I've added a bit more.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.
It is truly a great privilege to be here before you this afternoon.
For three decades, I have emphasized the importance of transparency in dealing with government. Throughout my professional practice of law, I've had the honour of working with elected parliamentarians and with appointed public office holders both as legal counsel to government and in representing my clients on matters of law and public policy as legal counsel in addition to advising clients on their legal obligations under Canada's lobbying regimes.
I also note that I previously appeared before a parliamentary subcommittee in October 1994, when proposed amendments to that lobbyist registration framework were under consideration. I drew on my experience with a number of things that I had done in government and in my early days of practice. There's no question that, while many years have passed, new and innovative ideas for government remain important, and my deep commitment to the foundational principles of transparency in our democratic process remains the same.
Let me begin with a preliminary observation concerning solicitor-client privilege. This issue arises in relation to several of the commissioner's recommendations pertaining to expanded disclosure obligations, including those concerning the disclosure of funding arrangements that support lobbying activities and reporting communications with designated public office holders regarding the awarding of contracts. Canada's lobbying framework has long recognized the critical role of legal counsel and the protection of confidential communications. It is essential to recall that solicitor-client privilege exists to protect the client, not the lawyer.
When a client consents to disclosure, the issue does not arise; however, in the absence of such consent, compelled disclosure will undermine the privilege itself. This risk and the slippery slope of interfering with this recognized historical privilege should be carefully considered.
In that context, I would suggest that the committee consider a mechanism similar to the one that exists in Quebec, allowing, on an exceptional basis, for a temporary deferral of public disclosure in cases involving highly sensitive or commercially confidential information in which premature disclosure could result in significant harm. This type of deferral should be limited to cases in which there really is an important, legitimate public and economic interest involved that should not be jeopardized.
More broadly, I would submit that our lobbying regime should reflect a baseline level of trust in the integrity and judgment of public office holders and those speaking to government. A system premised on excessive disclosure because of an underlying or perceived mistrust may discourage engagement and, in so doing, undermine the public benefit and the very democratic process it seeks to protect.
It is also important to view the lobbying regime within the broader framework of accountability measures, including conflict of interest rules applicable to public office holders and those who deal with government officials to advance legitimate objectives and nation-building exercises. I want to emphasize that transparency is one component of a larger system of integrity and should not be treated as an absolute. Inculcating a common purpose to do good in the context of economic growth and nation building should also be viewed as a key societal goal.
I would also emphasize the importance of respecting institutional roles. In our report, we put it very clearly. While I certainly respect the Commissioner of Lobbying, she should not be granted the opportunity to create independent regulation-making authority. This is essentially up to Parliament and up to the Governor in Council to address; otherwise, it would be inconsistent with Canadian administrative law.
Finally, I would vigorously caution that this exercise should not lead to the expansion of the categories of designated public office holders. I respectfully believe such expansion will impose unnecessary burdens and will discourage important interaction and valuable dialogue with officials to test or to consider new ideas before raising them further at more senior or political levels of government. It may also extend to post-employment restrictions to individuals in ways that would discourage people from wishing to work in government, especially those who intend to engage in public service not for their full careers but for limited periods of time.
That said, thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.