Evidence of meeting #80 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
We're moving Bill C-290 through the House right now around whistle-blowing. Subcontractors aren't included.
Mr. Terrazzano, do you think that needs to be fixed? Clearly, we need to provide an outlet.
This company, Botler, took a lot of risk. I think they're heroes, really, for stepping out. They're potentially going to be penalized by the government.
Can you speak to that?
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I haven't reviewed that specific piece of legislation, but if you can encourage the greatest amount of transparency possible around the procurement, with as much whistle-blower protection as possible, then I think that is a step in the right direction to encourage transparency.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
How do you feel about government officials—and politicians, too—working in really high-level roles and then leaving the government to go and work for huge outsourcing companies?
Do you have a problem with the optics of that?
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I think the problem comes into play when there aren't guardrails on the government's side, when there is a lack of transparency, and when government agencies and institutions bend the rules when it comes to transparency requirements.
We've seen that first-hand, just with the ATIPs that we got back on this. We have literally about 300 pages that contain redactions. I think taxpayers deserve that information.
Mr. Johns, just to throw a kudos to you, I've seen some of your comments in the media about how it's wrong to keep Canadian taxpayers in the dark. I think that's what happened right from the beginning of this process.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thanks.
Mr. Conacher, Botler shared with The Globe and Mail first-hand accounts and physical evidence that showed a pretty cozy relationship between Mr. Firth and government officials.
When a government contractor refers to public officials as his personal friends and urges prospective contractors to single out a public official for praise when a public official is offering live coaching to prospective contractors as they pitch their product, does that show a typical relationship between a democratic government and private contractors, or does it seem like an improper one?
Does it raise any red flags, in your experience?
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
It raises a lot of red flags—violations of the Lobbyists' Code, and I believe these people are lobbyists. The Lobbyists' Code does not allow you to lobby someone, which means communicate in respect of their decisions, when you have a relationship with them of friendship that causes the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Then, on the government side, the executive testifying earlier said that he expected all of his team to follow the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. The problem is that it's just an expectation.
My father had an old saying. People do what you inspect, not what you expect, and there is no inspection. It's all an honour system, and honour systems don't work. They work for most people, who are honourable, but for whatever percentage it is who are not you need inspection and auditing systems. You need full disclosure of their values, their assets and liabilities, and their conflicts of interest before any decision-making process begins, with a watchdog who is auditing and inspecting regularly so everyone knows you have a high chance of getting caught.
Otherwise, as I said, the system's the scandal and you're going to get scandalous behaviour.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Can you talk about what the consequences would be for violating lobbying rules, and what the cost would be?
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
The consequences for violating the Lobbying Act are high, but the RCMP over the last 20 years have shown they won't enforce it. They just bumped five cases of the 11 that had been referred by the Commissioner of Lobbying back to the commissioner, and the commissioner dropped all five. There have been three prosecutions since 1988. It's a joke. They just don't take it seriously.
In the Lobbyists' Code, the consequence is a report in Parliament that you violated the Lobbyists' Code. That's not going to discourage anyone. There are several lobbyists who have been found guilty of violating the Lobbyists' Code who were promoted and got more contracts as lobbyists, obviously because they sent a message to the marketplace that they will lobby unethically if it gets you what you want, and people want that.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
In lobbying, though, how much money would you make on a contract like this? They are making $11 million in this current model. What would they make as a lobbyist, on average?
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
I don't know the averages, because it's not required to be disclosed. You don't have to disclose, unlike in the U.S., how much you are spending on lobbying efforts as an organization, or how much you're paying consultant lobbyists. It should be part of what's disclosed. It's one of the loopholes in the Lobbying Act.
As for the penalties, you could go to jail, but as I said, the RCMP has let nine out of 10 lobbyists off the hook, so what's the incentive to comply? If you don't have an incentive to comply, you won't see compliance.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Okay. As a committee we have seen how difficult, or even impossible, it is to trace the government's spending when it's hidden in layers of subcontracting.
Can you talk about what problems this raises? Obviously, the NDP would like to see this done in house, or at least for the middle person to be cut out of the equation, but if the government is going to continue to contract and subcontract out, do you have any recommendations for how that can be documented in a way that allows transparency and accountability?
October 24th, 2023 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm going to have to cut you off, Mr. Conacher. I'm sorry. We have only about 40 seconds, so please be brief, or just offer to send in a response.
Please go ahead.
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
As I mentioned, increase in-house capacity and then have advisers to whom you don't have to pay $11 million. Then just contract to those who are bidding, without subcontracting, and the Access to Information Act has to apply to everyone who receives the contract. You can't be hiding subcontractors' names under the so-called Access to Information Act.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you to both of you.
Mr. Brock is next, please, for five minutes.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To you, Mr. Terrazzano, I want to thank you for all the good work, important work, that you're doing at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Your vigilance in terms of ensuring that taxpayers receive value from this government is admirable. I just wish the government would take a page from the good work you do.
Primarily, my questions are for you, Mr. Conacher. I appreciate your legal background. Did you ever practise criminal law?
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
No. Actually, I never practised law. I was a non-practising member of the bar for 10 years, but I haven't practised.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Okay. I want you to harken back to the first year of law school, to the criminal law I'm sure you took and to the basic principles of mens rea and actus reus.
I know you were successful, sir, through an ATIP, in receiving some 1,815 pages of RCMP records with respect to their “assessment” as opposed to an investigation.
We now know that there are well over 2,000 pages that have yet to be released to you. Is that accurate?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Quite frankly, sir, with my legal background of over 30 years, I have prosecuted multiple homicides that had less disclosure than obstruction of justice. All Criminal Code offences are serious, but this one in particular is very serious. It's a hybrid offence, and, if convicted by indictment, that individual would go to prison. I appreciate the seriousness with which you conducted yourself, sir, on behalf of Canadians.
There have been certain details released in the press with respect to some of the information that was learned by you and others with respect to this information, these records. It's abundantly clear that, for close to four years, the RCMP, which claims in a newspaper report that it conducted the most thorough, comprehensive and fair assessment of all the evidence, interviewed only three people. Were you aware of that, sir?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
The reason I'm asking these questions, sir, is that the NDP-Liberal coalition shut down an ethics committee yesterday to prevent the RCMP commissioner from testifying on very important details as to how they legally concluded that they lacked the reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Justin Trudeau for obstruction of justice.
I want to harken back to your legal career, Mr. Conacher, and think about the evidence that Canadians heard, that we as parliamentarians heard, but more importantly, the evidence the RCMP heard. The evidence the RCMP heard was the direct testimony of our former, first-ever indigenous attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who kept incredibly detailed notes and also recorded conversations, so I want you to factor that in. Also factor in our former ethics commissioner, Mr. Dion, who concluded that the Prime Minister, with the support of friends, other members of cabinet and the Prime Minister's office, conducted a series of overt direct acts attempting to influence the decision of Jody Wilson-Raybould.
You know, sir, that under the Criminal Code section 139, the actual obstruction need not take place. You could be found guilty with just an attempt. Is that fair?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Do you find it rather curious that the RCMP, after four years of interviewing a sum total of three individuals—and the Ethics Commissioner quadrupled that; I think they interviewed 16 to 17 witnesses—collapsed the house of cards and claimed that there was no “corrupt intent” on behalf of the Prime Minister. Were you aware of that phrase that the RCMP used?