Evidence of meeting #39 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Does that reduce the amount of interaction they are undertaking with governments? Has it in any way affected their operations, from what you can discern?
4:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
I don't have information on that. The only thing I've heard from some is that if they're not hitting the “significant amount of time”, they're choosing not to register, where they might have registered in the past. I don't know whether they're continuing with the same level of activity, or whether they've actually reduced it.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Are there any ways in which the lobbyist registration system, particularly as it relates to the registration of contact with public office holders, could be made simpler, easier, less cumbersome so that the organizations could file the information and at the same time keep the current level of disclosure in place without any compromise?
4:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
Internally, we've done what we can with the registration system. We've tried to make it as easy as possible for them to manoeuvre through dashboards, to cut and paste, and even to go back and forth between languages. However, the problem I've heard from some has to do with the monthly communication report. They're trying to keep track of who's actually communicating with whom, and whether they need to file the monthly reports. I have to admit I'm not sure how we can make that any easier.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I'm aware of what they are. I didn't understand the last remark you made.
4:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
It's just that it's the 15th of the month and they have to keep track. Some organizations and corporations have chosen to reduce the number of people communicating with the federal government.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I understand. So their challenge has been trying to do a survey of their organization to find out who is—
4:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
They don't want to find themselves in breach of the act. When I'm looking at monthly communication returns, I see a lot of confusion or over-reporting, because they would rather over-report when there are no negative consequences than find themselves in breach or in the newspaper for not having filed.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Do you think the reporting of contact between lobbyists and public office holders has improved transparency for the public?
4:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
Given how often I see it being used, I would say it has improved transparency.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Do you think there's something we could do to enhance the reporting, make it more effective, increase the value added for the public?
4:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
For the monthly reports right now, I think it makes sense to have the senior officer certifying the monthly communication return. However, I believe there is an argument for listing the lobbyists who actually attend the meeting. It's quite conceivable that the CEO wouldn't attend the meeting. His VP of government relations or finance is attending the meeting. But on the reporting, it just shows the CEO; it doesn't show who actually attended the meeting.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So it would require an order in council change if it were to be....
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Are you at the stage where you're prepared to recommend that change to the government? Forgive me, if you already have.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
You are. So you would recommend that the requirement be for the individual and the organization who made the contact to be specified in—
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
The actual registration. In the spirit of full transparency, we would like to see who's actually attending the meetings. I think it would add quite a bit.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
In your opening statement you referred to some of the steps the investigators take to determine whether there was an offence. One is payment. Does that mean that any person paid any amount would qualify for an investigation, an administrative review? I'm referring to the threshold, the 20% that relates to the amount of time they're spending in actual lobbying.
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
In respect of the first question, one of the elements is whether there was a payment or an expectation of payment. That's one of the criteria: communicating on a registerable activity with a public office holder. All of those would be elements the investigator would be looking at.
For an in-house organization and corporation, an additional element would be the “significant amount of duties” test.
