Evidence of meeting #8 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 rules.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Saini, you have five minutes. Go ahead.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Giorno, thank you for appearing.
You were chief of staff to former prime minister Harper. Were there such things as blind trusts and screens at that time, and were you entrusted to take control of those, similar to what is happening today?
Lawyer, As an Individual
The first answer is yes, there were blind trusts and there were screens. They existed.
Mr. Harper didn't have any, so I didn't administer them. My successor had one and it was administered by the deputy chief of staff.
Liberal
Lawyer, As an Individual
Nigel Wright's was administered by the deputy chief of staff because Nigel was the chief of staff.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
The deputy chief of staff also reported to the former prime minister, did he not?
Lawyer, As an Individual
No, he reported to the chief of staff, whose screen he was administering.
What took place in the Harper government is exactly what we're talking about.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
What is the issue today, when it wasn't an issue 15 years ago?
Lawyer, As an Individual
I don't know.
I'll say this: There are three pieces to the transparency of a screen, and two are already legislated and should be happening.
First of all, the screen itself is supposed to be reported and published. I believe I see people in this room who had their screens published, so that exists.
Second, recusals, when they happen, are supposed to be published and reported, and they're probably available.
The missing piece is that when a staff member or the screen administrator screens something away so that it never gets to the public office holder, there is a gap in the act. The act doesn't say this needs to be reported somewhere. That could be fixed up.
The act has been around for 18 and a half years and the screen has been around for 18 and a half years.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
You have noted that voluntary political activity should be automatically treated as lobbying. How can parliamentarians best draw the line between legitimate voluntary political activity and compensated lobbying so that rules remain fair and constitutional?
Lawyer, As an Individual
I said that I believe voluntary activity should not be treated as lobbying. I oppose moves to expand lobbying regulation to cover things people do for free. There are jurisdictions that do regulate it, but I don't support that and I don't advocate moving to that federally.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
You have warned that merging the offices of the Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying could create confusion and weaken expertise. Instead of merging them, what practical coordination tools, such as joint guidance or shared definitions, would best serve Canadians and strengthen each office's mandate?
Lawyer, As an Individual
It's exactly that. Shared definitions and joint guidance could do that. In fact, the two commissioners—the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner—have collaborated. Now they have shared guidance on acceptable limits for meals and hospitality. They actually work together and try to dovetail their work.
Exactly what the member has asked about is a better solution than a merger.
Liberal
Lawyer, Ethics Consultant and Social Scientist, As an Individual
Sorry, I have nothing to add to that.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Okay.
The current act includes a five-year pause on climate-lobbying bans for designated public office holders. Are the length and scope of that restriction still appropriate today? How could it be improved to protect integrity without discouraging qualified people from going into public service?
Conservative
Lawyer, As an Individual
I think five years is appropriate. I know that some people on the Hill question that, but the purpose of the ban is to ensure that people who, in the service of the Crown, for which they get paid a salary, amass a network of contacts—belonging to the people of Canada because they were amassed on the taxpayer's dime—don't turn around and use those contacts to fuel their lobbying practice. Five years was seen as an appropriate amount of time by Parliament at the time. I think that's the case.
I know that many people end up in lobbying. It's a valid profession, it's a lawful profession, it's a helpful profession and it's actually important in the development of public policy. However, I would hope that nobody goes into government hoping to come out lobbying. If that's the sort of person who is affected by five years, then I'm not sure that's a public policy problem.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Giorno and Mr. Saini.
Mr. Thériault, you have five minutes.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Levine, I would like to briefly revisit the screening issue.
The fact that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner considers it appropriate to implement conflict of interest screens after a public official has made a declaration is an indication or concrete manifestation of a potential conflict of interest.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
In that case, could we find a way to make these filters more transparent so that we can understand what they match? How could another authority scrutinize compliance with those screens?
Currently, this is managed by the chief of staff, but I can't imagine the prime minister recusing himself, leaving the room, and coming back with a decision that everyone would have invalidated. I have serious doubts about the feasibility of such a scenario.
Lawyer, Ethics Consultant and Social Scientist, As an Individual
I'm not sure about the example. I mean, it's been said that the screens have worked for a long time. I don't necessarily refute that. I just think it needs to be clearer how they operate.
I think you're right about who is monitoring them. Why isn't the commissioner monitoring the whole process, and why isn't there more reporting about the decisions that are made?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
In response to my questions, the commissioner stated that he would be in a conflict of interest if he had to review the screen himself. Personally, I think we have to find—