Evidence of meeting #63 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
—because the lobbyists' code has the appearance of apparent conflict of interest standard. That's why that standard needs to be added to the act as well.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
I now yield the floor to Mr. Warkentin who has five minutes at his disposal.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to go in a different direction.
The witnesses at our last meeting talked a little bit about post-employment, and we've touched on that a little bit today. Obviously there are significant post-employment rules as it relates to the Lobbying Act. There are communications that are obviously limited in one's position and a whole set of rules set that out.
What is your view with regard to post-employment rules under the act? Are there changes that you feel are necessary? People are throwing around the idea that there should be changes made, but we haven't heard any that have been articulated very clearly, and a rationale surrounding that.
This question is for either of you, but Mr. Conacher, maybe.
4:35 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Generally I think Oliphant had it right in his recommendations, and the Ethics Commissioner has essentially endorsed all of those in her report. A public office holder does not have to tell the commissioner that they are leaving, unless they have had an offer of employment before they left. She doesn't know what people, most of them, are doing when they leave office. She doesn't know whether they're complying with the one-year or two-year cooling-off period that's under the Conflict of Interest Act, or the five-year, or whether they're lobbying within that—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
That's a different act. I'm looking under the Conflict of Interest Act.
4:35 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Yes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
She doesn't know whether they've even left office. She doesn't know what they're doing, so the recommendations are generally that everyone should have to—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Your recommendation is that people should notify when they've...what?
4:35 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
When they're leaving office, and then what they're doing through their entire cooling-off period so that she can tell them whether it complies or not with the conditions of the cooling-off period. But as Lori—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Just on that point, Mr. Conacher, do you know if that would be charter compliant? Would that be something that would be seen to be in compliance with the charter?
4:35 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Sure, in a free and—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
What I'm asking is whether you know if anybody's ever looked at that.
February 6th, 2013 / 4:35 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
In a free and democratic society, the democratic part trumping the free to go and do whatever—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
No, I'm asking in terms of the charter. Has anybody that you know of looked at it? I'm not trying to put you on the spot.
4:35 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
No, but it is done elsewhere. Again, Oliphant strongly recommended that the commissioner know and needs to be able to have approval because the cooling-off period is part of your public service. You're still covered by the act through that period.
Also, some of the rules apply forever. In a way, everyone should be tracked forever because one of the big rules.... There has to be an end point, but it's not actually in the act that you can't share with anyone ever information you learned while on the job that's not publicly available.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I think that it goes even beyond the act.
Ms. Turnbull.
4:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University
Particularly in this case when we're talking about the types of expectations that we can apply to people who have left public office. On the one hand, I understand what the commissioner is saying, in terms of wanting more information, wanting more regular and comprehensive reporting, because her mandate clearly sets out that she's supposed to be somehow responsible for this one-year or two-year cooling-off period, depending on who it is, but at the same time she doesn't necessarily have the tools to extract the information she needs to know if people are doing what they're supposed to do or not.
At the same time, I think I know what you're getting at in terms of the charter question. How much can we ask of someone—
4:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University
—who has left public office, in terms of disclosing their professional life, and not only who they're working for. Her recommendations seem to want the details of what they're doing.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I think that's what we want to do. We want to ensure that anything we would recommend would not be challenged successfully, to the point where we would lose—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
—the ability to have reasonable rules. It seems to me that the only thing we would want to cover is the ability for a past public office holder to control the communications. We really have limited interest in any other area. Or do you see things differently?
4:40 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
There's one other area, and it's set out in the act. The commissioner has not defined what it means, but you're not allowed to take improper advantage of your former office. I have sympathy for anyone who has left the public service and is covered by that rule. They don't know where the line is because the Ethics Commissioner hasn't defined what it would be to take improper advantage. We may see a ruling from her after the criminal case is over in the Bruce Carson case. I suspect she might find Bruce Carson guilty of taking improper advantage of his former office, if you believe all the allegations. That needs to be defined. It is an area of concern because it goes to the question of whether you are using information or contacts. It's not just lobbying that we're concerned about. We're worried about people cashing in on their former public office as well. That rule needs to be fleshed out more specifically.