canadian government resources? Yes, I am. Much of this can be done in-house. I will often, as a matter of course, check the information I may be receiving or the determination I may be coming to. I have no shortage of access to the appropriate expertise.

The Chair: Monsieur Brien or Monsieur Duceppe.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Do I have time to ask two more questions?

[English]

The Chair: You have five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Regarding your role as Ethics Counsellor, you mentioned that you provide downstream advice, which allows to carry out prevention. Would that not be part of the role, conceivably, of a political advisor to the Prime Minister? Should there not be also an independent watchdog agency to report after the fact on any problems and having the independence required to make judgements? This would not preclude having an in-house advisor to the government, which is what you do in substance, but there could also be some sort of external auditor dealing with ethics. One would not preclude the other. Do you not think this would be more effective?

• 1710

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: The system we have in place is analogous to the one in Quebec. For example, the jurisconsulte, who is a former Chief Justice of Quebec, has responsibilities for the provision of guidance to members of the Assemblée Nationale, but not to cabinet ministers. Cabinet ministers in Quebec are subject to rules established and administered exclusively by the Premier of Quebec, at least since the days of Monsieur Bourassa.

The Chair: Mr. Duceppe.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): We are discussing resources. Usually, before voting funds for the next financial year, we should be able to assess the work that has been done or not been done, and specifically in the instance we are concerned with. However, it seems that we are precluded from doing this.

In view of the very dubious work done by the Ethics Counsellor, strongly tainted by partisanship, Madam Chair, I want to move the following motion:

In view of the fact that the Ethics Counsellor does not report directly to Parliament, I move that the moneys allocated to the Ethics Counsellor in the budgetary estimates of the Department of Industry for the financial year ending March 31, 2002 not be renewed.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duceppe.

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: This seems a good idea.

[English]

The Chair: The motion is tabled.

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Does everybody agree?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Speller, do you have any questions?

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

On that motion, as one who has—

The Chair: Mr. Speller, we can't discuss motions. We have 48 hours.

Mr. Bob Speller: We're not discussing the motion. I'm discussing the idea of the motion.

My experience with the ethics counsellor, or conflict officer, has in fact been a very good one. As a parliamentary secretary I often had questions. Mr. Wilson was easy to contact on the phone on any day, which was very nice. It helped me and would help any person like me in that position who had a few questions here and there as to whether or not things were being done in the right way. Speaking for myself, and I'm sure for a number of cabinet ministers, the ethics counsellor can in fact be very useful to us.

I'm interested, though, in something you said, and I can't remember when. It might have been during the election—

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Tough question.

Mr. Bob Speller: Let me say this to the honourable member. I've been on that side before, but we do have a right. We did get a number of people elected, in fact the majority in this House. We have every right to ask questions on this committee to the ethics counsellor.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Ask questions.

Mr. Bob Speller: In your comments, Mr. Wilson—I'm not sure when it was, but you were speaking about the independence of an ethics counsellor and describing a situation in the United States with Kenneth Starr—you said that you really wouldn't want your position to get to the point where you were totally independent.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure if you remember making this statement. I may have misread it somewhere, but I thought I heard you say that you would rather be in your situation as it stands today in Parliament than to get it to that situation.

Mr. Howard Wilson: This dates from a talk I gave in a lecture series organized by the Australian Senate.

The context of it was that the Howard government, after being in office at that point for about two years, had had about four, possibly five, ministers resign over conflicts of interest. So there was an interest on the part of the Australians as to how we had conducted ourselves.

I described our system, which you will remember deals with the executive branch. It doesn't preclude there being something for the legislature, if the legislature wishes. But I described how the system was intended to avoid conflict in advance. You have had direct experience with this. I think it works well.

• 1715

I was asked some questions about independent prosecutors, and I certainly expressed grave reservations about how that office had been fulfilled in the United States. I think it does more damage at the end to parliamentary institutions. There is a very real danger, and that's what I expressed in my talk in Australia.

Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you.

The Chair: Are you finished, Mr. Speller? Thank you.

Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Wilson, for appearing before us today.

You referred to your speech to the Australian Senate, and you also in your presentation, at the top of the second page, referred to some of the bilateral and multilateral meetings you've presented papers at. I have a copy of your speech in the Australian Senate from two years ago on these issues. In that speech you refer to the definition of declarable assets, and you say specifically that

Examples of declarable assets are ownership of family or local businesses. Other declarable assets are land-oriented. They include farms under commercial operation, rental properties, vacant land, and on one recent case involving the Prime Minister, ownership interests in a golf course.

You have since described the Prime Minister's golf course interests as exempt assets. Why did you change your mind over that two-year period?

Mr. Howard Wilson: There was no change of mind. I was attempting to provide a description of what would have applied and describe our system to the Australians. The issue here is that there is an asset that was a debt, not shares, in a golf course, and that debt constituted no ownership interests. So you're pulling a general observation of what would have happened had the Prime Minister had shares, which he did not. Had he had shares, there would have been a public declaration.

Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Wilson, in your speech—

The Chair: Mr. Brison, we're straying, very much so.

Mr. Scott Brison: Yes, Madam Chair, but—

The Chair: So I would ask that you try to return to the estimates and plans and priorities, please.

Mr. Scott Brison: —the ethics counsellor—

The Chair: I'm asking you to try to cooperate, please.

Mr. Scott Brison: Given that the ethics counsellor has referred specifically to the speech, Madam Chairman, and to other multilateral engagements he has spoken at, I think it is relevant to pursue this.

The Chair: Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: In fact, in the speech he does speak of the definition of declarable assets and the fact that it does include the Prime Minister's golf course.

The Chair: You could ask about declarable assets without involving the Prime Minister. You could ask all kinds of questions without involving a specific case. I'm trying to be very lenient, very wide-flung here—I guess that's probably the best word. Please.

Mr. Scott Brison: But it is all right to talk about these definitions in general terms?

The Chair: You can ask him in a general sense, yes.

Mr. Scott Brison: I have in front of me the code from 1985 and the description and definition of exempt assets. It lists residences, recreational properties, household goods, works of art, antiques, collectibles, automobiles, cash and deposits, Canada savings bonds, home ownership savings plans—

The Chair: Mr. Brison, you are going to relate this to the estimates and plans and priorities, correct?

Mr. Scott Brison: Yes.

The Chair: Because, I mean, Mr.—

Mr. Scott Brison: That's true, because everything under the ethics counsellor's activities relates to the estimates—

The Chair: No, in fact the code does not—

Mr. Scott Brison: —and by definition, Madam Chairman—

The Chair: The code does not, and I've been trying to be very clear on this since the beginning. We're straying very far now.

Mr. Scott Brison: But the fact is Mr. Wilson referred to a speech—

The Chair: Mr. Wilson—I understand that—

Mr. Scott Brison: —in which he referred to—

The Chair: It does not change my ruling, with all due respect to Mr. Wilson. That's what I'm trying to explain here. The motion is clearly on estimates and plans and priorities.

• 1720

Mr. Charlie Penson: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I'm trying to figure out how this works. We can't ask questions, but the ethics commissioner can talk about that very subject?

The Chair: Mr. Penson, I've been very clear on what the topic would be at this committee. I didn't see the statement before the ethics counsellor arrived. I've been very clear, and I am trying to ask everyone to keep it to the estimates and plans and priorities.

Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Wilson, you have presented recommendations to the Prime Minister respecting ministers of the crown making representations to crown corporations and agencies. Are you willing to present these recommendations to the committee and tell it about the problems you're hoping to fix with these recommendations you're making to the Prime Minister in this regard?

Mr. Howard Wilson: The recommendations are before the government, and a decision will be taken. I indicated in my opening remarks that all our reports find their way onto our website.

The Chair: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Brison.

Ms. Barnes, please.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before I ask my question, Mr. Wilson, I want to thank you and your staff for the professional help I received when I was formerly a parliamentary secretary. Your officers did assist me in coming to conclusions, and I felt that was an appropriate role.

I may not have used your services as comfortably if I had been concerned about my personal privacy, and I'd like to ask you, in the performance of your duty, whether it's a member of Parliament who consults you, an office-holder, a parliamentary secretary, or another member of cabinet, what role do you think personal privacy plays? Where is the line drawn?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Certainly this is absolutely critical. The government legislation on privacy—

Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Chair, with respect, that has nothing to do with the estimates.

The Chair: In respect of priorities, yes it does.

Mr. Scott Brison: No, she was talking about the issue of privacy.

The Chair: That's part of planning and priorities for the future.

Mr. Scott Brison: Well....

The Chair: Well, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: Please, please, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brison. I'm going to allow Mr. Wilson to answer it.

Mr. Wilson, please.

Mr. Howard Wilson: The question of privacy is absolutely essential. The Privacy Act itself makes it a very serious offence at the federal level to release information that has come into our possession. Quite frankly, this whole business would not operate unless individuals who deal with us had absolute confidence that information was going to be protected. People are not prepared in this country to go and tell about their assets, their liabilities, and these matters unless they know they're going to be considered private.

I have received quite a number of access to information requests and have been supported by the information commissioner as to the fact that this is indeed personal information. It is absolutely essential that people, when they call us, have every sense that the conversation is going to be a privileged one and will not go beyond my office, certainly not to anybody who pays my cheque.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I'm going to ask one follow-up question. In what sense, then—and I've heard you talk about this in the past—do you see your position and the priority of that office as being one of prevention in matters where you are involved?

Mr. Howard Wilson: This is, I think, the principal role of the office, to try to organize ourselves and deal with this. Every issue we deal with evolves. Consonant with the thoughts I had when first coming in, the plans we now have are to make our instruments better, make what information we can make available more easily attainable.

This committee is dealing with the Lobbyists Registration Act. I'm very proud of the fact that everything is up on the website, because that goes an awfully long way towards serving the purposes this committee in the past has maintained.

• 1725

On the question of avoiding in advance, I reckon that probably about 90% of the dealings we have with public office holders are people dealing with us and asking us for advice. Yet when there are rumours in the press that somebody may be in a conflict or whatever, or not in conformity, in virtually every circumstance we already know the answer because we have had those kinds of dealings with these individuals, and I'm proud of that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Barnes.

We appreciate you being here, Mr. Wilson. As we don't have time for another round, we're going to have to adjourn now, but we do appreciate you coming on short notice, and we look forward to meeting with you in the future.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Is the meeting not for an appointed time, until 5:30?

The Chair: It's scheduled to adjourn at 5:30, but it often adjourns before the time period. In fact we have not enough time for a final round, Mr. Day, and it wouldn't be fair to all parties.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, how do you know? You presume on us. We may have a quick, yes-or-no question.

The Chair: A final round from each party back and forth.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Well, we can be pretty fast if we have to be, Madam Chair. You're shutting us off before the appointed time.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Day, go right ahead with your yes-or-no question.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Sir, can you tell us in reference to your speech in Australia, yes or no...? You say that it is your job to defend the minister's interests, and you even reference coming back to Canada to explain the Prime Minister's interest in the golf course. So, yes or no, do you not see it as a conflict of interest when you have to defend the very person you're supposed to be impartial with?

The Chair: Mr. Day, you're going back to the code, which I have thoroughly said is out of order. Mr. Day, obviously we can't seem to get—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a point of order.

I am one one of those who supported Mr. Penson's motion, which was, and I quote him: “My motion is that they come on the estimates”. If the honourable member across does not have the wherewithal to formulate questions within the estimates, as others have, then perhaps we should rule that question out of order and proceed.

Mr. Charlie Penson: What about the member over here?

A voice: Send him back to school.

Mr. Reg Alcock: We're not asking about Milosevic here.

The Chair: In fact I think it would be in the best interest of the committee if we were to adjourn now.

The meeting is now adjourned.