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.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Again, as long as they don't serve in any of the capacities, that's right.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
So an individual who worked in a senior position of the former official opposition party up until January 23, 2006, but did not serve in the transition team, which was created as of January 24, 2006, would not be captured under Bill C-2 with the existing categories, nor with G-25.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
It goes back to the notion of the activity. If the person was providing support and advice to the Prime Minister during the transition period, however one wants to define the transition period, leading up to the swearing in of that Prime Minister, then the Prime Minister has an authority to designate them.
If the person--
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
No, I'm not going to let you do that. I'm going to let him finish his comment.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
When he finishes, I would like a clarification.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, you just settle down, Ms. Jennings, until our witness finishes his statement, please.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
If the person is not carrying out those kinds of activities during a transition period, which one would normally interpret as being the period after the election result and before the swearing in of the Prime Minister, then no, they would not be captured under that particular provision.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I don't need a clarification; Mr. Wild just gave it.
Thank you.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I'll pass. I've long since forgotten what I was going to say.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I'd just like a clarification. If someone were working in a so-called war room, then, for instance, they would not be covered by this because that would be something that would happen during an election, and therefore it wouldn't be covered by this. Is that correct?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
As long as the people involved in the “war room” do not participate or get involved in the activity of providing support and advice to the Prime Minister during the transition period, yes, that would be correct.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll try to be slightly more brief than Ms. Jennings. It shouldn't be a problem.
Partisanship aside—and quite frankly there's an awful lot of partisanship going on right now—let me give you two quick examples of why this amendment came into place, to try to put my honourable colleague's mind at ease.
If you recall--and I'm sure they do, because members opposite were howling in question period when it was found out that Ms. Roscoe.... And for the record, this is not a personal attack on Ms. Roscoe. This is merely to show that we don't care whether it's a Conservative, a Liberal, a Bloc, or an NDP member, if there are loopholes to be closed we're going to close them regardless of who that person might be. If you recall, when Ms. Roscoe received an untendered, sole-sourced contract after serving on the transition team, members of the opposition--rightfully so, I suggest--raised bloody hell in question period. Once Minister Baird found out--he was not aware of this--he cancelled the contract.
Subsequent to being a member of the transition team, Ms. Roscoe became a member of a lobbyist association, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. I'll give you a quote on why the government felt it was so important to close this loophole, because we're talking about influence. I'm going to quote from the press release issued from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, who hired Ms Roscoe to work for them and lobby the government. In part it says:
Elizabeth served as a volunteer member of the five person transition team created specifically under the leadership of former senior bureaucrat and industry CEO, Derek Burney, to advise Prime Minister Harper through the transition period and prepare the Conservative government to assume power following the federal election.
This was the press release from the association touting Ms. Roscoe as a valuable member of their team. Their firm, in their opinion, was far more valuable because she apparently had access to the Prime Minister, and she had influence within the PMO.
This is unacceptable. Let's get rid of the partisanship. It doesn't matter whether Ms. Roscoe was a volunteer or not or a Conservative supporter or not; this is the type of activity we want to ensure does not happen. That's why this amendment was brought in.
Enough of the hyperbole, enough of this partisanship. This is brought in to close a loophole, make the accountability stronger, and prevent someone like Ms. Roscoe or anyone else, now or in the future, from being perceived as someone who has influence within government circles. We just cannot allow that to happen if we want to give the Canadian public confidence in this act.
Frankly, I believe that closing this loophole was a very strong statement by the government and the Prime Minister. I encourage my colleagues to set their political rhetoric and partisanship aside and vote in favour of this amendment.
Thank you.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I will keep this very simple and very brief. We support the principle defended by Mr. Lukiwski, but we are opposed to the retroactive or retrospective element. We do not want to see people who have been hired, who have done the work and who have left to be now subjected to conditions they were not aware of at the time.
The general principle is a good one, but the same cannot be said for its retroactive or retrospective application.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I hear Mr. Lukiwski clearly, but I would be more impressed if the government members hadn't just voted down my amendment that would have closed the loophole and this hitch in parallels to say that a former deputy leader or interim leader of the party in opposition, when it was opposition, who's now working to give strategic advice to a law firm in order....
It's interesting too, given the parallel you're describing, that if you go to the website of that law firm it celebrates the joining of the firm of this former deputy leader and interim leader of the opposition party, when he was in opposition--and I'm paraphrasing, but this is exactly the impact of it--and the value he will be to their clients because of his extensive network of connections with government. So that's the type of loophole my amendment would have truly closed.
I accept what you say about this case, but it would have more force if it were combined with closing the other loopholes that are much more serious than this. I also simply repeat my discomfort with someone who volunteered for two and a half weeks and is then at threat of losing their livelihood through this type of retroactive application. I'll use the normal meaning of the word “retroactive” in that.
There's something fundamentally unfair about that in a very large way. It's a small period of time and has a major consequence. So I remain uneasy about the unfairness of that.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you.
On your latter point first, I understand and empathize with Ms. Roscoe in this particular case, but once you start making exceptions I'm sure that members of this committee would be the first ones to jump all over the government, saying “You can't make exceptions. You either close the loop or you don't.” Unfortunately for Ms. Roscoe, although I do not believe she's going to be losing her livelihood over this, if she was caught in that abyss that's the price one has to pay to ensure that the Accountability Act is as tight and as all-encompassing as we can possibly make it. That's really all I can say about that.
I do want to point out a clarification, because I was in error. It was not Ms. Roscoe whose contract was severed by the government, it was another individual. I want to withdraw my remarks, and I do not want Ms. Roscoe or anyone else to think I was making a statement that was incorrect. I apologize for that statement. It was not Ms. Roscoe who received a sole-source contract that was cancelled, it was another individual.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you.
I have one question to my friends on the other side. When we look at this amendment, what it addresses, and possibly who it addresses, I'm looking at recent reports on other people who are involved in the campaign, and just wondering if the same effect would apply to Mr. Powers and Mr. Norquay.