Evidence of meeting #23 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
While we have Mr. Chaplin at the table, are there any other questions of him?
Monsieur Sauvageau.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
We are opposed to this when it pertains to people who do not administer public monies and who have no decision-making power over public servants. To date, there are enough of them who are covered. We find it hard to understand why people who do not administer public funds and who have no decision-making power over public servants should be covered by this.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, House of Commons
The committee must decide where to draw the line between public servants and those who exercise parliamentary functions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Mr. Chaplin.
Ms. Hurteau, I apologize if I scared you. I didn't mean to do that. We have lawyers all over the place here.
All those in favour of Mr. Owen's subamendment to remove reference to the word “whip”.
(Subamendment negatived)
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. We now move to government amendment G-25, on page 57.
Mr. Poilievre.
Liberal
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
When I came into my Hill office this morning, there was a copy of a letter that was addressed to you from a Ms. Roscoe, I believe, asking if she could come before this committee to speak about some government amendments that had just been tabled. I hadn't seen them. I now see it. I believe this may be one of them.
It is not unheard of for a committee to suspend its clause-by-clause in order to bring in a witness to hear from that witness on amendments that are being proposed throughout the course of the process. I would like to seriously ask this committee to consider the possibility of acceding to Ms. Roscoe's request. There may be other individuals, but it would be very time-sensitive, very limited time. I do not believe it would put the work of this committee back. It would possibly make things run smoothly, at least in terms of those amendments.
So I would actually propose that her request made to the committee, through you, Chair, be—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Jennings, we require 24 hours' notice of that motion unless I have unanimous consent from the committee. Do we?
It appears we don't have unanimous consent, Ms. Jennings.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, it hasn't been moved yet.
Mr. Poilievre, we're on amendment G-25, page 57, if you could move that, please.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The purpose of this amendment is to close a perceived loophole that existed in the original draft of the Accountability Act. We are proposing that those who participate in transition periods leading up to the swearing in of a prime minister and his or her ministry be subject to the act. That would mean that the five-year lobbying ban would apply to those who have partaken in the transition process of one government to another.
Actually, I would argue, Mr. Chair, that an individual who has partaken in a transition process would have even more influence than most staff in ministers' offices, because often transition teams are tasked with actually doing the staffing. So they will have been involved in selecting people for offices that they will then lobby. They'll have the ability to lobby people they've hired. As such, they are probably more in need of coverage under this act than are basic staff members in a minister's or a prime minister's office.
Now, this Prime Minister made it clear that during the election he would be banning lobbying for five years by any individual who was involved in offering unpaid work. That means the advisers we hear so much about who get a dollar a year or who volunteer will be covered by the provisions of the Accountability Act. That's because oftentimes it's those people who are not paid by the public purse but who work in the government who have as much if not more influence than employees themselves. And it is not the government's intention to create openings for that to occur.
Finally, as we've seen many times before, when someone works in a prime minister's or a minister's office and doesn't get paid for it, oftentimes the perceived influence they've gained from having had such access to power is remuneration itself.
Through this amendment we are proposing that individuals who have been involved in decision-making, particularly in personnel, not be allowed to use that accumulated power to then lobby the offices that they helped construct.
In conclusion, it is our view that people who partake in transition teams should not be doing it for the purpose of then using the accumulated influence for lobbying purposes. They should be doing it for the good of their country; they should be doing it for public service.
With that, I'd like to invite the technical experts to make any observations they might have.
Daphne Meredith Assistant Secretary, Corporate Priorities and Planning, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
I think what's before you is our attempt to capture that in an amendment, but I'll turn to the lawyers, if need be, to explain how the provision would work.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
The provision's fairly straightforward. What it does is it provides an authority for the Prime Minister to identify persons who have had the task of providing support and advice during the time after an election, the so-called transition period leading up to the swearing in of the Prime Minister. In essence, it allows the Prime Minister to identify those people who have been acting in that capacity as being within the definition of “senior public office holders”, to whom the five-year ban on lobbying will apply.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Through you to our legal team, Mr. Chair, my interpretation on reading this is that it would have retroactive effect for someone who was on the transition team after January 23.
If that is the case, I feel some real unease, colleagues, particularly if it applies to a volunteer position that is for a certain period of time, as opposed to someone who was paid or was working in a regular capacity and may have been covered by the Lobbyist Registration Act of an earlier time. The retroactive impact of this on someone who volunteers unknowingly--certainly--and in good faith is that they'd be restricted from gainful employment.
As a matter of going forward, I don't have any difficulty with it, but the retroactive impact, if that's what it has--that's the way I read it--troubles me.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
With respect to the question of retroactive application--and I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the committee may chuckle when I say this--it's not that it's retroactive in its application, it's retrospective, and there's a key difference from a legal perspective. At least one person chuckled, so I was right about that.
There's a key difference between retrospective and retroactive. It certainly means that it will apply to people who are no longer on a transition team, but it's not retroactive, in that a retroactive application would mean that the activities they've been carrying out since they left the transition team to whatever point in time this law comes into force would be suddenly illegal, and that is not what this does.
At the time the provision comes into force, it would be any future activity of that individual who violated the ban that would trigger the offence provision under the Lobbyists Registration Act. It would not be anything that they have done between the time of the transition to the point of coming into force--and I want to make that point clear. That is the distinction from a legal perspective between what's meant by a retroactive application and a retrospective application.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I understand the difference, but it doesn't deal with my unease.