Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 9th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Conacher will have an opportunity to respond.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'm just suggesting that the innuendo in your comments leads people to believe that this is the system we have in Ottawa, and it's not.

[Duff Conacher]

You're inferring something that I have not implied.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay. Fine.

I do want to ask you about rule 8. People who are opposed to rule 8, or who certainly find rule 8 confusing because it isn't always applied consistently, or, if it's applied consistently, are not always aware of what the rules are, contend that they are voters, that they have democratic rights, and that participating in their democracy is not something that they feel they should be excluded from.

I'm sympathetic to that argument. I understand your concern around how loyalties may in fact affect people's judgment later on, but I haven't seen that.

Now, what would you say to these individuals who are in fact covered by rule 8...? And by the way, I'm not suggesting that we repeal rule 8.

Could you respond to their argument that it's taking away their democratic right to participate in democracy?

[Duff Conacher]

The Federal Court of Appeal has already ruled unanimously on that and said that you have to prevent conflicts of interest. You don't have democratic good government if you don't. And when a lobbyist does something that causes the politician or public official to feel an obligation to return the favour because it's a gift, or it's services provided, it's fundraising or whatever, then the lobbyist has crossed the line and created a conflict of interest.

Every Supreme Court ruling, every court ruling in most developed countries in the world, says the same thing, at the UN, the OECD, all the standards: you have to prevent conflicts of interest. And rule 8 does, finally; after we spent nine years in court to finally get a Federal Court of Appeal ruling, they rejected an old interpretation of rule 8 that didn't prevent anything. It didn't prevent lobbyists from doing anything.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Conacher.

[Duff Conacher]

So now it's finally in force, and it has to be upheld.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro and Mr. Conacher.

I have one brief question for you, Ms. Yates. You were talking about the 20% rule and maintaining it. Some other witnesses had raised the issue around travel time, and you mentioned travel time.

Those of us from the western part of this country can take up to ten hours of travel, and somebody who's in downtown Ottawa can drive across the street. Are you still suggesting that travel time is included in the activities? How do you compensate for the vastly different travel schedules in this huge country of ours?

[Prof. Stéphanie Yates]

In the definition of lobbying, I would include all the preparation activities. If the definition of lobbying was broadened to include all those preparation activities, the time spent travelling would become a relatively minor component, whether it's one hour or 10. If we included all the preparation time, I think it wouldn't necessarily become a discriminating factor. There would be many other activities and other efforts to consider. Under those conditions, travel would be included in the same category as preparation. In short, as part of a broadened definition, I don't think the time allocated for travel would become a discriminating factor.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Great. Thanks, Ms. Yates.

I want to thank our witnesses for coming today and for providing some challenging questions and comments for the committee to consider.

I want to thank you, committee members, for your participation.

The meeting is adjourned until Tuesday.