Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 29th, 2006

[Chris Benedetti]

We would certainly be interested in working with government on a series of rules that would make sense from both an industry and a government standpoint. We're certainly interested in making sure everybody in our profession abides by the rules, and we're quite happy to abide by lobbyist registries and other systems of accountability that make sense.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's what everybody says, but it falls apart in practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I will build on Mr. Martin's point.

We've had a lot of people before the committee who say they love the Accountability Act; they just don't like how it applies to them. We find that very interesting.

You will all be glad, also, to be reminded that we've been talking about an accountability package for two years now, since the Liberal sponsorship scandal was exposed by the Auditor General's report in the very beginning of 2004. We're now moving into mid-2006. So yes, there has been plenty of discussion. It has gone on and on. There is no knee-jerk reaction in this country; if anything, we're moving far too slowly.

You'll also be very pleased to know that this committee, by the end of this week, will have had a total of 70 witnesses. We will have had 45 hours of witness testimony and can anticipate probably another 45 hours' worth of review on the amendments through clause-by-clause. I'm sure you will be very impressed with the volume of work that's going into this particular bill.

On your particular concerns, though, about filing requirements, we've had other lobbyists before this committee who said it was too cumbersome to have a filing requirement. They, of course, say they're not worried about lobbyists, but are worried about these mom-and-pop shops that are somehow going to be encumbered by these rules.

I have never met a single small business in my riding, or a single charity in my riding, that has said they couldn't get by without their lobbyist--not one. We're not really talking about mom-and-pop charities and small businesses, are we? We're really talking about big enterprises and big lobby firms--most of which, by the way, do these filings anyway, every single day. They even have software designed to do these filings. They do it because they want to bill their clients. Every 15-minute phone conversation is recorded. They have no problem putting those into their invoices, but when it comes to reporting it to the public and keeping it out in the open, all of a sudden it's a huge encumbrance.

I want to know why. Maybe you can explain the contradiction there.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Flis.

[Elaine Flis]

Thank you very much for the question.

I want, in my response, to address a couple of things that have been said around this table.

It's fabulous that you've taken so many hours to hear from 70-odd witnesses.

I'd like, though, at this point, to bring in a personal experience. Prior to being a consultant, I actually worked for three years for a not-for-profit organization, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Prior to that I worked for the Canadian Diabetes Association for two and a half years, in the government relations area. When I think of that sector specifically, one of my concerns--one that I'd really urge the committee to consider--would be to talk to those types of organizations.

Part of my mandate in my last job was to build a national grassroots program. It was an MP contact program, bringing the actual constituents to talk to the members of Parliament. For the average individual, that is actually a very nerve-racking experience; a lot of training is involved from the staff person at the charitable organization. When I also look at filing requirements, staff resources in those types of organizations are slim. I urge the committee to actually take a look at some of those organizations and how the filing requirements would actually impact on them. I do know, based on my experience, that it would be cumbersome.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

If there is no one else, I'll continue with my questioning.

[John Dillon, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel, Canadian Council of Chief Executives]

I just want to add a brief point, if I might. With respect to your question about the filing requirements, just to make it clear, our organization does not lobby on behalf of individual members. We only lobby with respect to public policy that we feel would benefit the membership more generally.

I have talked to a number of small not-for-profit organizations, and I was at a meeting with Treasury Board officials just a couple of weeks ago at which many of them were present and said they are worried about the burden of these filing requirements. But I think the bigger issue for all of us is the fact that because these senior officials are actually going to have to keep a record of it as well, because the Commissioner of Lobbying may follow up with them to confirm, a number of us are concerned that it will actually put a chill on these kinds of discussions with government because they just don't want the bother to have to deal with all these paper burden requirements.

We think more of these meetings and more discussion between government officials and the vast array of organizations is important.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

And we can meet until we're blue in the face, but ultimately what Canadians want are some results here.

First of all, I've never had a single constituent who has come into my office--and I hold about 15 meetings a week with constituents--say that this is an intimidating experience so they need a lobbyist to help them do it. And I've never met anyone who has said to me that it would be that difficult, if you were a paid lobbyist, to write down a record that you met with a politician, a public office-holder, and to simply submit it to the lobbyist registrar.

I'm a public office-holder myself. I'm going to be the one who has to uphold the law on my end, and I can't see how it would be so difficult to look through my schedule every month and ask myself which 10 paid lobbyists did I meet with, and are they up on the website?

You make it sound like these filings are going to be giant documents. They're not giant documents. You're just recording that you met with a politician, and you did it for this reason and at this time, for this number of minutes. That's really all you're being asked to do here, and I don't see how that is such an enormous encumbrance.

Maybe you can shed light on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Stewart-Patterson.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Perhaps I can come back to the example of a policy conference, whether it's organized by a non-profit group or a consultation exercise organized by the government. If you have a large number of people in the room whose responsibilities include dealing with government, is it the intent of the government that all these individuals be captured by that? If you come and speak to that at all, do they have to register that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

No.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Is it clear in the bill that is the case?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

All those matters are going to be resolved by regulation, as is normally the case with any legislation you pass. Regulation deals with those sorts of details.

Very clearly, the incidental contact is specifically dealt with in the bill. If you look at the Accountability Act, we deal with matters of incidental contact. So that is going to be dealt with.

I frankly think these are questions designed to confuse the debate, because the bill is very clear and the rest can very easily be dealt with by regulation, which is very often the case when you pass legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Time is up, Mr. Poilievre.

I'm going to give Mr. Benedetti the last word.

[Chris Benedetti]

I thank you very much for the question. I think it speaks to the heart of quite a bit of misperception when it comes to the true professional practice of government relations.

There seems to be at least the inference from some quarters that the practice of government relations is very much a one-sided affair. Government relations, in practice, is a very reciprocal activity where government and stakeholders work together in the hope of coming to good policy, good programs, and good initiatives.

Without clarity in terms of whether or not to record when a meeting is arranged or whether somebody from the government might call us to arrange a meeting, who establishes that contact, when the contact is established, whether or not it's a face-to-face meeting, whether or not it's a conference call, a conference, without that kind of detail really the question speaks to a degree of disclosure that is truly onerous.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Did you have a comment, Mr. Dillon? We're well over time here.

[John Dillon]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make clear that, in my reading of the legislation, it does not make it clear. The notes that accompany it say incidental meetings will be dealt with by regulation, but it's a standard rule of legal interpretation that the regulations can't contradict the law. So if the law generally says all such contacts must be recorded, then those are the rules that people have to follow.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do we have unanimous consent that Madame Lavallée has another seven minutes?

Okay, you have seven minutes.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you.

I'll put my question as quickly as possible. As you will see, it shouldn't be too difficult

The Accountability Act was drafted--and it's stated clearly in the Prime Minister's press release--to restore the trust of Canadians in their government. However, aside from some of the measures in the act which are rather positive, the legislation is being fast- tracked, with the government seemingly more concerned about dealing with public perception than with the real issues. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Can you identify for me two or three of the measures in Bill C-2 that will result in some real changes and that will help to restore the public's trust in government?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

My short response would be that there is no one silver bullet that's going to restore public confidence. Confidence and trust, as I said earlier, once lost, can be very hard to restore. It will take time; it will take a number of measures and a lot of dedication.

What I'm trying to suggest is that it's important not only to be aware of unintended consequences but also to focus on the purpose of good governance, which comes back to meeting the needs and expectations of citizens and making government as efficient as possible.

That's why, if I can again draw a parallel with the private sector issue, one of the changes in governance requirements included in Sarbanes-Oxley and in Canadian legislation is the notion of personal accountability--in other words, the personal certification by chief executive officers and by chief financial officers with respect to individual company reports.

If I can summarize quickly, Mr. Chair, the expectation and legal requirement for a CEO is now clear: not only does a report have to fully and fairly reflect what's going on in the company, but everything said in that report must be true. Nothing may be left out such that leaving it out might make what is said misleading; the person certifying must be fully aware of all material facts; there must be processes in place to make sure that person is fully aware of all material facts; and that person must certify that they've checked those processes and reported any deficiencies.

That is a very simple measure. It was included in Sarbanes-Oxley, it was included in Canadian law, and it was fully supported by our member chief executives. I ask myself, if similar provisions had been in place in the public sector, whether they might have changed the outcome of the events we've seen with respect to the sponsorship issue, for instance. I don't know, but I put it to you as a question for consideration.

There is work involved in that certification. It involves CEOs spending a lot of time making sure they can properly attest, because there are significant penalties attached to that certification. That's not an approach that has been pursued to date on the public side. Is it something worth considering as we're talking through a complex bill? What does it take to restore public confidence, restore public trust?

As I say, there are many things in this bill that I think will help and are important, and I would encourage members of this House from all parties to support it and move this bill forward. At the same time, I think it's important to recognize that no one bill, no one provision in a bill is going to solve the problem, and therefore it's important not only to do everything possible to get this bill right, but also to remain aware that there will be more work to be done, no matter in what form this bill may pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have time for a brief question from Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I was appointed to the scrutiny and regulations committee, I was told it was sort of a non-wanted committee. Now I realize that we're going to interpret the Accountability Act, so I feel good about that.

I feel that we have a problem here when everything is put into dichotomies. If we don't push this bill through--websites say so--we're bad. If we spend 45 hours on witnesses, but in 35 of those hours we as politicians espouse our political bandwagon of the week, that's not really a thorough review of the project.

Finally, if the lobbyists are former Liberal staffers, they're bad and they shouldn't be allowed. But if they're former Conservative opposition staffers, then they're okay. So I want to get away from that dichotomy of good and bad, red and blue—I'll never be blue in the face, Mr. Poilievre, probably red—and hit on a central point, a very positive point, as a road map forward that Ms. Flis brought up, and that is the idea of conflict of interest as determined by other societies. I'll throw it to you because I think you have a duty, as Mr. Martin was really saying, to do some self-policing at a higher gear.

Governments across this country are in partnership with law societies, dental societies, psychologist societies, and so on, and they police their own. But it's a partnership, because the government gives you a private bill and says, go police thyself. It doesn't work perfectly, but lawyers get disbarred and get criminal charges brought against them, etc.

I think this may be a way to go. As you may know, with conflicts of interest in psychology and law societies across this country, if you have knowledge of a client's business and then go to work for the other client, that's a no-no. It's very similar here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This is supposed to be a brief question, Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It's a pretty good question.