INST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE, DES SCIENCES ET DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 27, 2001

• 0903

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

If I could ask the TV cameras to please leave the room, that would be great.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is to proceed with the statutory review of the Lobbyists Registration Act. For the information of committee members, we have a number of items on our agenda today.

First, we have our witness from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Mr. Jayson Myers, the senior vice-president and chief economist. Everyone should have a brief in front of them. After that we will then proceed at 10 a.m. to deal with three motions and a budgetary matter.

If I could have the door closed so we can continue with our witness, that would be great.

Mr. Myers, we're very pleased to welcome you here today, and, as I said, everyone should have a copy of his brief in front of them. We'll turn it over to you to make some opening comments, and then we'll proceed to questions.

Mr. Myers.

• 0905

Mr. Jayson Myers (Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters): Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, I'm very pleased to be here and to be asked to make some comments during the review of the Lobbyists Registration Act. It's something that Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and our members take very seriously, and it's something we're very pleased to participate in.

As for your view of the administration and operation of the act, as you undoubtedly all know, CME is Canada's leading business network. Our members are drawn from all sectors of Canada's industrial and exporting economy, and they represent all regions of the country.

The members of CME account for 75% of Canada's industrial production, 90% of the country's exports, and about 95% of the R and D effort in this country. While most of the large exporters and manufacturers are members of CME, over 80% of our members are small and medium-sized companies with fewer than 500 employees. I think we represent a fairly good cross-section of Canadian industry.

As you know, these have been the two most dynamic sectors of the Canadian economy, certainly the most dynamic in terms of reaching out into the international marketplace. I certainly hope that come summer we'll see that dynamism returning with the pickup in economic activity across North America.

If you'd like further information about CME, its membership, or its lobbying activities, all that is available on the lobbyists' registration database, where we're registered, as an organization, as in-house lobbyists.

For CME, the Lobbyists Registration Act is a key element of the legislative framework and of the rules that underly the principles of democratic and effective government in Canada. Today, in a world of open and global access to information, we're finding more and more that the issues of transparency and accountability are important because they're the mainstays of good government. These are really the checks by which Canadians ensure ethical behaviour on the part of government officials, of public servants, and of individuals who influence public policy. For business as well as for government, integrity is really fundamental to the way our public institutions work.

The Lobbyists Registration Act has, we think, generally been effective in achieving its objectives as established in the preamble of the act, namely, to make transparent the activities of lobbyists without impeding access to government. I think it's important to note as well that lobbyists are defined in the act as individuals or organizations paid to make representations with the goal of influencing federal public office-holders.

By requiring lobbyists to register and to disclose certain information through the computerized registry system, the act, we believe, has operated in a way that has improved the transparency of lobbying activities and at the same time has improved public access to pertinent information.

At the same time, the act recognizes a number of principles that we believe are important in maintaining an appropriate balance between transparency and democratic rights respecting access to government. These principles are enshrined in the act, and they recognize first of all the rights of all Canadians to communicate with public office-holders.

I think this is extremely important, and in some ways it's brought out in the act by the definition of lobbyists as individuals paid to make representation to public office-holders. Canadians as a whole have a right to communicate with government, whether those Canadians are employed in business, employed in other non-governmental organizations, or employed as members of labour unions. They may also make individual representations in their private capacity.

The second principle the right enshrines recognizes the value for government officials of opinions, advice, expertise, and consultation on the part of Canadians outside the public sector.

Another principle recognizes the need for greater transparency with respect to the activities of paid lobbyists. I think there's a requirement for information that is material to the objective of the act, that is, information that's essential in order to maintain effective transparency with respect to activities of paid lobbyists. However, we would not want to overburden the system by imposing onerous disclosure requirements for information that really has little relevance or value for assessing the scope or nature of lobbyists' activities.

Another principle recognizes the need to protect the confidentiality of commercially sensitive or personal information that is, again, not material to the issue of transparency.

• 0910

Another principle recognizes the evolving nature of the process by which public office-holders consult with Canadians, and this is an issue I'd like to raise later on.

It also recognizes the unique institutions and customs of Canada's federal and parliamentary system of government.

We believe these principles should continue to inform the way the act is administered and the way the act operates.

There is, however, in our opinion, some room for improvement with respect to issues of both scope and compliance. CME believes the act must be applied consistently and fairly to all individuals and organizations who are paid in order to influence public policy and government programs. We're also concerned about the current level of compliance of paid lobbyists, especially on the part of non-governmental organizations. We believe most active consultant lobbyists, in-house corporate lobbyists, and in-house organizational lobbyists representing business are indeed registered in compliance with the act. The same cannot be said, however, of paid lobbyists representing organizations outside the business sector. We believe the same standards of transparency and accountability should be applied to these organizations if actively engaged in lobbying activities.

I'd like to speak briefly about a short analysis we did of three issues in particular in which CME has been involved over the past two years. We took a look at those in-house business lobbyists, the in-house organizational lobbyists representing non-governmental organizations, and lobbyists representing corporate organizations. Those issues are Canada's participation in the World Trade Organization, the development of Export Development Corporation's disclosure standards and requirements, and the issue of climate change and the national negotiations that have surrounded Canada's participation in the Kyoto protocol.

Out of those three issues, we've identified 36 in-house lobbyists representing business associations, 14 corporate lobbyists, and 28 non-governmental organizations that were involved in these consultations. Out of the 36 business associations, only two were not registered in the lobbyists' registration database.

Of the 14 corporate lobbyists that took part in these consultations, all were registered in the database. There were, however, several companies who were invited to participate in the consultations, and the people who participated were not paid to lobby; therefore, they would not have fallen under the definition of a corporate lobbyist.

There were 28 non-governmental organizations that participated in the consultations. Only three were actually registered under the lobbyists' registration database, and two other organizations were registered but either the time limit had expired or the information they had filed was incorrect. That left 23 non-governmental organizations that still took part in lobbying government, were paid to lobby on behalf of the interests of the constituency they represent, but were not registered under the Lobbyists Registration Act and we could not find them in the lobbyists' database.

That's a particular problem for us. It's a particular concern. Again, the issue of compliance is one that covers all lobbyists that should be registered. Compliance is a critical issue here.

We recommend four amendments in key areas that I think would strengthen the operation of the act.

The first deals with the process of outsourcing consultations. Government departments are increasingly contracting out the development of public policies and programs, as well as the conduct of public consultations. They're contracting these out to private sector consultants. CME recommends that the act explicitly require such consultants to register as consultant lobbyists. We also recommend that the act explicitly require registration on the part of paid lobbyists making representations to these consultants who have been hired by public officials to undertake consultations on their behalf.

• 0915

The second recommendation deals with their role in public consultations. Paid lobbyists regularly communicate with government officials with respect to public policy. Lobbyists may be invited to participate in consultations by public office-holders, or they may initiate communications themselves. The CME recommends that the act explicitly require public officials to consult with paid lobbyists only if those lobbyists are registered in compliance with the act.

The third recommendation is in reference to enhancing the accountability and integrity of lobbyists under the act. We believe the accountability of paid lobbyists representing organizations would be enhanced by the disclosure of more information pertaining to their governance structure and sources of funding. CME recommends that the act require in-house lobbyist organizations to disclose the legal status of the organization, its ownership and/or governance structure, the purpose of any federal funding, and the source and purpose of any foreign funding.

CME also recommends that in-house lobbyist organizations be required to ensure that the names of all employees engaged in lobbying activities be registered under the act and that the lobbyists' registration database allow for a search of organizations based on the names of employees.

The fourth recommendation is in respect to filing responsibility. Information provided in the lobbyists' registration database is frequently out of date, so CME recommends that responsible parties be required to file information for consultant lobbyists and for in-house lobbyist organizations every six months after initial registration.

In response to some of the questions that the committee is dealing with and that have been put before you by the Minister of Industry, we have a number of views as well. Considering these issues, CME has significant concerns with respect to maintaining the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the act. Our specific concerns relate to the following questions.

First, should lobbyists be required to list the public servants with whom they communicate, as well as government departments?

We feel that the submission of a record of all individual contacts would be pretty onerous in terms of cost, time, and paperwork, and it really wouldn't lead to a significant increase in the value of information disclosed. Such a requirement would not lead to a better understanding of the nature or the scope of lobbying activities, and I think it would be highly impractical and probably result in less compliance with the act simply because of the burden it would present for lobbyists under the act.

Secondly, should public servants disclose the name of lobbyists with whom they meet in order to create a dual disclosure system?

We think a requirement such as this would again impose a pretty onerous burden on government officials. It would also be highly impractical given the nature of Canada's parliamentary system. If the intent of this is to strengthen compliance with the act, then we believe a requirement on the part of public servants to ensure that lobbyists are registered in order for a meeting or any other form of communication to take place would be more effective than establishing a dual disclosure system.

Thirdly, should the definition of corporate lobbyist be changed to encompass individuals whose lobbying activity may be less than 20% of time worked but have an important impact on the goals and objectives of a particular business?

We believe one of the important safeguards of the rights of individual Canadians to communicate with public officials is the definition of a lobbyist as an individual paid to influence public policy on behalf of an employer or a client. Changing the definition of a corporate lobbyist along the lines suggested above would create significant interpretive problems, would make it difficult, or more difficult, for individuals to represent their legitimate interests before government, and, in the end, probably wouldn't lead to any big improvement in the transparency of the way the act operates. Moreover, frankly, given the length of time it takes to have an effect on public policy, we feel that the current 20% of time is a good definitional cut-off.

The next question is, should corporations be required to register in a similar manner as in-house organizational lobbyists?

Some companies may benefit from this, simply by being able to list employees engaged in lobbying activities, but for others, particularly large companies that employ a number of individuals who may be engaged in lobbying activities, this requirement would impose tremendous administrative costs without any improvement in transparency, because today the responsibility lies with the individual lobbyist.

• 0920

So CME recommends that if such a change is considered, then the requirement to register in a similar way as in-house organizational lobbyists be made optional.

Should members of boards of directors for consultant organizations be registered? We feel that the role of a board of directors is to provide direction and oversight for the business or organization that it governs. Members of the board who are actually engaged in lobbying activities and are paid to do so should already be caught under the terms of the act. Therefore, there's no need for the board of directors to register as paid lobbyists simply because they're members of a board and providing—hopefully—good corporate governance to that organization.

Is there a conflict of interest for organizations that receive government funding and do lobbying activity at the same time? We support the rules of the Canadian Bar Association with respect to Chinese walls. But let me say as well that there may be an issue here, to the extent that governments or public officials are contracting out consultations to private consultants, and then those consultants themselves are providing some input in the consultation. That may be a conflict of interest that you may want to consider.

Finally, should the time limit for prosecuting violations be extended? We see no reason why the current time limit is not working satisfactorily at the present time.

To conclude, the objective of the Lobbyists Registration Act is to provide for transparency with respect to the activities of paid lobbyists. In order to be effective, the act must be simple, clear, and easy to administer. While the act can be improved to enhance its scope and strengthen compliance, it's important, we think, that the balance between transparency and the rights of government access, between demands for more information and cost-effectiveness, be maintained.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Myers.

We're now going to begin with questions.

Mr. Penson, please.

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CA): Yes. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Myers. Thank you for being here.

I'm trying to put some sense to this whole lobbyist registration business. Once we've got people registered... You've already made the point that all Canadians should have access to government. So there's that issue as to how free that access is.

But once we've taken a step to make sure that people are registered, there are some questions surrounding that, of course, about those that don't register and what the compliance requirements are. But assuming everybody registered, now we know that people are lobbying. But so what? Where does it go from there?

The suggestion that public officials—bureaucrats, if you like—would not keep records... I think you said that it would be too onerous to do that as to when they're being lobbied. How can the public be assured that there's nothing happening that shouldn't be? We've got people registered now, and they've complied. But how is the public being protected if we don't move to that next step of having public servants keep some kind of a record as to those transactions that take place?

Mr. Jayson Myers: I think, first of all, that the Lobbyists Registration Act is one of a number of checks that we have in our system of government that should be protecting the public against lobbying activity, or making the lobbying activity that does take place more transparent.

The objective of the act is simply to inform the public that there is lobbying activity taking place by these groups on these issues. These are the departments that these groups are speaking to.

When it comes to communicating with public officials, or when it comes to public officials asking for communication with people who may or may not be asked to participate in consultations or to communicate with public officials because they're paid lobbyists... Many times, people who are in a position and being paid to lobby in organizations are also asked in a private capacity for their opinions or advice by public officials. I think that certainly goes for a number of people who are not paid lobbyists as well. It's an important part of our system that public officials be free to ask for opinion, advice, and expertise.

• 0925

Mr. Charlie Penson: But how is that different, Mr. Myers? You've already raised the case of the NGOs essentially lobbying for their organizations not having to be registered. How is their being asked for their opinion on subject areas any different from your businesspeople that have to be registered?

Mr. Jayson Myers: Well, I think there is a formal process of consultation. There are formal communications that take place, as well, between organizations and individuals that are paid to make those communications. I think those are the communications that we should be making sure are covered by this act.

First of all, all we're asking for is that those groups that are paid to lobby, or those individuals that are paid to lobby, be registered and that they file the same types of information requirements as any other lobbyist—the departments they're lobbying, the issues they are speaking about, and not necessarily the individual communications. I think the other reality of public policy-making is that the scope and the extent of these communications on an individual-to-individual basis are so great, and it's not always very clear as to what the absolute nature is, that it would become a very, very complex system to administer. I don't think that's our point. All we're trying to do is to raise the level of transparency and to identify those groups that are paid to communicate.

Mr. Charlie Penson: In doing that, you're talking about the outsourcing as a way to get around that? That it's not being captured under the Lobbyists Registration Act right now? Is that my understanding?

Mr. Jayson Myers: Not always, and I think it's not necessarily a way to get around the act. It's a fact of the way public administration is developing. In many instances, contracts are being let to consultants for purposes of developing public policy positions or for consulting with a broader, private constituency. From a business point of view, this is exactly like outsourcing. The same thing that may once have been done within the public service now is being contracted out to private consultants.

Mr. Charlie Penson: So they may not be trying to get around the act?

Mr. Jayson Myers: No, I don't think so.

Mr. Charlie Penson: But the fact of the matter is that this is not being captured under this Lobbyists Registration Act.

Mr. Jayson Myers: Not always. Sometimes it is, but it is not consistently being captured.

Mr. Charlie Penson: One last question, Mr. Myers.

It seems to me that part of the problem is the ones that are not registering. When they don't register and actually lobby, what are the consequences? It seems to me that there really aren't any consequences to deal with. There seem to be no prosecutions that I'm aware of under the act. How can that be strengthened? How can that be changed to deal with those people who are not complying?

Mr. Jayson Myers: I think the ability to bring a case forward and the option to prosecute are there under the act. It hasn't been used. There have been cases, or there has been at least one case brought forward, and the interpretation was that the individual was not a paid lobbyist. But, on the whole, to go through the fairly onerous prosecution process in itself is not necessarily something that you want to do just simply to raise the transparency of the system.

I think the recommendation number two that we've made would be more effective. If the public sector—government—is going to consult, and if there are paid lobbyists or organizations at the table, then they should be invited to the table only if they're registered.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Okay. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Penson.

Ms. Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you.

I wanted to clarify your recommendation number two.

If I understand this correctly, you're suggesting that unless someone was registered as a lobbyist, public servants and government officials couldn't seek them out to discuss an issue? So if in the past we knew that somebody had been involved in a certain issue and wanted to just fly something by them, we wouldn't be allowed to communicate with them unless we got them registered first?

Mr. Jayson Myers: No, I don't think that. Again, what we're trying to do is find a balance here. We would want to keep the ability of public officials to be able to ask for the advice of individuals and the private capacity and expertise.

• 0930

I think what we're really trying to capture here is an assurance that when consultations take place and groups, organizations, or individuals are invited to those consultations, and when those groups and individuals are paid to lobby on behalf of their clients or employees, then when those groups and individuals appear, they appear on condition that they are registered under the act.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So the definition of when they would have to be registered would be if it's a more public meeting or that... I'm looking for how you would more clearly define the date by which they had to be registered, so that when we start the private conversations that then start forming the government policy, whether it has to be a public meeting or whatever the definitions are...

Let me get to the second part of it. How would someone register if they had done work in the past on this issue and had clearly no specific clients in mind, but they have developed expertise, and for whatever reason they have no clients right at this minute but their contribution would be valuable? Can you—

Mr. Jayson Myers: That's a good point. Many lobbyists with that expertise would already be registered under the act, I would hope. All we're asking here is basically for the terms of the act to be enforced, that paid lobbyists be registered. It's very clear this is not covering any individual who has asked to make any representation, nor does it cover the public officials who simply should be encouraging Canadians to provide advice and opinions to them. We don't want to cover that. What this is simply covering is those organizations that are paid lobbying organizations that should already be covered under the act, to ensure that they are.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay, but let me tell you that I'm a former lobbyist. I lobbied mostly at the provincial and municipal levels, so when it was for an Ottawa person, I would use a contact in Ottawa, another part of the company. But I would have had expertise and knowledge about a certain area, and it would have been helpful to have me, perhaps, if there were some kind of national consultation on the issues on which I was working. But I would never have been registered federally. To get me to the table, though, you're saying I'd have to register myself there. But if I didn't have a client asking me to work on those issues, I'd register the people for whom I was registered for the provincial—

Mr. Jayson Myers: You're raising a good issue, and it's certainly something you may want to take a look at in here, because I think it is a good point. Speaking as a paid lobbyist myself, I'm often asked individually for my opinion, based on my expertise, but I am registered under the act.

There may be a qualification that you could append to that, recognizing that public officials may ask individuals to appear before them from time to time because of their expertise. But it seems to me it's a very different function if you're asked to appear because of your expertise, rather than being asked to appear while representing a client or an employee in your capacity as a lobbyist. I think that's the area we want to...

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, maybe we can talk about some of the scenarios that I could envision where I wouldn't have been registered—I'm not sure my clients would have wanted me to be registered—but where I did have a fair amount of knowledge about what was going on in different provinces, and an expertise on how a group of companies would have viewed certain initiatives. I wouldn't necessarily need to be registered at the federal level.

It comes fairly high up in your levels of recommendations, so I'm concerned about it. I don't know if there's a category where you could list yourself as a lobbyist for these consultations without having a specific client.

Mr. Jayson Myers: I think it is an important recommendation for us. Again, it may be the level at which or the way in which consultations are being carried out. If it's a formal request to appear in a consultation at the federal level made to an organization that's a lobbying organization, I think people would expect that lobbying organization to be registered under the act. This is not an onerous thing. If we're expecting lobbyists to register under the act, then I think it is important.

• 0935

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just think it has some mechanical difficulties at that point.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Torsney.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Good morning, Mr. Myers. I listened to your presentation with interest. However, I was surprised to hear you say that the submission of a record of all individual contacts would not lead to a better understanding of the nature or the scope of lobbying activities.

Are you distinguishing between civil servants or categories of civil servants? In other words, would you consider registering contacts with public service employees higher up in the hierarchy?

[English]

Mr. Jayson Myers: Right now, lobbyists are required to identify the departments, offices, and agencies that they communicate with. My concern is that we can ask for too much information. It's not that the information may not be valuable in opening up the transparency of the system and showing who is speaking to whom or what sorts of consultations are going on and so forth.

Again, I think we don't want to make the system too overly burdensome; we don't want to make it too onerous. I think that's one of the problems in compliance right now. Some groups do feel they may not understand what they're being asked, but I think there is a significant amount of paperwork in the administration of this.

My concern in terms of individual-to-individual contacts is very much asking for... I think the act should ask for information that is material, that shows the departments being lobbied and the issues being spoken to, but also the number of informal contacts that take place on an individual-to-individual basis.

Speaking to the last point, the distinction between communication on an individual basis versus communication on the basis of a paid lobbyist and lobbyist activities is not very clear. I just find that asking for that type of in-depth information on an individual, transactional basis would really be too much and too onerous and would probably lead to less compliance with the act. That's one of our significant concerns.

I don't know if, at some levels, you would want to distinguish certain categories of public officials. Perhaps if you communicated at the deputy minister level, it would be an important thing to let people know. As you know, communications, even at the deputy minister level or at the level of an MP, go on so frequently and in so many different ways that I think it would be a very complicated and complex process to have to file every single communication and the nature of that communication. In some cases, you might be filing those communications about how you communicated more than you're actually communicating. That's the dilemma.

For what we're trying to get out of this—transparency in the process, the issues being discussed, the departments being contacted, and, in general, the public officials being spoken to—I think the current way of doing it gives a tremendous amount of information. I'm not so sure that for the cost involved in an individual-to-individual transaction, the quality of that information improves a lot more.

• 0940

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Right. That's all.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Brien.

[English]

Mr. Lastewka, please.

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go back to one of Mr. Penson's earlier remarks, and that was that we want to continue to gather information on people who may be influencing public officials, elected or non-elected, and we continue to want to get more information. So what? What are we really trying to accomplish by the Lobbyists Registration Act?

In your preamble, you mentioned 23 NGOs that weren't registered. I want to take the point of the 23, just to get a better understanding. So what if they weren't registered? What are we really trying to accomplish under this act? Are we not trying to accomplish that there be a record of people who are influencing government, be they elected individuals or public servants? If there's a record of it, so what? I'm looking at it from the standpoint of not wanting to make it cumbersome, while at the same time making it a simple and proper thing to do. Maybe you could address it from that standpoint.

Mr. Jayson Myers: Let me start with whether we want a record of individual transactions or the attempts to influence public policy. I would hope every Canadian should be attempting to influence public policy, because—

Mr. Walt Lastewka: You're going to my second question.

Mr. Jayson Myers: I think that's an extremely important part of our democratic system, and I don't think that should be the intent of the act.

From my point of view, the act provides a number of things. When I'm sitting down at a table with other paid lobbyists, I can find out information through this act: who they represent, how they're funded, the issues they're dealing with, the departments they're speaking to, how they are governed, and who this person is who is being paid to come out saying something on behalf of their clients, constituents, or employers. I think that is very important, and you should certainly be demanding that of me and our organization. I think it's extremely important to know where the basis of that expertise comes from—that we can sit here and can say these things. That's what I think is important in this act.

Again, I think there's a really fine distinction that blurs—it is really a difficult one perhaps to get around—the activities of people or organizations paid to make representations to public officials versus individuals who are asked to do so or who do so because of their own opinions or expertise or because they're providing advice. I think it's a difficult distinction, but it seems to me this act is about the activities and the transparency of organizations and individuals who are paid to lobby.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: You talked about the NGOs. The NGOs have their own mission and are trying to get a message across. Because they went to represent that organization to a government official, elected or non-elected—it doesn't matter—they should have been registered for what they were lobbying.

Mr. Jayson Myers: I think so. Frankly, that's what we do, and you expect us to register.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: But are they really getting paid? Or are you saying it should be the people they pay to go and register on their behalf?

Mr. Jayson Myers: Yes, if they are being paid, as many are. Many have professionals who sit in this seat and do exactly what I do, and they are being paid to do that. I think they should fall under the same rules as we do.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: One last question, Madam Chair, if I may.

When you talked about the contracting out of the development of public policies, what I understood you to be saying is that if the government contracts out an organization to develop a public policy and that organization is holding consultations, the people who come to those consultations need also to be registered. They're an extension of the government. Is that what you're trying to basically say?

• 0945

Mr. Jayson Myers: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: So any development of public policy that is an extension of the government should have the lobbyists' act kick in immediately.

Mr. Jayson Myers: That's right, as it would apply if it were within the government. You may want to define that.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lastewka. Ms. Desjarlais, did you have any questions?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): I know the 20% figure is in there, and you're in agreement that that seems a reasonable figure. Is there any justification or any kind of paperwork that indicates 20% is a reasonable figure? I know it's out there, but I've yet to see something that says this is why we chose 20%.

Mr. Jayson Myers: It just seems like a reasonable figure. We can examine that and develop a scientific formula to come up with a figure that—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So you're not aware of anything that has ever been out there.

Mr. Jayson Myers: I'm not.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I've been trying to find something as to exactly why they came up with 20%.

Mr. Jayson Myers: It might be interesting to look at that.

You have a number of people working within companies whose job it is to influence public opinion, to find government relations work, and so forth. At the same time there are a number of people within companies who very legitimately speak to public officials on behalf of their company, who I would not say are being paid as a lobbyist and who don't do this on a frequent basis.

I think on the corporate side it is extremely important not to catch individual Canadians who are expressing the interests of their company, because it's their interest. To me it's a different type of activity than being paid by a company to lobby on its behalf.

It just seems to me that the way the act is working now, that 20% rule provides a nice balance between those people who are being paid to lobby on behalf of a company and those people who within a company have a very legitimate right to speak on their behalf and on the company's behalf.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Desjarlais. Madam Jennings, please.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you.

I just want to make sure I correctly understand the position of your group on the issue of the NGOs. You would like to see them registered when they're taking part in public consultations regarding public policy or legislation. Is that correct?

Mr. Jayson Myers: If the people who are making those representations are paid to affect public policy, then yes. You would expect our organization to do so, and I don't see any difference between our organization and an NGO.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: So for somebody who is salaried, for instance, the executive director or the policy development person for an NGO... I hesitate to throw out the names of any of these organizations. In reading the newspaper and watching what happens in the media, a lot of times things are incorrectly reported or taken out of context, so I hesitate to use anyone as a hypothetical example. But we do have NGOs that provide services, for instance, programs to Canadians, and the employees, as part of their job—I can give an example that has nothing to do with industry, such as justice issues—actually develop briefs, putting forward the position of their particular agency or organization on what kind of legislative changes should take place on sentencing, corrections, etc.

• 0950

If we just transpose that to, say, an industry sector, they're salaried employees, and part of their job is to develop their organization's position on a particular government policy. Therefore, they come and table it. If it doesn't encompass 20% of their activity, then normally, if I understood your position correctly, they don't need to be registered.

Mr. Jayson Myers: The 20% rule would apply to in-house corporate lobbyists.

For the in-house organizational lobbyists, the chief executive officer would file for the organization, listing all of those employees within the organization who would carry out lobbying activities. So whether or not those employees spend 20% of the time, as long as the employees are—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Myers, I have a real problem, because just look at what happened when there was a program review in 1994-95 and into 1996. In almost all of the ministries government cut funding in order to attack the deficit problem. Whether it was Multiculturalism, Environment, Industry, or Public Works, you name it, budgets were cut, programs and funding contributions were cut, and criteria were changed. For organizations that received funding, previous to that it was what you would call sustaining funding, where they were actually able to pay for their operational costs from that. The criteria changed, and then it became project funding. They lobbied hard.

If I understand what you're saying, if the legislation had been changed in the way you're proposing and had existed at that time, they all would have had to have been registered. The little community organization that organized after school activities for kids who have problems, that received sustaining funds—that might have been only $50,000 a year, but it allowed them to have one full-time employee, coordinator, or something for a little office or whatever—and that lobbied for government policy not to change so that they would continue to receive their funding would have been required to register. Is that correct?

Mr. Jayson Myers: You certainly don't want to impede the ability of any individual to lobby on behalf of their interests, so we wouldn't want that school group to be covered by this.

But I think if the finance minister is having consultations on program review and there are paid lobbyists at the table, whether those are representing business or some other NGO, and they are making representation in that formal consultation, then they should be registered.

But the registration process as it is right now is not onerous. All we're asking for is the registration. It can be done in ten minutes. All we're asking for is the name, the issue representations are being made on, and who is being paid within the group to make these representations. Again, we don't want to make this too onerous.

The whole point of this is not to cut off the ability of individuals to make representations or for MPs or public officials to get that advice. But when organizations are being paid to sit at the table and to provide the views of whatever their constituent client is, then I think in order to make this act work, everybody who does that should be covered by the it. They should be right now.

I don't think the way to get compliance is by counting on heavy-handed prosecution or by complicating the process of administration. But I think there can be some checks written into the process. If there is a formal consultation going on, I think we should all expect the people who will be at the table to be in compliance with the act.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Jennings. Mr. Brison, did you have any questions?

• 0955

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Yes, Madam Chair.

It's good to see you, Jayson.

I have one question, again on the 20%, that has to do with its arbitrary nature. For some people, if they were particularly influential, 20% of their time would be of high impact as opposed to somebody who is less so and is spending 100% of their time. The 20% of one's time seems like a less than effective distinction; it's a type of distinction that doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense.

Mr. Jayson Myers: Maybe your view of how long it takes to have an impact on public policy is... My view is that it does take a tremendous amount of effort on the part of individual lobbyists to have an impact on public policy. Granted there may be individuals who may have an impact without using that much time.

Let me pose another question. Simply because someone comes from a company, has a good idea, and comes to a public official, or comes to an MP or minister, and says, “Look, I have a really good idea and it's going to help my company—and there are going to be a lot of other people here too—and, by the way, as a Canadian I have a legitimate right to be here and tell you that this is important to me and to my company...” I think there's a difference. That's the type of communication interaction I think is quite legitimate, and the person shouldn't necessarily fall under this act as a paid lobbyist.

I think it's different when companies have paid government relations people. All we're asking for here is registration and to speak about the issues and the departments these people speak to. It's not an onerous thing. I think most companies that have those government relations people, the ones I know at least, are all in compliance with the act. They've all registered. I think there is a difference between a company that has paid someone to influence policy versus someone who is very legitimately talking about what is important to them and their business.

Mr. Scott Brison: Is there a distinction in the legislation for the kind of lobbying you've noted, with more of a public policy focus, as opposed to lobbying that would benefit somebody with a direct pecuniary interest from a financial perspective, say on a contract or a grant or something to that effect? Does the legislation differentiate between those very different types of lobbying?

Mr. Jayson Myers: It doesn't. I think one of the issues not covered by this is that an individual Canadian who is asking for favoured treatment or special treatment and has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of that treatment, if not paid to lobby, would not be covered. I think this act has to be seen in the context of other checks and balances in the system.

The Chair: Last question, please.

Mr. Scott Brison: It strikes me that it should go further to discern or differentiate... I know that's difficult and sometimes subjective, but public policy lobbying in the general sense is extremely different from lobbying on behalf of a specific company or individual for a contract or a grant.

Mr. Jayson Myers: Certainly if a consultant has been hired on behalf of the company, then that consultant has to register there. That would be caught.

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Macklin, please.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr. Myers, Ms. Jennings has already asked some of the questions that concerned me. You say the question of compliance is a critical issue, yet you say you don't favour a heavy-handed prosecution. Do I read that you would like to see more prosecutions, though, in order to encourage people to register?

• 1000

Mr. Jayson Myers: No. I think the spirit and objective of this act is to encourage voluntary compliance and to encourage lobbyists to register to provide the information.

I really don't think you go about encouraging people to comply by a heavy-handed prosecution approach, or that a lot of prosecutions are necessarily a good thing. Frankly, if prosecutions were easy to undertake, and if legal costs were low and it was an easy thing to do, then perhaps you'd see more, but what we want to do is just encourage transparency, encourage information to be provided by those groups that should be providing the information. There must be other ways of encouraging that to happen rather than prosecution.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Myers, we want to thank you very much for being with us today. We appreciated your brief. There's been a good exchange on the Lobbyists Registration Act and we look forward to meeting with you again in the future.

Mr. Jayson Myers: Thanks very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We're going to move to the next part of our meeting.

First I'm going to rule on the proposed motion that was moved on Thursday, March 22 by Mr. Strahl that reads:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), I move this committee send for Mr. Jonas Prince to appear as a witness regarding his ownership of the shares in 161341 Canada Inc.

I've taken the time to carefully review the motion now before this committee and as well I've reviewed the minutes, meetings, motions, and rulings from this committee in 1999 relating to the same issue now before us again.

I'm going to discuss two points: first, what is the mandate of this committee; and second, the inability for a committee on its own initiative to inquire into the behaviour of a member of Parliament.

First, pursuant to 108(1) of the Standing Orders, the committee has the power to send for persons, but that power should be exercised within the mandate of the committee as provided by the Standing Order. Standing Order 108(2) provides the mandate and stipulates amongst other things the following:

The standing committees... [are] empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned from time to time by the House.

Strictly speaking, the mandate of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is to monitor 13 departments and agencies coming within the industry portfolio. Also the Lobbyists Registration Act comes within the Industry portfolio, as well as the role of the Ethics Counsellor as related specifically to the Lobbyists Registration Act. As such, the Ethics Counsellor reports to the Minister of Industry.

The Ethics Counsellor is also responsible for the administration of the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office-holders. Pursuant to section 5.1 of this code, the Ethics Counsellor reports to the Clerk of the Privy Council and to the Prime Minister.

The question I then ask is whether it's within the mandate of this committee to invite Mr. Jonas Prince in order to discuss his business dealings with the Prime Minister. It is not within the mandate of this committee to examine any questions related to the role of the Ethics Counsellor with regard to conflict of interest in the post-employment code for public office-holders. By inviting Mr. Prince, the committee would proceed indirectly to do something it cannot do directly.

• 1005

With regard to the second point, a standing committee cannot on its own initiative examine the behaviour of a member of Parliament. The law of privilege provides that this can only be done in the House by tabling a substantive motion. To quote Joseph Maingot in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, page 241:

The conduct of a Member may only be discussed in the House of Commons by way of a substantive or distinct motion, i.e. a self-contained proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the House.

This procedure is in place for the rights of all members of Parliament, regardless of their political affiliation. Parliamentary committees were established to deal with matters of public policy, not the conduct of individual members of Parliament.

It is my opinion that to proceed further would be damaging to the effective work of parliamentary committees and would serve to damage the institution of Parliament as a whole. After careful thought and consideration and for the above outlined reasons, I rule the motion out of order.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CA): Madam Chair, just speaking to the ruling—

The Chair: Mr. Day, the ruling is not debatable. If the ruling is not debatable, you cannot speak to the ruling.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm speaking to the issue of process here, not the actual ruling. The situation here is hardly conducive to any sense of respect for democracy when there is no ability whatsoever to even discuss something beforehand. It is very arbitrary on your part, Madam Chair. Certainly it is within your right to have a position, but—

The Chair: Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I'm sorry you are debating the ruling. The ruling of the chair... There is an option, and again you're not following proper process and procedure. If you would like me to tell you what it is, it is that you have the right to ask that the ruling of the chair be sustained. That's your option.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm coming to that, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Day.

Mr. Charlie Penson: We're not in Russia, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It has nothing to do with being in a rush, Mr. Penson. It is quite clear, and I've tried to be quite clear in my ruling. I told you I've given this very careful thought and consideration, and I believe that what I have done is based on the rules and is the right thing to do as pertains to the role of Parliament and to parliamentary democracy. The rules are what govern—

Mr. Stockwell Day: It is absolutely not the right thing to do. You have not allowed any discussion, Madam Chair. This is a violation of democracy.

The Chair: Mr. Day, it's not debatable.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I am challenging the ruling, as is my right. It is my right to challenge that ruling.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Duceppe, he has challenged the ruling.

That as well is not debatable. So we'll now take a vote on whether or not the ruling of the chair shall be sustained.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I wonder how this vote's going to go. Let's watch this one.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Chair, I want a recorded vote.

The Chair: We'll have a recorded vote, Mr. Penson.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm challenging the ruling. I'm fascinated by how this free vote will go.

The Chair: The wording of this is quite clear under Marleau and Montpetit as well. If Mr. Day would care to take a look, it says quite clearly that the motion will be on whether or not the ruling of the chair shall be sustained.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1010

The Chair: Okay. The ruling has been upheld.

We will now move to the second motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): I would like some information.

[English]

The Chair: The chair recognizes Mr. Duceppe on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Madam Chair, you base your judgment on the practices of this committee. However, last week, we were given the Ethics Counsellor's opinion on a question directly concerning his intervention with the Prime Minister, Mr. Jean Chrétien. And today we are told that we cannot hear other witnesses regarding the same issue. I am wondering how it is that, in one case, Mr. Wilson would be allowed to be heard, rather quickly I must say, while today we find ourselves with Liberal representatives from whom Mr. McTeague was excluded...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Duceppe.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: ...in favor of more docile people.

Are we here to be accomplices with the Prime Minister in a matter which is not clear under your ruling, Madam, or to play...

[English]

The Chair: Order, please. Mr. Duceppe, order.

His point of order is to debate, Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: No, I don't believe so. I want to hear his point of order.

The Chair: His point of order is to debate my ruling. My ruling has been upheld, and it's quite clear that last week was an exceptional circumstance, where all members agreed that prior to the beginning of the Lobbyists—

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: The Liberals are deciding.

The Chair: No. In fact—just to clarify—we had agreed that we would hear Mr. Wilson on the Lobbyists Registration Act. Mr. Wilson asked to make a statement outside the scope of that discussion, and I asked for the permission of all members of this committee. I said the statement and the time for questions would be limited because it was not what the committee had... and everyone agreed to that.

That is why my ruling stands, and we're not going to debate it.

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): On a point of order, please, Madam Chair. We are in a situation now on this issue where the Prime Minister has taken a deliberate initiative to put facts on the table.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Joe Clark: Now, if you read the paper, if you read his letter—and we are an emanation of that House, read your rules—you will see that it is a very limited offer. He's keeping out of the public domain—

The Chair: Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark: —many of the things that are in it. My point is—

The Chair: Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark: —why would we not act in the spirit the Prime Minister established in his letter yesterday and open up the files?

The Chair: Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark: Why is this committee acting in a way to shut down the files rather than to make information available to Parliament and the people of Canada?

The Chair: Mr. Clark, order, please. I am not trying to act to shut down any files. I am trying to follow the rules of this Parliament in a clear, open, and precise manner. It's important, Mr. Clark—

Mr. Joe Clark: Well, in that spirit of openness, are you going to accept motions for the calling of other witnesses this morning? I have a witness I want to call whose testimony will be very germane to these discussions.

The Chair: Mr. Clark, we have a 48-hour substantive rule. I know you were here at the meeting last Tuesday and that you're well aware of it. If you wish to put forward motions, we will consider them in due process.

I have tried to be extremely clear this morning. I believe that my ruling was clear. I gave a great deal of careful thought and consideration to the importance of upholding the rules of Parliament for all members of Parliament, about the importance of following proper procedure. I outlined how, if you wished to take this further, you could do that. I outlined exactly what needs to be done. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but the reality is that the rules are in place. I didn't write Maingot, and I didn't write Marleau. I've researched them. The clerk has researched them. We've gone through this. We have legal opinion. We've gone back and forth over and over on this.

I have tried to—and I believe I have managed to—uphold the rules of Parliament in the best manner appropriate. There is process in place to which you can go.

Now, my ruling is done. We are going to move to the next motion.

Mr. Stockwell Day: A point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: On the same point?

Mr. Stockwell Day: No, on a different point, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Brien was first.

Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: In the interest of the smooth running of this committee and for the future, Madam Chair, I would like to understand the explanation that you just gave.

You said that, with the consent of all parties, the Ethics Counsellor was allowed to make a statement outside the scope of the discussion. You said that because we had the permission of all members of this committee, we could proceed differently and go beyond the usual scope.

Am I to understand that by general agreement we can proceed in a way that is different from your previous ruling?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brien, it was more than that. In fact, Mr. Wilson had approached me and asked to make a statement, and this I took to the committee members. He asked for that. No one else has come to me to ask for that ability on his or her own.

• 1015

Mr. Stockwell Day: On a point of order—

The Chair: I wish to move on. My ruling stands. I think I've been very clear in my position.

I have a point of order, first by Mr. Day and then by Mr. Penson, provided it's a different point of order.

Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, you have mangled Maingot. The purpose of rules and proceedings is in fact to facilitate democracy. You in fact are coming against democracy. You are not facilitating it.

The Chair: Mr. Day, you are debating my ruling again.

Mr. Stockwell Day: No, it is a point of order, which is that—

The Chair: The ruling has been upheld.

Mr. Stockwell Day: —you have based a ruling on the role of the Ethics Counsellor—

The Chair: Mr. Day, order.

Mr. Stockwell Day: —and on the behaviour of MPs, and that has nothing to do with what we're asking. Your point is irrelevant.

The Chair: Mr. Day, can we please have some order?

Mr. Stockwell Day: You have created disorder, Madam Chair. It's an absolute shame.

The Chair: Mr. Penson, you have a point of order.

Mr. Charlie Penson: On a point of order, I want to pick up on Mr. Brien's point. Once the door was open by you asking for permission for the Ethics Counsellor to come to committee to discuss and inform the House on this issue, it opened the door to other witnesses to come.

The Chair: No. In fact, Mr. Penson—

Mr. Charlie Penson: You can see from the amount of interest at the committee that when the Ethics Counsellor was there, there was limited time to talk to him about that.

The Chair: Mr. Penson, you're debating.

Mr. Charlie Penson: It opened the door so that we can talk to other witnesses—

The Chair: Mr. Penson, order, please.

Mr. Charlie Penson: —and we have called for those witnesses. I believe you're out of order in your ruling.

The Chair: Mr. Penson, my ruling has been upheld. I have researched my ruling; I have consulted with the clerk, with numerous people.

Mr. Charlie Penson: And the Prime Minister, probably.

The Chair: No, Mr. Penson, I have not consulted with the Prime Minister.

Mr. Charlie Penson: What role did he have in this?

The Chair: He had no role. In fact, the easy thing to do would have been to call all the witnesses and proceed down this path.

Mr. Charlie Penson: You have your marching orders.

The Chair: This is a very difficult decision to make, which is in the interests of Parliament and parliamentary process, and that is why I have made that decision.

I have been consistent with the decisions I made in 1999 as well, when we received legal advice. We have gone back and read all the motions that were put forward and looked at the rulings. You had the same opportunity.

I'm going to proceed to the next motion, which was tabled by Mr. Penson last Thursday.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Chair.

The Chair: Are you moving that motion now?

Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, so moved.

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: To pick up on the point I was just making, and others have made, as you can see there's a tremendous amount of interest that we didn't have time to cover when the Ethics Counsellor made his brief appearance last week at the committee. A lot of information has come forward since that time, and I believe it's important to have the Ethics Counsellor come back on the estimates and give us a chance to talk to him and have him defend certain aspects of his spending.

I would ask that the committee invite the minister and the Ethics Counsellor, and if the minister can't come at the same time, I would amend that to just the Ethics Counsellor to come in the next two weeks to appear before the committee.

The Chair: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of clarification, is Mr. Penson requesting that the minister and the Ethics Counsellor come on the main estimates or for some other purpose?

The Chair: I understand—

Mr. Charlie Penson: My motion is that they come on the estimates, votes 1 and 5 for the Department of Industry specifically.

The Chair: To clarify for the sake of the committee, we have already invited the Minister of Industry to appear on the main estimates. We have already scheduled him for May 8. That was discussed at the steering committee meeting, and that date has been confirmed with his office. We will begin estimates on that date and move from that date.

You should know in regard to the third point in Mr. Penson's motion, which deals with the expenditure plans and priorities, that those are not released until some time this week, so they're not even out yet. I think members should be aware that those are not even out yet to be discussed.

Mr. Charlie Penson: They'll be out within the next two weeks, though, Madam Chair.

The Chair: They'll be out sometime later this week. My understanding is that they have until March 31 to release those.

Mr. Charlie Penson: My two-week period will cover that, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Penson, it was a point of clarification.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: In the steering committee, we set up a whole series of meetings for the next couple of weeks, leading up to the break and perhaps even beyond. I wonder if the clerk can advise us on the points of opportunity in terms of our schedule and the schedule we already agreed to in the steering committee.

The Chair: Richard.

• 1020

The Clerk of the Committee: Well, at least up to April 5 the schedule is full.

The Chair: April 5, which is the Thursday before the break.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Madam Chair, I would like to know if Mr. Penson would agree to have his motion looked at before the end of May as opposed to the next two weeks? This is the period allowed to all committees to review budget estimates.

I was wondering if instead of insisting to have us examine his motion in the next two weeks, which seems to create a problem, he would accept us doing so before the end of May, that is the period allowed the committee for the review of the budget estimates.

[English]

Mr. Charlie Penson: No, I'm not in favour of that. I think the events of the last few weeks have overrun many of the things we talked about in planning, and therefore my motion stands that we invite the Ethics Counsellor to come in within the next two weeks.

The Chair: Mr. Clark and then Ms. Torsney.

Mr. Joe Clark: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think what we have to recognize is that there is some urgency here. This is an issue that was declared urgent as recently as yesterday by no one less than the Prime Minister of the country. He released a letter to me. He took the unusual step to table it on the floor of the House of Commons. This is obviously a matter that he wants behind him.

This committee is an emanation of the House of Commons. There was in the question period on Friday, I would say, a universal agreement with the position put forward by the House leader of the New Democratic Party that it was time for us to take all actions to put these matters behind us, so that the House and its committees are seized of the urgency of dealing with these issues.

The chair has herself made the point that the information sought by Mr. Penson will be available within the next two weeks. There is no technical reason to delay the appearance of the two persons who are called.

Mr. Tobin's schedule has proven flexible before, and I'm sure that in the interest of advancing public knowledge of this file, he would want to make himself available. The commissioner, I'm sure, would be similarly amenable.

So there is urgency. There is no technical reason—

The Chair: We are talking about the estimates, Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark: Yes, I know that. I understand that, but we're talking about having them come to discuss items under the estimates. The germane questions as I understood them were, first, that the committee's schedule is already full. That can be changed. Second is that the minister's schedule was already arranged. That can be changed. Third is that the information is not immediately available. But it will be available within the two-week period specified in the motion by Mr. Penson.

So there is no reason on the facts—no technical reason—not to agree to this motion. If it is not agreed to, that is for a political reason. It would be very unfortunate if a political reason were to intrude upon the work of this committee and its capacity to examine all relevant testimony and witnesses under the estimates.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clark, for those comments.

Ms. Jennings, please.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I just have a question. I can understand why you would want the minister to appear on the main estimates and on the expenditure plans and priorities of the department. May I ask the reason for the Ethics Counsellor on those same two issues?

Mr. Charlie Penson: The Ethics Counsellor falls under the Department of Industry, and therefore he has to come if we request him to defend his spending for the estimates for this year.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, I might add, on that very—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: And his expenditure plans and priorities.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Excuse me, Mr. Day. You talk about democracy. I haven't finished yet.

Mr. Stockwell Day: You looked like you were finished. Please continue.

The Chair: Mr. Day, please.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: So, Mr. Penson, you would also wish to question the Ethics Counsellor on his future expenditure plans and priorities?

Mr. Charlie Penson: I think there's a whole range of things we want to talk about, and he can talk about those. We want to talk to him about—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, I understand.

Mr. Charlie Penson: —a lot of other issues that are pertinent to the debate that's going on throughout the whole country regarding the Prime Minister's conduct as well.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm just seeking clarification. You want the committee to hold meetings to consider the 2001-2002 main estimates, votes 1 and 5 for the Department of Industry. You wish the minister to come and testify on that issue. You also wish the minister to come and provide information on future expenditure plans and priorities of the department. That I understand completely.

Where I'm having difficulty in understanding the motion is as it pertains to the Ethics Counsellor for main estimates. You've explained that part saying you wish to know what his budgeting plans and expenditure plans for the future year are. How does it come to expenditure priorities for the Ethics Counsellor?

• 1025

The Chair: Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: He's an officer of Parliament through the Department of Industry. Therefore, he should come and defend his expenditure plans and priorities.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: I think that has been clarified, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Germane to that and further to that, Ms. Jennings has cited plans and priorities.

You can find references in Beauchesne's and also in Erskine May related to relevance. It's very clear that the Canada Business Corporations Act requires federally registered companies to accurately record their shareholders on the corporate registry. Those are all clearly within the mandate of both this committee and the Ethics Counsellor himself.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Day.

Mr. Cannis, you had a comment.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): I think I'm just confused. Listening to Mr. Clark's comment and how confused he is about this motion leaves me to suspect the intent of this motion is not as transparent as it seems. I've been known to be a very blunt person. In just reading the paper today after the announcement yesterday from the Prime Minister, the opposition says it still may not be enough. So no matter how far we go, the question is, what is enough? I say a pound of flesh is not worth coming here for.

The Chair: Mr. Cannis, I would prefer that we discuss the motion specifically.

Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark: I have a comment, since my name was mentioned.

Let's go back to the reason for the estimates. Why do estimates come to committee? Estimates come to committee in order to provide the committee with an opportunity to examine all aspects of any government department, aspects moving forward and aspects moving backward. There are officials of this department, including the Ethics Counsellor, whose activities are of intense interest and highly germane to this committee. If Parliament has any purpose at all, we should be free to investigate that officer. The opportunity set out in our rules is to do that under the estimates.

Mr. John Cannis: On facts, not on innuendo.

Mr. Joe Clark: That is precisely what is being sought by this motion, to use the instrument of the estimates to call before the relevant committee an officer who is employed under the department whose estimates are being considered. It's simple.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Just before I move on, this committee has operated very much in that manner, Mr. Clark. If you go back to 1999, you will see quite clearly that when Mr. Wilson appeared on the estimates, the chair recognized the importance of the mandate of Mr. Wilson and the importance of all questions to be asked and only tried to assure that at the end of the meeting someone did in fact talk about the estimates.

Mr. Duceppe.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Madam Chair, I am wondering why we should be so suspicious toward the hearing of Mr. Wilson by this committee during which he could explain what he intends to do in light of what he did. Several questions need to be asked.

Let me give you an example. Is it customary in the Ethics Counsellor's office for Industry Canada to meet companies in order to make changes to their books because they think they're not well kept? This is what happened.

Does the Ethics Counsellor spend a lot of money doing that, changing companies' books? Unless of course it belongs to the Prime Minister...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Duceppe, I think you've given an interesting example there.

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I don't think I have to say any more, because the previous two speakers have made it very clear to me that we should get on with our schedule of briefings on the estimates as agreed by the steering committee. It has already been put in place. From the lecture Mr. Clark put forward, it will give all of the members a chance to go over all of the estimates for the industry department. We agreed on that. We've already scheduled it. We should get on with it. I think we should vote on the motion forthwith.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, can I get a clarification? Have you in effect ruled there will be no calling of any witnesses at all? Could you just give me a clarification on that? Or is it just the one witness I had mentioned?

The Chair: Mr. Day, we're dealing with a different motion now, and we're—

Mr. Stockwell Day: I want a clarification on the previous one.

The Chair: You'll have to wait until after we're done with this motion. We're dealing with this motion. The motion before us is about estimates. We have not ruled out any witnesses on estimates. We have not even gone further than the steering committee meeting where I asked people to put forward names. We don't usually have motions to bring witnesses for estimates. The committee has been very generous and very agreeable. Any witness who has been put forward for the estimates has in fact—

• 1030

Mr. Charlie Penson: Right from the PMO.

The Chair: —been accepted by the committee. I can't recall one on estimates that hasn't. So to answer your question, the committee looks at all witnesses and makes a decision from that point forward.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Thank you for that clarification.

The Chair: We have the motion in front of us. I have already invited and scheduled the minister for May 8, based on our steering committee meeting.

We'll now vote on the motion before us.

Mr. Joe Clark: May I have a clarification?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Joe Clark: You've scheduled the minister for May 8. For what date have you scheduled the Ethics Counsellor?

The Chair: As of the steering committee meeting, the Ethics Counsellor was not part of the witness list, and he has not yet been scheduled.

Mr. Joe Clark: So if this motion is defeated, the effect will be that there is no outstanding invitation from this committee to the Ethics Counsellor to appear before this committee.

The Chair: The steering committee could still do that. Any member could still request that the Ethics Counsellor come during our normal timeframe.

Mr. Joe Clark: We could save the steering committee a great deal of time by simply adopting this motion.

The Chair: Except that this motion deals with the timeframe of the next two weeks, Mr. Clark, and that would go opposite—

Mr. Joe Clark: The timeframe that yesterday the Prime Minister himself declared was urgent.

The Chair: For main estimates? I'm not sure the Prime Minister said that. I'm not sure he said that for main estimates.

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I understand from your point and the points that have been made around the table that the industry minister is scheduled for May 8 and there may not be time to get him earlier.

The Chair: May 8.

An hon. member: A month later.

The Chair: No, let's—

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'd like to proceed, please.

The Chair: Order. Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: If it would speed things up in terms of getting the Ethics Counsellor to appear before the committee within the next two weeks, maybe the Deputy Minister of Industry could take his place. I'd be prepared to make that amendment.

The Chair: Are you amending your motion, Mr. Penson?

Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes. In view of what I'm hearing around the table from the government side that the industry minister can't be here, I would amend my motion to say that—

The Chair: Mr. Penson, I must clarify.

Mr. Charlie Penson: —the Deputy Minister of Industry could come in his place.

The Chair: The Minister of Industry has not said he could not be here in the next two weeks.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'm hearing you—

The Chair: What I have said is we have scheduled him for May 8, and he has accepted that date on our invitation. Please do not put words into people's mouths that were not stated.

We're going to vote on the amendment. It says we replace the Minister of Industry with the deputy minister.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll now vote on the main motion.

An hon. member: We want a recorded vote, Madam Chair.

• 1035

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Okay, we have another motion. Mr. Bélanger has a motion before us, but we're going to defer that until Thursday because we have received answers to Mr. Lastewka's question from our witnesses that will be translated and circulated to the committee members.

This afternoon we actually are going to deal with the budget for our science visit.

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The motion that was circulated—is it the latest rewrite of the motion?

The Chair: For Mr. Bélanger?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Yes.

The Chair: I'll have to check on that.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Would you? I would ask the clerk—

The Chair: No, it's not? Okay. We'll have to check on that and have it recirculated.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you.

The Chair: Actually, while we're all here, why don't we deal with the budget for the science visit?

We have proposed a visit to Cape Canaveral for—

[Translation]

Mr. Duceppe.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: May I now propose a motion?

You are studying the one from Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger tabled his motion last week.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Okay. I want to propose a motion at that time.

[English]

The Chair: You want to table a motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: You can table a motion at any time. You can't speak to it. You can just table it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Can we explain it? Can I present it? I can read it.

[English]

The Chair: You can read your motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Yes, thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Certainly.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Such openness, Madam Chair, such openness.

Madam Chair, knowing that the Business Development Bank of Canada reports to the minister of Industry and therefore to the committee, I table the following notice of motion:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), I move the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology send for François Beaudoin to appear as a witness regarding the intervention of the Prime Minister in the matter of the Grand-Mère Golf Club and the decisions of the Business Development Bank of Canada regarding Auberge Grand-Mère.

This is a motion which seems to be germane to the mandate of this committee in every respect, Madam Chair, as it deals with the management of the Business Development Bank.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much for your motion, Mr. Duceppe. It was tabled.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd just like to make a point.

We're going to deal with this budget, and we're getting these motions from a variety of individuals who are not permanent members of the committee, and I just find it interesting that the permanent members of the committee seem unable to table their own motions for the committee. Perhaps, before we go to the budget, we could encourage people who are permanent members of the committee to debate the issues or perhaps have them be the ones who actually speak to the issues that are on the table.

The Chair: Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark: Madam Chair, when the time comes to receive motions from members who are not permanent members of the committee, I have a motion I'd like to present.

The Chair: Mr. Clark—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's interesting that Mr. Brison can't do his job.

The Chair: Mr. Clark, in fact, you are actually substituting for Mr. Brison. Mr. Brison is not a voting member of the committee today.

Mr. Joe Clark: Not for the first time.

The Chair: Well, today, you're substituting in, if I understand the records properly. So you are considered to be a member of the committee for today.

I have Mr. Brien, and then Mr. Clark.

Do you have a motion as well, Mr. Brien?

• 1040

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes. To please Ms. Torsney and to satisfy her wishes, I will table a motion for the committee to take notice of:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), I move that Mélissa Marcotte be called as a witness to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology regarding the Auberge Grand-Mère issue.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. It's tabled.

Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark: I would like to move, under Standing Order 108, that Ms. Debbie Weinstein be called as a witness to the committee in its examination of the work of the Ethics Counsellor.

Ms. Weinstein, you will recall, was identified yesterday not only as the agent and lawyer, but also an officer of the company. I learned today—and the committee might be aware of this—that she was sworn in as an officer only three weeks before the conclusion of the transaction—

The Chair: Mr. Clark, you're now debating the motion.

Mr. Joe Clark: —so she had been—

The Chair: Mr. Clark, order.

Mr. Joe Clark: —so she had been negotiating—

The Chair: Order, Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark: —in some other capacity for three years.

The Chair: Mr. Clark, order, please.

Mr. Joe Clark: My motion is clear, and I'd be pleased to submit it.

The Chair: Yes, it was very clear from the beginning. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark.

Now, we do have—

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Day, do you have a motion, too?

Mr. Stockwell Day: Yes, and being somewhat fascinated by the rush to send people to Cape Canaveral, I think we should get more down to earth on this and look at the committee.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Stockwell Day: Under Standing Order 108, I would move that the... That seems to have hit a soft spot over there.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I move that the committee—

Mr. Walt Lastewka: It was your request.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Excuse me, but if the champions of democracy would allow me to maintain the floor for a minute, here...

The Chair: Could we have some order, please?

Yes, we know it was the Alliance's request to go to Cape Canaveral. Can we now continue with Mr. Day?

Mr. Stockwell Day: Please show some respect for the chair, for goodness' sake.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, you're welcome.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108, I give this request to send for Mr. Gilles Corriveau to appear as a witness, regarding his ownership of shares in 161341 Canada. Since this has nothing to do with the role of the Ethics Counsellor, and since it has nothing to do with the behaviour of a member of Parliament, but it has everything to do—again citing both Beauchesne's and Erskine May—with the relevance of the Canada Business Corporations Act, the registering of companies, and corporate registries, I would put in this motion that he be called as a witness.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Day.

I believe we now have several motions to deal with, once we have time.

Hopefully we now have in front of us a copy of the budget estimates for Cape Canaveral. Just to clarify, the budget is drafted, and it's to deal with our study on science and technology, to witness the launch of the space shuttle on April 19, and to visit the facilities at the Kennedy Space Center. It's drafted in the full extent. There are possibilities whereby members of Parliament could use their own Aeroplan points to reduce the budget. Those are things we can discuss as a committee.

I have Madam Jennings and Mr. Bélanger.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I would just like to state that the proposal that members of this committee visit Cape Canaveral and witness the space launch, which includes the Canadarm, did in fact come from our Alliance member, and—

The Chair: I actually do believe it was supported by Mr. Manning but was proposed by Mr. Bélanger.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Well, then, it was completely supported by the Alliance member.

I'm quite perturbed by Mr. Day's comments about this, given that his own member supported the resolution. I'm seriously considering whether or not I, as a Liberal, should support it, given the fact that Mr. Day has completely renounced his own member's support of this.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings, I'd actually like Mr. Bélanger to speak to this, because it was his idea.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Madam Chair.

A few members of the committee will recall that, at the meeting to strike the committee, I highlighted the fact that on April 19, Canadian astronaut Chris Hatfield will be aboard the launch of the space shuttle to participate in the installation of Canadarm2. Having been one to push for the renaming of this committee in the absence of a subcommittee or a fully independent committee on science and technology, I believe that since we have accepted the notion that a significant portion of our energy and time will be allocated to the science and technology agenda, participating in and visiting the Cape Canaveral facilities—as we would visit the St-Hubert facilities—might be something of interest and of use to members of this committee.

• 1045

Certainly, it is a common practice for public servants and members of the Canadian Space Agency to be there on the ground, to participate and to promote Canadian participation in the international space station. I put to the committee at that time that it might be something appropriate for members of Parliament as well. I believe we had considerable support around the table from all parties at the time, including the members of the Alliance. I think that should be made clear today.

The Chair: In fact, you're quite correct, Mr. Bélanger. We did have support from all members around the table, and, as chair, I undertook to make arrangements. I know every member of the committee has been contacted to express their interest as to whether they're available or not. The budget has been drafted based on those members who have expressed an interest and have expressed their availability.

I have Mr. Cannis and Ms. Torsney.

Mr. John Cannis: Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, want to go back for a moment to speak of the great cooperation that existed when this proposal was brought forward, with good intentions. But having heard what Mr. Day said, I'm concerned. I anticipate, Madam Chair, that a year or so down the road, their critic, Mr. Williams, will most definitely bring it forward as another vacation. I'm not prepared to support this today, as I was encouraged to support it in the past. I will vote against it, and I encourage every member to vote against it.

The Chair: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Madam Chair, thank you for clarifying that thirteen members identified that they might be available and that this is how this budget has been done.

The Chair: It's ten members, and we would require three staff.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's assuming what kind of timeframe? Is it the whole period from the 17th to the 20th?

The Chair: It's from the 17th to the 20th. If members would prefer, we could defer this to our meeting this afternoon.

An hon. member: No, let's vote on it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, that's fine, we can take a vote. I just wanted to clarify it, because air transportation is clearly cheaper if you book over a Saturday and all those kinds of things, but—

The Chair: The clerk has informed me that he has put in what would be the full fare. Obviously, he will do his utmost to reduce that fare, so it will be something that will come up at the budget liaison subcommittee. The reality is that you have to put in for what the maximum would be, but the reality is also that we will do our utmost to reduce all costs in this trip and to ensure it is done in an economical manner.

I do believe it is very important for the study on science and technology, and I don't think we should let... as chair, I really think we should proceed in a manner that would be in the best interests of the committee and in the best interests of our study, so I ask members to think about that.

Were there any other comments?

Mr. Stockwell Day: Yes, Madam Chair.

Just as a comment, Madam Chair, I have to say that they doth protest too much. I made a whimsical reference to the juxtaposition of the focus on Cape Canaveral in opposition to a very serious matter. It appears the only things going into orbit are some upset Liberal members here. I'm quite amused by how they reacted.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Day, that's enough. That's just completely out of order.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I've made my point, thank you.

The Chair: It's completely out of order, once again, and your behaviour is really quite unacceptable.

I was dealing with the motion that I had notice of, in the way that I had notice. As soon as people let me know, I did that as well. If you had let the clerk know you had a motion, I would have known how many motions I had before I proceeded to that. When I called this issue, I had no notice.

Mr. Charlie Penson: You don't need to have notice.

The Chair: You're right, I don't have to, Mr. Penson, but the reality is that I try to keep order and decorum as best as I can, and—

Mr. Charlie Penson: Maybe too well, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Well, Mr. Penson, that's fine.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: On a point of order, Madam Chair, I would suggest a recorded vote.

The Chair: Okay, we're going to go to the vote, and it will be a recorded vote.

• 1050

(Motion negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: I want to let members know that we have a meeting at 3:30 p.m. today.

Sorry, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If members wish to go at their own expense, can arrangements be made through the Canadian Space Agency nonetheless?

The Chair: Yes. I will undertake to make those arrangements for members who wish to go at their own expense.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chair: We stand adjourned until 3:30 p.m.