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.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Based on that letter, do you now intend to answer all the information requests that this committee will make in the future relating to your current investigations, in camera of course, as mentioned in Mr. Walsh's letter?
4:40 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
As I indicated when Mr. Easter asked me if I was looking at the issue of Green Power Generation and Mr. Patrick Glémaud and Mr. Jaffer, if the matter is in the public domain, I am ready to disclose if I am doing an investigation or not.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
4:40 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
In such a case, because it is in the public domain, I believe that it is in the interest of the public to know if I am investigating or not. As soon as possible, I will give the date when I will submit my report to Parliament if I decide to launch an investigation.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Monsieur Guimond, I want to clarify something, because it is important.
Mr. Walsh didn't indicate that the witness would answer every question, but Mr. Walsh was quite clear that it would be up to the committee, not the commissioner, to decide which answers we would demand. But certainly this committee has to act at all times in the public interest.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Have you been consulted by the government before it announced the tightening of the rules for ex-MPs who became lobbyists recently?
4:40 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
That is interesting because, during my outreach, I talked to officials of the 20 departments where there is the most lobbying activity. That was just after Parliament had decided to include the parliamentary secretaries in the definition of public office holders. The government said it would look at the issue and might expand the definition to include senators. After that announcement, I met with Mr. Day to talk about the legislation and I took that opportunity to indicate that if the government only had included that to the definition, the registry system would have been able to accommodate the change. That is the only recommendation I made.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
There are four more questioners. I'm going to have to limit them to four minutes each.
Mr. Calandra, four minutes. Then it's Mr. Siksay, Mr. Easter, and Mr. Poilievre.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks again for coming. I appreciate that.
First let me say I'd really like to see what some of the other provinces have done, a bit of a comparison, so I'd really appreciate that. But this is just more of a process question.
So a complaint is made and it's brought into your office, and that's when you start the administrative review. You assign an investigator to it and you start an administrative review. What does the administrative review entail? So what are you going through during that process?
4:40 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
What happens, and we've actually been refining it, is I actually will officially sign off a document asking the director of investigations to commence an administrative review. And like I say, it's fairly extensive. The investigator will develop a plan in terms of determining what elements need to be proven. For example, for consulting, whether it was paid registerable communication with a public office holder, we'll do the necessary background research from publicly available information, conduct the necessary interviews. There will be analysis of a report presented to me, which actually will show clearly the elements and the facts under each, with a recommendation in terms of what to go forward with. That's why, depending on the complexity of the file, it can be anywhere from a month to a year, depending on what we're trying to prove.
One of the things that could happen at the end of the day, and it did happen with my predecessor, was if I decide to close an administrative review, it's judicially reviewable by the complainant. So if the complainant decides that no, they didn't like my decision—and it happened with the Barry Campbell case, where we were actually taken to court—one of the reasons I asked that that particular process be as extensive as possible is to ensure that if I were to close it at that point, I could.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
It may be a stupid question, but who are your investigators? Where do you get them from? What types of experiences do they have in doing this? If we were to give you additional resources or powers to initiate penalties, are the individuals who you have right now.... I don't want to say “reliable”, that's a bad choice of words, but are you confident in the investigative team that you have, if we were to increase your powers to penalize people?
4:45 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
Actually, I'm very pleased. I have full confidence in the staff and the director of investigations who I have running the directorate right now. Files that I get in front of me go through quite an extensive.... Once they even get on his desk, they're extensively reviewed to make sure that everything is there, let alone the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.
In terms of the monetary penalties, depending on where we went with the scheme, I've only got, as I indicated, a small shop right now. Putting in a system of monetary penalties I think people could accommodate. I have staff that could accommodate that. We'd come up with a scheme. But I think I would probably need additional resources, because one of the things with putting in a monetary scheme is probably whether I have an appropriate appeal process and so on to do some things.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
The only thing I worry about with monetary policy—I equate it sometimes to photo radar—is if you can afford to pay, it's not a big deal.
I know, as an insurance broker before I was elected, there was a temporary suspension of licence for those who were not living up to their responsibilities. Is that something you would suggest? Does the industry itself...? Part of being an insurance broker required constant retraining in order to have your licence renewed. Every year you had to provide proof to the registrar that you were being retrained.
Does the industry have that? Is that another function you could consider? Have you ever thought of suspending licences in addition to monetary penalty?
4:45 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
Right now the only way I could.... Somebody would have to be criminally charged under the act. That is a possibility. I think that's something else, which is why the analysis might be interesting. I think the city of Toronto actually has the ability, if somebody is not being compliant, to deregister them from the system, which would then put them in breach of the act, depending on where we are in the sanction.
In terms of doing something like administering monetary penalty, one of the other things I would probably look for is something in the act that requires me to publish the names, maybe on my website. For example, when I grant an exemption review, I post it on the website and must do so without undue delay.
I think that along with the administrative monetary penalties it would be important to combine the two, because even if, yes, they can afford to pay—if it's only $200 to $300, or it could be more for a big company, even thousands of dollars—their names showing up on a list is something that I've determined means quite a bit to them, actually.
4:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
May I add something to that last question, Mr. Chair?
4:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Just to be clear, there's no licensing requirement for lobbyists. Anyone may register to be a lobbyist, and is required to register if they're engaged in those activities. Once they do that, they're required to adhere to the code. But there's no licensing body; there's no body that looks over that. There are advocacy groups on behalf of lobbyists: the Government Relations Institute of Canada and the Public Affairs Advisory Committee. But there's no licensing requirement per se. That's quite distinct.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner, on page seven of your presentation today you say it appears that both the RCMP and the federal prosecutor have a high threshold for initiating a prosecution. The chair has expressed his opinion that the RCMP and the federal prosecutor have other—maybe this is the wrong word—more serious issues to contend with, more serious criminal matters to deal with, and that the referral from your office wouldn't be a priority for them.
Are you both saying the same thing?
4:50 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
That is a good question.
The files that are going over to.... I can't comment on their priorities in terms of where my files fit. They do spend quite a bit of time going through them and discussing things, which is why sometimes I don't get a file back within a month saying “Sorry, we're not going to proceed.”
One file that literally just came back to my office this week, in the letter that came back, said in one of the elements that if they actually got more information, they might reconsider it. That will have to be a decision whether I get that and send it back, or continue with the code.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
So your experience is that they've been taking the referrals that you send to them seriously, even if they haven't led to charges. Are you confident with that?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
I want to test another suggestion. I'm testing the chair's suggestions this afternoon. He suggested that because there haven't been charges or people reported to Parliament, that somehow the system isn't working. Do you agree with that kind of statement?
4:50 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying
There's no evidence other than the reports to Parliament in terms of a code of conduct violation. It also depends on what we're looking at. If there are fines or jail terms as the penalty we're looking at, then yes, it's a very valid point, because there's been no evidence of anybody every being charged or jailed.
What I'm finding interesting is that for an act that may not.... We're looking at whether there are the right sanctions in place, and I'm getting a number of voluntary disclosures coming forward. These individuals are realizing that there's something and they don't want to be found to be maybe in breach later on through something being brought to my attention or from other means. They're coming forward.