Evidence of meeting #19 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
That's why I was giving you the floor, until I was interrupted. Now you can have the floor, because you've practically heard everybody's opinion.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
It's not that I agree with everybody's opinion either.
May 27th, 2010 / 12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
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.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I'll let Madam Jennings close off.
Could you keep it brief, please?
We're coming to the close of the meeting time, but with the will of the committee we will continue with a few questions; I have three people.
Madam Jennings, the floor is yours.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Madam Chair, given the statement that our colleague, Derek Lee, has just made with regard both to the motion and also with regard to his desire that this be disposed of today, I will withdraw my motion.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I appreciate that one of the most significant things that Mr. Lee said had to do with a very serious procedural issue here. The serious procedural issue is when there's an ethics issue against any one of us, there is a procedure. That's where we go. We just don't run off to any other committee.
I'd almost like to quote Mr. Lee back to himself from his own book's terms of reference on what has to be the thinnest volume in the Library of Parliament with the longest title, The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers and Records: A Sourcebook on the Law of Precedent of Parliamentary Subpoena Powers for Canadian and other Houses, written by none other than Mr. Lee.
At page 40, he sets out the argument—and I don't know how old this book is, but probably at least five years old—that: “A committee has no authority except that which the House has delegated. Accordingly, a committee is limited and restricted in its inquiries to the scope of the committee's terms of reference from the House.”
There we are. There are, as you can appreciate, many issues that this important committee needs to discuss--all kinds of issues. If there is an issue about the ethics of another member, whether it pertains to lobbying or anything else, members are treated differently from people who are not members of the House. That is that there is a disclosure procedure, there's a commissioner, there's a procedure to take you to the House procedures, and there's an ethics commissioner. That's where this matter should be discussed and that's where the air should be cleared. That's where time should be allocated.
This committee shouldn't be dealing with things that are not within its purview. It does have important things to talk about. Mr. Lee has made it about as clear as can be that not only is this improper procedure, but the issue itself is without substance.
I think, Madam Chair, that the only ruling you can make in the circumstances is that this committee doesn't have the authority to pursue the resolution that it made and that you should rule it out of order.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Madam Chair, in my opinion, you haven't done your job as an independent chair of this committee. You've allowed two Liberal heavy hitters to be parachuted in here to hijack this committee. You've allowed our witness to sit at the table instead of as a witness, and you have not allowed us to ask him questions but to presuppose questions we may ask and then answer them in the way he sees fit. That's a far cry from a witness being interviewed by a parliamentary committee.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Madam Chair, this is the same...
He was invited here as a witness. You're the one who is the interloper here, Marlene. He was called here as a witness before our committee--
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
No, I'm not.
On a point of order, Madam Chair--
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
--and he's displaying the same kind of arrogance we see with the minister saying he's not going to answer your questions because he really has nothing to say. It's not up to the witness to decide if he has anything to contribute to the committee; it's up to committee members to ask certain questions.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Under the duly adopted Standing Orders of this House of Commons, any member of Parliament may sit in on any hearing of any committee. That's one. Two, I have been duly signed in as a member of this committee and therefore enjoy all the rights of this committee--
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
To sabotage and undermine the work of this committee is exactly why you are here, Marlene.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
--and therefore, for a member, a colleague, I might add, to refer to me as an interloper is pejorative.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I am not an interloper. I am a duly elected member of Parliament, with the rights and privileges that are accorded to me under the Standing Orders--
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
You're burning up another minute with feigned indignation. Nice job. I've seen it before.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
