Evidence of meeting #19 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
No. I want to know what it specifically is. Quite frankly, we have listed on the website of Sun & Partners a description of the work that Mr. Lee was attempting to sell. So it affects every area, or several different departments.
Clearly it's within our mandate to review whether or not these activities actually took place and what the relationship is to the government operations.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Therefore, Mr. Warkentin, I gave a ruling based on what the clerk told me, that when the motion was passed—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
And there were no procedural issues raised, because everybody felt that what was described on the website clearly defined and was in line with our mandate as a committee to review.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
The clerk is telling me that was actively lobbying the Government of Canada, and the lobbying issue comes under Procedure and House Affairs.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
We have an entire study currently being undertaken on the green fund on exactly the same premise as this one: that lobbying is taking place that's affecting the operations of government, and it may or may not have an impact.
We want to know if Mr. Lee was undertaking what was described on this website, which would have a clear impact on government and government operations. If he wasn't, then today is his opportunity to clear his name, and we will work with him to do that. But I believe that what was defined on the website was in direct violation of the ethics of a member of Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Mr. Warkentin, I keep saying we have to proceed, but you keep interrupting.
Mr. McKay has the floor.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I want to add, Madam Chair, that whether this committee passed something unanimously or whether it didn't pass something unanimously is entirely irrelevant. It has to pass something within its mandate. Its mandate for government operations is set out clearly on page 83, and you were trying to read into the record what constitutes the mandate of this government.
I realize that members opposite may feel something, but feeling something and being something are two different ideas entirely. This committee could pass a unanimous resolution that the sky is blue, but it's not within its mandate to say whether the sky is blue or not.
So to go through, as I hoped Mr. Warkentin would let you do...you will note that (c)(i) says a review and report of the effectiveness, management, and expenditure plans of the central departments and agencies. Clearly that doesn't fall within even the most generous interpretation of the allegation here. It doesn't fall within that issue.
The second point is within the jurisdiction of this committee. It is “the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with operational and expenditure plans relating to the use of new and emerging information and communications technologies by the government”. Again, that's not within the most generous interpretation of the unanimously passed resolution of this committee. It doesn't fit within that.
Then you go to the third one, which is “the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation of specific operational and expenditure items across all departments and agencies”. Again, the allegations have nothing to do with committee.
There may be allegations that people want to make against Mr. Lee, for reasons best known to them--from my side of the fence they are largely driven by politics, but we'll leave that aside--but your committee is limited to the standing rules. You might wish to carry on all kinds of inquiries, but your inquiries are limited to your standing rules.
This is an important committee; you have a lot of things you can do. But out of the first three items you're able to do, certainly this allegation doesn't fall within any one of them.
The fourth one is “the review of and report on the Estimates of programs delivered by more than one department or agency”. Well, this has nothing to do with estimates, so again, it's well outside of your purview.
I can go through item (v), item (vi), item (vii). Item (viii) is “the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with operational and expenditure plans arising from supplementary estimates”. Again, it's nothing to do with that.
“The form and content of all estimates documents”...again, nothing to do with that.
“Crown Corporations and agencies”...again, nothing to do with that.
“In cooperation with other committees, the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation”...the majority of the funding from the Government of Canada. Again, it's nothing to do with that.
So if you take paragraph 108(c) and you go (i) through (x), you're functus; this is not your thing.
Mr. Lee has quite generously, in my view, directed the committee that if a member wishes to raise allegations, there is a procedure available. It's not available before this committee; it's available before another committee.
Keep in mind, Madam Chair, that we are dealing with a member of Parliament who's been here for 22 years. I've had the privilege of knowing Mr. Lee for way longer than Mr. Lee and I actually care to admit. It goes back to college days, when he was the brains of the class and I held up the other end.
12:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Relevance, Madam Chair?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
The relevance actually is...and it should be a caution to all members of Parliament that what goes around comes around. You are dealing with the reputation of a senior member of this House who's been a superb member of Parliament for 22 years. In fact a few weeks ago the ruling by the Speaker was largely generated by the diligence of this member and his willingness to assert the supremacy of Parliament.
I say to the honourable members opposite, regardless of your political enthusiasm for trying to embarrass or question Mr. Lee, if in fact you wish to do that, you should at least do him the courtesy, as we would all expect, of doing it in the appropriate forum.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I have five people on the list, and I would like to hear from at least Mr. Bruinooge as soon as Mr. McKay is finished. You were the mover of the motion. Let's listen to you.
I have three more people, and then we need to decide what we're going to do. According to the clerk's advice, if we prepare a report, it will go before the House, the Speaker will rule it out of order, and we will have wasted time. It's the committee's prerogative, and we can do what we want.
Mr. McKay, are you done?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I am not entirely, Madam Chair. I was trying to draw the members' attention to the limitations of this committee's authority. It doesn't matter what resolution this committee has passed. You could pass a resolution about anybody and anything at this committee, either members here or out in the audience, but there are limitations to what you can do--proper limitations.
Mr. Lee has forgotten more parliamentary procedure than most members will ever know. Given that this issue is important as concerns his reputation, surely to goodness other members of Parliament, colleagues, both long-standing and otherwise, should at least give him the courtesy of defending himself in a proper forum where the committee is seized of its mandate, and not in some place where we can just play politics with a good man's reputation.
I will end there, Madam Chair. This is not a filibuster, but it is a plea to members opposite to do what they do within their jurisdictional limitations and to do it only then. Otherwise they slander and they smear. For certain, people outside of this room have a low enough opinion of politicians already. They don't need to be assisted in further slandering and smearing a good man's reputation.
May 27th, 2010 / 12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Madam Chair, I just want to extend my regard to the position of the member, which he has put on the table. I think with this motion we have actually given Mr. Lee the opportunity to talk about some of the allegations that were made. I think that's really the premise of what it was suggested this committee do, which is to offer a member in good standing in this House the opportunity to talk about the allegations that were made.
The suggestion Mr. McKay made, which Mr. Lee made previous to that, was that this isn't the proper forum within which to do that. However, since the chair allowed that motion to proceed, here we are in this forum.
I think this is a good forum for Mr. Lee to refute everything that's been alleged in relation to this website. However, if he doesn't feel that is the case, and Mr. McKay doesn't either, the chair has to make a ruling as to how this current round of debate is going to end.
It's up to you, Madam Chair, whether or not you're going to decide that.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I will allow three more speakers. I think Mr. Brown is the last speaker. Then the committee will make a decision.
Madam Jennings.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Lee, for extending the courtesy to this committee of appearing before it, a courtesy that unfortunately Mr. Vellacott did not deem fit to extend to the procedure and House affairs committee when it was specifically charged by the House of Commons, through a vote, to look into the issue of a question of privilege regarding the ten percenters that were sent into Mr. Peter Stoffer's riding and into—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
It's not a filibuster. I'm making several important points. I've been a witness on other committees—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
--as members opposite who belong to the government side have done in other committees, making points they felt were necessary.
One thing is clear under procedures and House affairs: even when the House of Commons specifically charges a standing committee to review an issue that relates to the conduct of a member of Parliament, that member of Parliament can decide if he or she will appear.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
He had the courtesy to come. He is not a witness. He is here as a member of Parliament. That's the first issue.
The second issue is the one raised by Mr. Lee, which Mr. McKay has already spoken to. Regardless of whether the motion was adopted unanimously by this committee, it does not in any way demonstrate a link between the allegations being made against Mr. Lee and the mandate of this committee. This is not an issue or subject matter that the House itself has specifically charged this committee to deal with. There is another committee that has a mandate to look into those kinds of allegations, and if the members of the government are interested, they can do so.
Madam Chair, I would like to move a motion that this committee set aside the motion that was unanimously adopted and hear from Mr. Lee, because it's clear the motion doesn't meet the mandate of this committee. If Mr. Lee were to appear here under orders from the House of Commons, what kinds of questions would be asked of him?
First, is he a lobbyist for Sun & Partners? No. Mr. Lee has made it clear that he was counsel for Sun & Partners and that he engaged in no lobbying at all. Mr. Lee has also stated that he was unaware of how his role was portrayed on the Sun & Partners website, and he is concerned that it is not sufficiently clear in its description of the nature of his work. As such, he has asked that his profile, including any reference to lobbying, be removed from the Sun & Partners website, which has happened. And he has apologized for any confusion this may have caused.
Another question might be: did Mr. Lee disclose his employment to Sun & Partners to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner? What would be the answer? He has already made it public. Yes, Mr. Lee did disclose his employment with Sun & Partners to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, and he has been in full compliance, according to the ethics commissioner.
There are other issues. He's being accused of lobbying. The Lobbying Act defines activities that are considered to be lobbying when carried out for compensation. Generally speaking, they include communicating with public office holders with respect to changing federal laws, regulations, policies, or programs; obtaining a financial benefit such as a grant or contribution; in certain cases, obtaining a government grant; and in the case of consultant lobbyists, arranging a meeting between a public office holder and another person.
If this committee had been given the mandate by the House of Commons under procedure and House affairs to look into this matter, a question would have been whether Mr. Lee had engaged in those types of activities. Once these allegations came up against him, Mr. Lee made public statements in which he made it clear that he did not engage in these types of activities and has not received any compensation for the types of activities he was alleged to have carried out, and he denies doing them.
The Lobbying Act also requires lobbyists or registrants to register types of communications with public office holders. This committee--had it the mandate given to it by the House of Commons to look into the allegations that have been made against Mr. Lee--might have asked whether Mr. Lee ever registered these types of communications. Mr. Lee, in his public statements since the allegations were made against him, has made it clear that he has never undertaken any type of lobbying and thus has never been in a position to need to register with the Commissioner of Lobbying.
But there are other allegations that have been labelled against him. The Lobbying Act bans any payment or receipt of any benefit that is contingent on the outcome of a consultant lobbyist’s activity. Had this committee, or if another committee that has the mandate to look into such allegations of misconduct and violation of the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons... Should another committee take up the flag, one question that the committee might have asked Mr. Lee, and might yet ask Mr. Lee, is: has Mr. Lee ever received payment or any benefit that was contingent on the outcome of lobbying activities? There again, Mr. Lee, in his public statement, has made it clear that the answer is no. First, he did not engage in any type of lobbying, and second, he has never been paid to lobby the federal government.
I could go on. With the indulgence of the chair, I will go on. If we look at the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons—