Evidence of meeting #38 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lobbying.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Linda Lapointe
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Garon.
I would like to ask Mr. Cooper to continue and to ask the witnesses a question.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I was saying before, Liberal members, as they always do, run interference to cover for the Prime Minister and the finance minister in questions around his potential conflict of interest.
In addition to there being issues around a potential conflict involving the finance minister, we know that there are serious questions about the most conflicted Prime Minister in Canadian history.
There is an ethics screen that is supposedly in place, but we don't know how often it is triggered. We don't know who the Prime Minister is meeting with. We know that the Ethics Commissioner told the Prime Minister to stay away from Brookfield, yet since the Ethics Commissioner provided him with that direction, the Prime Minister has repeatedly done exactly the opposite, meeting with Brookfield on multiple occasions.
Two days after the election, the Prime Minister met with a Brookfield company that was captured by the screen. On May 6, the Prime Minister met with the CEO of Brookfield Infrastructure in Washington, D.C. The Prime Minister—
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
A point of order, Madam Chair.
I am sorry to cut off Mr. Cooper when he is practising his sound bites again. I am giving him a chance. I agree fully with my colleague Mr. Garon when he says that Mr. Cooper has some expertise, but I would really like us to get back on topic. We have been going in all directions at once, except in the direction of today's topic.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
We're talking about the Lobbying Act, and here we're talking about lobbying the Prime Minister, including by individuals representing companies that were captured by the ethics screen.
All of this is to say that it provides some context for the important role that this committee has in providing oversight and holding the Prime Minister and upper officials in this government accountable in the face of what we have going on right now in the House, which is a government that is abusing its illegitimate majority to stack committees to shut down accountability, including oversight committees.
We know the important role that oversight committees have played in getting answers and uncovering conflicts, corruption and mismanagement with this Liberal government, whether that be the WE Charity scandal, the green slush fund scandal, foreign interference, Winnipeg labs, arrive scam and the list goes on.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
A point of order, Madam Chair.
We are on the ground floor here, are we not? If Mr. Cooper goes up two floors, he can make his way to the chamber and there he can debate the government's motion and his remarks will be most appropriate. I hope that's useful information for him because I feel that he has come to the wrong room today. We are not in the Commons chamber.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Linda Lapointe
Another member is asking to speak, but I cannot read his name.
Yes, Mr.….
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Linda Lapointe
Mr. Shipley, I am sorry. I can't see the letters in your name from here.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Linda Lapointe
I couldn't see. I think this is the first time that we've been on the same committee.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I am here filling in today. I thought I was going to be just a body in a chair, but I can't sit here and let this go on without having my say. Hopefully the clock is stopped, because my good colleague here gets six minutes, which he rightly deserves. He's knocked on a lot of doors. He's respected in his community, and he's earned the chance to sit here and speak for six minutes.
I can't believe what's going on in here. I haven't been on this committee before, but everybody here is trying to shut my colleague down. He's worked hard, and his constituents are here to listen to him.
For some reason, all the members on the other side have an issue with what he's saying. Perhaps just sit back and listen. Maybe you can learn something. You're being awfully rude. Let the man speak. He has six minutes to speak. It's his right to speak, and he should be allowed to speak.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Linda Lapointe
Thank you, Mr. Shipley.
We have one minute and forty-one seconds left.
Mr. Hardy, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
I will say this in French.
What is happening is exactly what we want to avoid. The government does not want to hear what the opposition has to say. It does not want to hear the opposition's opinion in a preamble. Mr. Cooper has all the right in the world to take his six minutes and to make his preamble. My colleagues have to stop cutting him off when he says things they do not want to hear. They just have to listen.
They will have their time, but he has to have his. That's called democracy.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I am sorry, I did not think that I would be in the middle of this when I came to the committee for the first time today. There's a lack of parliamentary courtesy here.
My colleague Mr. Sari knows that I hold him in regard. I am sure that the regard is mutual. But we are not behind closed doors. The debates are public. The debates are televised. It's part of what people in Quebec and across the country have the right to see.
When one of our colleagues says things that we may not like, but that are directly—
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Linda Lapointe
Let me remind you that I would like points of order to be shorter.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
For example, we can't accuse someone of practising sound bites. That's not a reason to cut them off.
Second, we all belong here. My colleague Mr. Cooper has a place on this committee. My colleague Mr. Sari may say that he is on the wrong floor and that he should leave, but you should be rapping knuckles for that kind of comment, Madam Chair. We all have our place on this committee.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Linda Lapointe
Thank you.
Mr. Cooper, if you want to continue, you have one minute and forty-one seconds.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess we're going to see a lot of this movie playing itself out in the coming months as the Liberals continue to abuse their power by shutting down debate and shutting down scrutiny. That's exactly what the purpose of the motion now before the House is. It is why I wish to put on notice the following motion:
That, given that this committee is mandated to provide oversight of the Liberal government, the committee reject the government House leader’s plan to impose a Liberal majority on this committee, which Canadians did not elect, in order to obstruct the committee from carrying out its duty to hold the government to account; and that the committee report this matter to the House.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Linda Lapointe
There's no debate on a notice of motion. Could you send the text of your motion to the clerk? Thank you.
You still have 35 seconds left. Are you going to ask a question? No?
Mr. Sari, you have the floor for six minutes.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to welcome the two witnesses. My thanks to Mr. Hurley and the Hon. Joe Jordan for joining us
Mr. Jordan, earlier, you had five minutes for your presentation. You mentioned recommendation number 12. I would like to describe its context. The recommendation is to expand the monthly communication reports to include all communications with designated public office holders. This must also include written communications and those not arranged in advance. Each party to the communication must be identified.
I would like to take advantage of your experience today to hear, in practical terms, what form those changes would take on a daily basis, assuming they really happen. How feasible and practical are they without discouraging legitimate participation?
As an Individual
Madam Chair, through you, I want to thank the honourable member for the question.
I think this gets to the heart of your job as members of Parliament, because what that change does on the heels of classifying you as DPOHs and bringing you under the act, which is underwritten by the Criminal Code, no small thing, is.... It used to be that the lobbyist initiated the contact. This changes it so that, if you initiate the contact, then it could be registerable.
Let's say you decide that there's an issue in your riding. You want to go and consult with a local company that may or may not be having a problem. The person in the room might be registered to lobby, and you start talking about something the government may or may not do. This is part of your job.
You may very well find that on a website, because that person has to disclose it, even though you initiated the contact. I think members of Parliament need to give that some thought. Are you going to hand away that chunk of your parliamentary privilege, and for what reason? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. I would just caution members that, if you're going to go down that particular road, leave the initiation to the lobbyist. They're the ones who come under the act. They're the ones who are going to pay the price if they get it wrong.
By changing that one stipulation, you are essentially opening a back door to what you as MPs do, which has historically been private activities in the wake of doing your job and your constitutional right to do your job without interference or hindrance as a core parliamentary privilege principle. I think that it bumps up against it, and it certainly needs more discussion than we can give it here today.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Hurley, one of the commissioner's other recommendations is to eliminate the “significant part of duties” threshold. It's her first recommendation. It would introduce registration by default for employed lobbyists. Exceptions would be very limited.
In the opinion of your group and especially of your members, how would that change daily practice in any way, if it were to happen? Could you also add exemption criteria that would actually be achievable and practical?I would really like to know about that.
Board Director and Treasurer, Public Affairs Association of Canada
As mentioned in my remarks and in the brief, we consulted our membership on this review and asked them a series of questions. One of the specific questions was the impact around day-to-day work.
We had about 24 respondents. We have a membership of about 400, and the membership is a mix of individuals and organizations. About half of the respondents indicated that they are currently not registered federally, because they don't meet the current threshold of that number of hours. Many of our members lobby provincially, but they're not registered federally, because they may not be engaging members of Parliament or government departments or they are below that threshold. Changing that threshold would have a significant impact on those organizations that would now have to register.
It would be a significant impact, particularly for those smaller organizations and particularly for those who might only incidentally invite you to come to an event or want to have a meeting and so forth. It would have an impact.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I would like to ask both of you a very simple question. Please answer in 30 seconds each.
We have one of the best managed systems in the world. What needs to be improved?