It was my hope that this meeting today would dispose of these issues, either permanently or on an interim basis. As the debate goes on, different things get said. Everybody starts making notes about A, B, and C, and then suddenly the debate goes on and on.
I had some discussion with Mr. Bruinooge and Mr. Warkentin here off the record. Apparently the government members and all members are seeking some clarity on these website inclusions. I can provide that. It's easy.
My opening remarks here dealt with the issue of the committee's jurisdiction. I'm convinced beyond any doubt that the committee is on very thin ice or none at all, and I was hoping you would make a ruling. I never should invite her to, but I understand why a ruling on this particular issue might impair other work the committee is doing. I don't know; I'll leave that to committee members.
Mr. Warkentin described me as a partner of this particular law firm. I'm not a partner. I do not have a financial interest in the law firm. I am a counsel to the law firm.
There's another thing that may help a little. The committee had corresponded with Mr. Jimmy Sun of that law firm and asked some questions. He has authorized me to deliver a letter. He sent a notice to the clerk that I would bring a letter. Mr. Sun has addressed one of the questions that's been asked in that letter. I'll leave it with the clerk. It's unfortunately not translated, but I will read you the portion of the letter.
He says:
Factually to our knowledge, Mr. Lee has never undertaken any assignment to lobby the Government of Canada since his association with this law firm in 2007. Further, Mr. Lee is counsel to this law firm and not an employee, consequently there is no employment agreement between the law firm and Mr. Lee.
The committee had asked for an employment agreement, but there is none. So that is from the law firm's perspective, and I'm reading what he says. I can verify what he says because he's talking about me.
In my own remarks I stated very clearly, and I might as well read them again: “I am not a lobbyist, and I have never been paid in any way to lobby the federal government.” That's a slightly different version.
Have I ever done any of the activities listed in the website on behalf of a client of that law firm or any paying client? The answer is no. I have never had the need to register as a lobbyist. I am registered as a lawyer. I am fully compliant with the conflict of interest code. I have checked with the conflict of interest commissioner and she has verified that.
So I am fully compliant with all the House rules on notice and transparency. If there's any other way I can respond to or state this that would satisfy members' concerns about what was said on the website, I'm happy to do so, but I think I have said it. Mr. Sun has also corroborated that.
I can't think of any other words I can add. I have raised the procedural issue. I think it's a very significant one. I know that Ms. Jennings put forward a motion. I'll leave committee members to deal with the motion. But I would prefer them to dispose of this business today, because from my point of view, there's no substance to pursue, and it would be a waste of the committee's time to pursue it.
You can't make something out of nothing. I agree that the website certainly will catch the attention of a member opposite, but as I say, there isn't anything there, and I'm not aware of any specific allegation with particulars that someone has brought forward.
The members simply want to ask, did you lobby as described on the website, and my clear, unequivocal answer to that is no, I have not ever undertaken any of that on behalf of a client as I do my work around here on the Hill.
I won't go on. If I can make it any clearer using some other words, I'm happy to do it.
By the way, members should be aware that when we talk about lobbying here, this is what MPs do all the time. So if you said to Ms. Jennings, have you ever lobbied the federal government, of course she's done it all the time. The question here is not that; the question is on behalf of a paying client. When we use those words, let's be sure.
Lobbying is not illegal either. It's not prohibited. Lobbying is quite legitimate. It says so right in the statute that it's a legitimate activity, but if somebody lobbies, they have to register. So it's registration that seems to be the thing.
I'll stop there. In my view, I would prefer this to satisfy the members who have the concerns. I think I've done my very best to do that.