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.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
But it's subsection (1) of the new proposed section that would create the ban for five years, and its subsection (2) says that subsection (1) does not apply.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
I'm sorry, what it's saying is that a subsection doesn't apply “in respect of any activities...that were carried out before the day in which this Act is assented to”. It's ensuring that the application is retrospective and not retroactive.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Perhaps the difficulty is—and we'll deal with it when we get there—that it should perhaps say, then, to achieve your meaning, “any lobbying activities” rather than any activities with respect to transition. Is that what you're trying to achieve?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
The reference to activities, of course, has to be read within the context of the act itself. When you read the act itself, it's very clear what types of activities we are talking about and the types of activities that are referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of proposed subsection 88.1(1).
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
That's fine. That's not as crystal clear in my mind, but I'm happy to hear that you feel it is. We're talking about “functions” in proposed subsection 88.1(1) and “activities” in proposed subsection (2), and it's not clear that they're distinct—to me, at any rate.
That's fine.
Conservative
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I have a problem with how you could drive a truck, really, through the proposed amendment. I understand what the proposed section means. A minister of the crown, if you look at what's in clause 67.... These are defined positions under subclause 67(2): “a minister of the Crown”; an “individual who, in a department as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act...”. These are identified people—even, in the proposed Lobbyists Registration Act item 2(1)(b)(i) of subclause 67(2), a person who “occupies the senior executive position”.... These are people who have titles—“associate deputy minister...”.
When we get down to the amendment's proposed subsection 88.1(5) I think it puts a terrible burden on the Prime Minister: any person “identified by the Prime Minister as having had the task of providing support and advice to him”—that could be his mother, his wife, and so on—“during the...period leading up to the swearing in...”. Would that mean two days before, three days before?
It shows, when we peel the layers away, that there was good intention here, and I understand what Mr. Lukiwski said. But when you peel it away, this was done with such haste that somebody integral to the whole vision for the government didn't know that if she agreed to the task, she'd be out of a possible job afterwards. She clearly makes that precision. It shows, I think, in embryo that this has been a hastily devised act in many ways.
But going back to the legislation, is there a way of tightening it up? Do transition teams actually get named? It's not my understanding that they get formally named by prime ministers in any Royal Gazette way.
The Royal Gazette? There's a....
Well, I'll ask the experts—or Mr. Poilievre; they're interchangeable, I guess. What method could you propose for identifying who gives the Prime Minister support and advice? Don't you think that's a little loose?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
That's an interesting question, Mr. Chairman. Again, I can explain exactly what the section is and how it operates and what its intended effect is.
The intention is to provide the Prime Minister with the authority to designate members of the transition team. The reason it's written that way is that the Prime Minister is in the best position to judge that. It is the Prime Minister who creates the transition team. The Prime Minister determines who on that transition team performs or provides the support or advice that would require them to be subjected to the consequences of being deemed to be subject to the various bans that are set out in the Lobbying Act.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't say “transition team”, it says “people giving him advice during the transition period up to the swearing in”, and there might be a number of other people who have rushed off to be registered lobbyists, who gave advice and support to the Prime Minister.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Again, the notion of the section, Mr. Chairman, is that it is the Prime Minister who is in the best position to judge. I mean, “transition team” is a term that we throw around. It has no legal meaning per se. So for that reason, it's an attempt to identify the actual activities that one is engaging in that would perhaps assist the Prime Minister in determining who should be designated.
Just to close the loop on this, as with any other authority, of course, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament for the exercise of this, as the Prime Minister is with respect to the exercise of any of his other powers, duties, or functions.
Conservative
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Wild. I'm not sure how much it cleared up in my mind.
If I understand your explanations on retroactive legal effect, only someone who the Prime Minister designates as having provided him with support and advice during the transitional period—that's from the date of the election, when one particular party is declared the winner, and the leader of that party then becomes the Prime Minister in waiting, until the swearing-in ceremony takes place—will be considered public office holders. Therefore, the five-year ban on lobbying the government will then apply. People who were working for that political party, on salary in some cases, volunteer in other cases, up to and throughout the actual election.... For instance, we could take the example of this last election. It began at the end of November 2005 and took us all the way to January 23, 2006. So you could have a multitude of individuals who were working. Let's use the example of the Conservative Party, which was then the official opposition, working directly in the office—
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes. Every time we've raised examples related to the Liberal Party, you've ruled that out of order.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
We're asking for a consistent application of the rules and that this not be used as an occasion for partisan attacks by Ms. Jennings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Jennings, you know I did warn the committee. We were starting more and more throughout the day to bait each other, and, with respect, you're starting to bait the Conservatives. I'd rather you didn't do that.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Chair, you are perfectly right, and I will cease debating with members of that political party. And to calm Mr. Poilievre's fears that I may be attacking the Conservative Party, which I would not do, I'd like to give you a hypothetical situation.
In the country called Xanadu, there is a governing party that has been in place for a number of years called Winnie the Pooh, and there is an official opposition called Snoopy. And that official opposition, along with the cooperation of two other opposition parties--and I won't bother to give them names--defeats the government on a confidence vote and the government then goes to an election.
The official opposition party, Snoopy, has had senior advisers in the offices of the leader of the official opposition, the House leader of the official opposition, the whip of the House of the official opposition, and the deputy leader of the official opposition, and it also has had volunteers.
We go into an election in this country, Xanadu, a general federal election, because it's also a confederation like Canada, and it has ten provinces and three territories--and I won't give you the names of all of them because I don't want to belabour this. And on the 23rd, the Xanaduians, in their wisdom, decide to give the boot to the Winnie-the-Pooh Party and elect a minority government called Snoopy.
The leader of what used to be the official opposition party, but is now the governing party, albeit a minority, has pledged to bring in a cleanup of government, accountability, and so on. And ultimately, a few months down the road, it brings in a piece of legislation that claims to do this.
That legislation, if I read it correctly, does not deal with any individual who held a senior position in the political party, which used to be the official opposition called Snoopy but now forms the government. It does not, in fact, deal with those individuals at all.
This amendment, if applied to this country, Xanadu, only deals with people who were members of the transitional team, that is, between January 23, 2006, presuming it was the same election date, and whenever that new government's bill--and we'll call it Bill C-11, does that make you happy?--comes into force. But someone who was working in the office of the official opposition leader--who has now become the Prime Minister--until the 23rd and who left on the 23rd would not be covered by this.
Am I correct? I hope I'm not correct. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that you will be able to say that it will cover....
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Thank you.
What was the question?
Liberal
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, people would be covered if they fell within the definition of a senior public office holder. So if the person was a minister of the crown, a minister of state, was employed in an office of either a minister of the crown or a minister of state, was defined in the Financial Administration Act as occupying a senior executive position within a department--and those are all listed--was designated by a regulation, or served in an advisory capacity to the Prime Minister during a transition period before the Prime Minister was sworn in as Prime Minister, that person would be captured.
If they didn't fall within that cadre, they would not be captured.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
So the example that I gave, a senior policy adviser to the leader of the official opposition who left his or her position on January 23, would not be captured. Is that correct?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
If that person did not serve in any of the other capacities I've mentioned, yes, that would be correct.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, the person is not covered in the categories that are mentioned in Bill C-2. That individual would not be captured by even the government amendment G-25, if it were adopted.