Evidence of meeting #22 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was register.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Right, so what we have now—
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
No. What we have now is a system like a stop sign on a rural road at midnight. If you go through it, there is no one sitting there watching, because one car goes through every half hour. That's the enforcement system and those are the rules that we currently have.
You need to make it more like some of the toughest rules and laws and the toughest enforcement systems that we have. You have a better chance of getting caught parking illegally in any city in Canada than you have as a former cabinet minister doing secret, illegal lobbying.
That's perverse.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Okay. Let's just park that one for a minute.
Outside the recommendations by the commissioner, is that the only other, additional recommendation you'd make?
12:40 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
No. Also, as I have said in terms of enforcement, she's not doing any audits. She's sitting back and not reporting on what she's doing regularly, so that we don't even know whether she's doing her job properly. I'll have more on that next week, actually—an analysis for you that you can ask questions about when she's here on the 16th.
There are lots of complaints that have not ever been ruled on for years and years, as well as other issues requiring disclosure—amounts spent on lobbying efforts....
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Could you, after you leave, summarize your specific recommendations?
12:40 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
We have our submission, and the very first page of it has the ten recommendations.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Okay. Getting back to the public office holders, I've asked the question a couple of times now about closing the circle—putting some onus on us to report, so that someone can match up the context. Do you see value in that? Is this something we should be doing now?
12:40 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
You have 30 seconds left, so I'm going to ask the three of you to give a brief response each.
Mr. Chenier.
February 9th, 2012 / 12:40 p.m.
Editor and Publisher, ARC Publications
I believe there is a component of the act right now that allows the commissioner to call a public office holder to see whether these reports jibe. One could attack this either by having a more proactive commissioner or by requiring public office holders to disclose.
12:40 p.m.
Professor, Department of Social and Public Communication, Université du Québec à Montréal
In an ideal world, I would say yes, but given the bureaucratic burden it would create, I'll say no.
12:40 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
I don't see any reason why. We have this thing called the Internet. It's searchable. It's very easy to upload stuff. There's no great burden to putting more information on the Internet.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Some of the comments that have been made today, I have to say, are bordering on ridiculous. If something is secret, illegal, I have no idea how you can possibly confirm that these things even occur. If they do, I'm certainly not aware of them, and if it is secret, you're not aware of it.
It seems to me that you're impugning the reputations of a lot of good people. In fact, I would argue that some of the things you're suggesting, Mr. Conacher, would actually persuade good people not to even run for public office, because you want to track people, after they leave office, into their private life. I just think there are a lot of good people who probably have an interest in this file who are listening to this committee and are probably saying, “My goodness, once again I'm being painted with a brush of somehow being sleazy or unethical.”
There are people who work in GR who are just good people. Their morals are not, in my view, something most Canadians would have any.... Their motives and their morals and everything about them is decent, and they provide a public service. It seems to me that in some of your testimony what you're suggesting is that Ottawa is run and influenced by a bunch of secret, sleazy influence-peddlers who are in fact directing money.
I have to tell you, I've been here six years, and that is not my experience.
12:45 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Actually, I haven't said anything that you've attributed to me. I have said that the system would not catch anyone doing that. That's all I have said. I haven't said anyone is doing it; I haven't said anyone has the motive to do it. The system would not catch them.
In terms of five years after you leave, if you're a former public office holder, you have to report during that five-year cooling-off period to the Commissioner of Lobbying, if you are doing lobbying. The law already covers people in the five years into their private lives; the Conservatives brought that in. I guess you disagree with your government's own bill that made that change, which according to you invades people's lives for five years after they leave office.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
No: the fundamental issue is conflict of interest. We're trying to prevent conflicts of interest. We're trying to have ethical government that's open, and the system does not require open, ethical government right now. The commissioner is not doing audits, so it's very easy for a former cabinet minister to be doing communications. And they can do them without having to register. It's all legal.
As a result, you have a system that's wide open to abuse. But I have not said once that anyone is abusing it. I've said the system is the scandal because it allows for abuse—legally.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
But I think it's fair to say that in your communications, you're leading people to believe that these holes are there, and that because these holes are there, these things are happening.
12:45 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
I have never said it.
12:45 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
I have never said it in the last 18 years.