He had the courtesy to come. He is not a witness. He is here as a member of Parliament. That's the first issue.
The second issue is the one raised by Mr. Lee, which Mr. McKay has already spoken to. Regardless of whether the motion was adopted unanimously by this committee, it does not in any way demonstrate a link between the allegations being made against Mr. Lee and the mandate of this committee. This is not an issue or subject matter that the House itself has specifically charged this committee to deal with. There is another committee that has a mandate to look into those kinds of allegations, and if the members of the government are interested, they can do so.
Madam Chair, I would like to move a motion that this committee set aside the motion that was unanimously adopted and hear from Mr. Lee, because it's clear the motion doesn't meet the mandate of this committee. If Mr. Lee were to appear here under orders from the House of Commons, what kinds of questions would be asked of him?
First, is he a lobbyist for Sun & Partners? No. Mr. Lee has made it clear that he was counsel for Sun & Partners and that he engaged in no lobbying at all. Mr. Lee has also stated that he was unaware of how his role was portrayed on the Sun & Partners website, and he is concerned that it is not sufficiently clear in its description of the nature of his work. As such, he has asked that his profile, including any reference to lobbying, be removed from the Sun & Partners website, which has happened. And he has apologized for any confusion this may have caused.
Another question might be: did Mr. Lee disclose his employment to Sun & Partners to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner? What would be the answer? He has already made it public. Yes, Mr. Lee did disclose his employment with Sun & Partners to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, and he has been in full compliance, according to the ethics commissioner.
There are other issues. He's being accused of lobbying. The Lobbying Act defines activities that are considered to be lobbying when carried out for compensation. Generally speaking, they include communicating with public office holders with respect to changing federal laws, regulations, policies, or programs; obtaining a financial benefit such as a grant or contribution; in certain cases, obtaining a government grant; and in the case of consultant lobbyists, arranging a meeting between a public office holder and another person.
If this committee had been given the mandate by the House of Commons under procedure and House affairs to look into this matter, a question would have been whether Mr. Lee had engaged in those types of activities. Once these allegations came up against him, Mr. Lee made public statements in which he made it clear that he did not engage in these types of activities and has not received any compensation for the types of activities he was alleged to have carried out, and he denies doing them.
The Lobbying Act also requires lobbyists or registrants to register types of communications with public office holders. This committee--had it the mandate given to it by the House of Commons to look into the allegations that have been made against Mr. Lee--might have asked whether Mr. Lee ever registered these types of communications. Mr. Lee, in his public statements since the allegations were made against him, has made it clear that he has never undertaken any type of lobbying and thus has never been in a position to need to register with the Commissioner of Lobbying.
But there are other allegations that have been labelled against him. The Lobbying Act bans any payment or receipt of any benefit that is contingent on the outcome of a consultant lobbyist’s activity. Had this committee, or if another committee that has the mandate to look into such allegations of misconduct and violation of the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons... Should another committee take up the flag, one question that the committee might have asked Mr. Lee, and might yet ask Mr. Lee, is: has Mr. Lee ever received payment or any benefit that was contingent on the outcome of lobbying activities? There again, Mr. Lee, in his public statement, has made it clear that the answer is no. First, he did not engage in any type of lobbying, and second, he has never been paid to lobby the federal government.
I could go on. With the indulgence of the chair, I will go on. If we look at the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons—