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, Department of Justice
The courts can always surprise us. The word “communicate“ is used in the broadest sense possible. It includes electronically written communication, e-mails, etc.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
You are telling us that if we were to add this specification, that might limit...
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Indeed. My answer here would be the same as that I gave to the first question. There would be a risk of a more restrictive interpretation of the word “communication”. People might say that the written form includes electronic communication, but what electronic form?
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Very well. We will also be withdrawing amendment BQ-11. Would you like me to introduce amendment L-4? We will move ahead very quickly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You're doing a fine job, Monsieur Sauvageau.
We'll now move to Liberal amendment L-4, on page 56.
Mr. Owen.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Chair, for intervening before Mr. Sauvageau could withdraw my amendment.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
This amendment deals with the situation to make sure we achieve the objective that has been sought by the government to ensure--as I think the Prime Minister has said--there isn't a revolving door between political office and lobbying offices. This is really to ensure that a revolving door doesn't mean a one-way street. It will treat people in influence appropriately to reach the government's objective in a more balanced way.
In drafting this we have not said that former MPs and their senior staff should be excluded, because, particularly after hearing Mr. Walsh, that could be seen to be impeding upon the autonomy of members of Parliament and the House of Commons. That's why it's limited here to people who are MPs, perhaps, but who are in an official capacity with an opposition party. They should be covered by the same limitation--whether it be five years, three years, or whatever--as former staff and former ministers.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chairman, this amendment of Mr. Owen brings a smile to my face. I will read it and you will tell me if I am wrong. The idea is to add the following paragraph:d) the leader, deputy leader, house leader or whip of a party and any senior staff employed in his or her office, including any unpaid senior advisors.
This would mean that staff working in the office of the Bloc québécois or NDP whips would be covered, but that a Conservative MP would not be.
Let me give you an example. Let us say that the Conservative MP for Simcoe-North tables a bill and that he is the owner of a hotel. The bill that he brings forward is asking the federal government to carry out a feasibility study in order to increase tourism in the region where he owns a hotel. His family has owned this hotel for five generations, since 1884. I simply wonder why this MP would not be covered.
I would be prepared to vote in favour of this amendment, but on condition that everyone on Parliament Hill be included. I fail to understand why a receptionist--I have great respect for these people--in the office of the whip for the Bloc or the leader of the Bloc québécois should be covered by this legislation, whereas an MP's staff would not be.
Even senior staff are covered. There are people here who are senior staff members and who are working with us on our study of Bill C-2. If they wish to get into lobbying down the road, I believe that nothing should prevent them from doing so because they are not privy to any government secrets. Therefore, if the staff of the whip's office or the leader's office is included, it seems to me that we should also include all members of the governing party. I believe my example is a good illustration of what a member of the party in power is able to do.
Thank you very much.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I have a question to the mover, through you, Chair, on the definition of senior staff.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I'll answer Mr. Sauvageau's question as well.
Mr. Sauvageau, to begin with, Mr. Walsh's concerns struck a cord with us that we should be very careful in this legislation to not touch on the authority, the autonomy, or the independence of the House of Commons or members of Parliament. First of all, it does not cover all members because of being sensitive to that concern.
On senior staff, we're obviously not talking about people who are receptionists or in a purely administrative capacity but about someone who has a decision-making role in the office and who could therefore be seen to have gained information and developed a particular interest. Remember, we're talking about political roles for political staff.
I think this is a reasonable compromise to make sure that we don't offend the autonomy of MPs but we create a balanced and level playing field to get at the very objective that I think the government is properly trying to get at. It is to ensure that people with political influence do not go into the lobbying business for some period of time.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Since Mr. Owen is saying that several of these amendments are the work of the law clerk, then perhaps one of the law clerk's representatives might explain this one to us. Mr. Owen has given us a very good explanation, but it seems that it is the law clerk who has created this situation. I would therefore like to know the precise rationale for this amendment and in which areas parliamentarians' rights are problematic. These people serve as legal counsel.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We'll see if they have a comment.
Madam Hurteau, you don't have to comment, but we're asking you to.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, the question is really with respect to advice that Mr. Walsh provided.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. I have been corrected, and I apologize for that.
We have someone over here; he's a new player.
Could you give your name to the committee?
Steve Chaplin Legal Counsel, Legal Services, House of Commons
My name is Steve Chaplin. I'm one of the parliamentary counsel in Mr. Walsh's office.
When looking at this particular proposal, I guess the question one has to look at is which of these people are parliamentary officers and which of them are governmental or have a governmental role. I think that's probably the question one has to ask.
When you look at where the budgets come from, for example, certain people come under the Parliament of Canada Act and others come under government funding. For these individuals, but not the leader as such, under the various offices, the money does not directly come from the Financial Administration Act for the government but through the route of the Board of Internal Economy. Whether or not it slips into privilege and privileged areas will depend on whether or not one considers the fact of funding as one of the routes for those offices.
For example, the functions of whips are limited to functions in the House. There's a question with respect to House leaders. Obviously, their roles are mostly House functions and partly functions outside the House. When you get to leaders and deputy leaders, of course, you have roles that are more beyond the House. The question is on the degree to which their functions and their advice have to do with House affairs and House business, as opposed to government and government issues.
For that reason, the other point I would make is that the question of whether or not these are public office holders or parliamentary office holders is really perhaps where the dividing line might rest.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Monsieur Petit, Mr. Chaplin has commented. Do you have any other questions?
Conservative
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I find that very helpful. I think the obvious dividing line may be with the whip. I can certainly see that as being a parliamentary function. But the House leader and deputy leader I see more in terms of party office, even though they do have duties in the House.
What we're trying to achieve here is to address the position of the person as being something different from a member of Parliament, in addition to a member of Parliament. But I do take the point that the whip is pretty exclusively within parliamentary roles.
If I could suggest a friendly amendment to myself, I would remove the reference to whip.