Evidence of meeting #73 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ontario.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Eric Montigny  Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval, As an Individual
Leslie Seidle  Research Director, Institute for Research on Public Policy, As an Individual
Mary Dawson  Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Karen Shepherd  Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Greg Essensa  Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Ontario

12:30 p.m.

Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Karen Shepherd

No, I would agree with Commissioner Dawson in that I think the bill has done something in terms of improving transparency by, as I understand it, having the attendees who purchase a ticket, if it's over $200, be listed.

I have one thing for the committee's consideration. I've noticed that this focuses on the Prime Minister and ministers attending these regulated fundraising events, but it doesn't cover them during the election period. Maybe something for consideration is the fact that the Prime Minister and the ministers maintain their status during an election period, so if there is some reason the committee has thought of for having those types of events regulated, then maybe that's something for consideration.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Okay. Thank you for that.

With regard to the idea I spoke to already—cash for access—under the act you are responsible for now, is that something that is supposed to be regulated, so that you shouldn't be seeing cash-for-access types of fundraisers?

October 17th, 2017 / 12:30 p.m.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mary Dawson

It's only regulated if there is a conflict of interest situation.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

It is if there is a conflict of interest. Okay.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

That's your time.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

That's really time?

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

You're having fun.

Mr. Christopherson.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, both, for your attendance today. I appreciate it.

In addition to having a debate about the minutiae of the bill, one of the things that have cropped up during these hearings is whether or not we're just tinkering around the edges and making any real change versus making a realistic, dramatic change. We've had people come in and make the case that we're not even dealing with the real issue. One of the real issues we ought to be looking at is the contribution threshold itself. That's come up a number of times.

As someone who is a fan of what former Prime Minister Chrétien did in terms of bringing in the public election financing—which I thought, next to keeping us out of Iraq, was his best move as a prime minister—I was heartbroken in the last Parliament when we saw it completely removed. I leave that for you to comment on as I'm asking you to paint a picture of the larger issue. But on the contribution of $1,550, is that part of our problem or not, in your opinion? There have been those who have come in and said that what we should be doing federally is more like what they're doing in Quebec. It's down around $100, and it makes it easier for everybody to pay, and then a lot of these other issues go away. That's the argument. There are others who say, “No, up to $1,550 for a middle-class person is a reasonable amount”, and then we have to bring in all these checks and balances.

What are your thoughts on those two approaches to this? It keeps coming up as we're going through this.

Thank you.

12:35 p.m.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mary Dawson

I don't think Canada is doing too badly in comparison with other jurisdictions in having $1,500. The various limits are all over the board. It struck me that $1,500 wasn't terrible. It doesn't trouble me. I reiterate that it's too bad there isn't a general funding of the various parties, but there it is.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Ms. Shepherd.

12:35 p.m.

Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Karen Shepherd

I don't have an opinion either in terms of the amount. I think that is up to Parliament to decide. My concern is with regulating the lobbyists.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

That's fair enough. I wanted to give you an equal opportunity to make a comment.

The issue of covering parliamentary secretaries has come up before, and you have commented on that, Ms. Dawson. It has also come up, though, especially for those of us who have been ministers and understand what the decision-making process is that you go through. In that regard, your parliamentary secretaries have great influence, but also your chiefs of staff have incredible influence. Senior policy advisers have, again, up to or perhaps exceeding that level of influence. None of that is mentioned here.

Ms. Dawson, you mentioned you would like to see parliamentary secretaries included. Would you be good enough to comment on that a little further? Do you also think it advisable for us to take a look at expanding that to chiefs of staff and senior policy advisers, etc.?

12:35 p.m.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mary Dawson

I mused about actually adding the senior policy advisers into that group when I mentioned parliamentary secretaries, but there is a logical problem there. They are part of the political process, but they are not the politician who is getting elected, so I'm not sure they are sufficiently close to it.

I recognize, though, that those people are probably more heavily lobbied in some cases than are ministers or parliamentary secretaries themselves. We need to have very good rules generally around stakeholders going to those people. I'm not sure it should be done through the Elections Act. However, I did kind of muse about those people, and wondered whether I should say anything about them.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you.

Ms. Shepherd

12:35 p.m.

Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Karen Shepherd

I have nothing.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Again, I just want to make sure you always have an opportunity.

How's my time, Mr. Chair?

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

You have almost three minutes.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

The five days—and again to Mr. Nater, who raised this—in and of itself has raised a couple of issues. One is that there's nothing that prohibits anyone who's not on that list five days before from suddenly showing up. The whole idea is to be transparent about things, and one of the concerns raised was that even though you're not on the list, you could still show up, and the word could be put out that the Minister of Finance is coming or the Prime Minister is going to swing by—wink wink, nudge nudge—and you want to make sure you get down there.

We're getting into the minutiae of the bill, and I'll accept it if you say that I'm getting too far into the weeds and that it's not my domain. I get that. However, this is where we are, and this is what we're dealing with.

We can argue that the five days is too long, and that will come up again, but one of the solutions that's been suggested is that if you're not on that list five days before, you just plain can't go to the event. It's been brought up that somebody could get sick three days before, and it would make sense that you could substitute for them.

Well, let me tell you, in the world of power politics there is a world of difference—and no offence to anyone—between having booked the minister of culture who is now sick, and, by the way, the Minister of Finance can make it.

What are your thoughts on that?

12:35 p.m.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mary Dawson

I don't know. I think you're right. You're into the technical details. There's a loophole there. The question is how far you go to fill a loophole. I can't say any more.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

We sort of have to stay at 30,000 feet to make sure you are relevant to our discussion.

12:35 p.m.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mary Dawson

I haven't studied this bill in great detail. I have been quite busy lately. I have focused on how my act relates to it. Certainly, it's an excellent direction that it's going in.

12:40 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Do you see this as a big deal or a little deal? You say it's going in the right direction. Is it a substantive step? Is it a baby step? How would you characterize the bill itself in terms of the issues you are concerned with, and how it meets some of those concerns?

12:40 p.m.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mary Dawson

It goes quite a good way, I think, because it puts things in the public domain. It allows me to have access to some information if I'm dealing with some kind of a problem. I use the lobbying register a lot for that purpose as well. There are interfaces in all of these public reports, so I think it's a good initiative.

12:40 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Okay. Good.

Thanks.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

Ms. Sahota, you have the floor.