Evidence of meeting #8 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 lobbyists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I would hazard a guess that it was the industry committee at the time. Because it was the former ethics counsellor who developed the code, and he operated within the Department of Industry at the time, I'm quite certain that's what it was.
12:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It came into force in 1997.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
And the interpretation that you issued in November, Commissioner, is that the first interpretation of the code, or are there others?
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
That's the first, in terms of additional guidance to the code.
12:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
By you, by the Commissioner.
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
By me, yes.
12:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There had been previous guidance on that ruling issued by the ethics counsellor earlier, and there is some guidance about Chinese walls, or lobbyists, as well.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Okay.
In terms of the interpretation that you issued in November, one of the issues it covered was political activity. I know there was some criticism from some lobbyists at the time that it wasn't well defined what “political activity” meant. I wonder if you have any further thoughts on the interpretation or on that particular phrase, “political activity”, and how it's defined.
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Well, the guidance was looking at conflict of interest in terms of placing a public office holder in a conflict of interest. Rule 8 hasn't changed. The guidance is just that, it's guidance, and it's consistent with what the court instructed I must look at, in terms of it no longer being simply a “real” conflict of interest, but actually a reasonable apprehension of it.
Political activity may vary in terms of the different activities. I mean, the guidance was set up to provide lobbyists with some sort of criteria they can use to assess whether the activities they want to do on the political side may affect...and what they wish to do on the lobbying side. In terms of being prescriptive, that wasn't within the mandate, I felt, because what may be acceptable in one circumstance may not be in another.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Commissioner, is it a failing of the act that it doesn't talk about limitations on the expense of a lobbying campaign that's undertaken, or is that something we need to address when reviewing the act?
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It's one of those questions that has come up each time over the years. There are two ways I've heard the question phrased: how much is a lobbyist being paid; and how much is the lobbyist actually spending on the lobbying activity. It's probably something that will come up again, and it's worthy of debate.
In talking to others who have it, the one thing that might happen--and I'm not sure of the answer to this--is whether double accounting may actually occur. If you have a corporation or an organization that might actually be filed as a lobbyist and they have actually hired a consultant, depending on how they're reporting it, there are a few factors that will need to be considered when that issue comes up.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There is no requirement, no.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Okay.
I have another quick question. I thought it was curious that in your RPP you were talking about reporting areas, and you said that you continue to educate lobbyists and designated public office holders regularly on how to reduce errors, including overreporting. It's interesting that overreporting is an issue. Can you just say something about what that looks like and why it's an issue?
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
With Parliament it was pretty specific as to the types of communications they wanted to capture in terms of it being a designated public office holder, and through the regulations it further defined the oral, and arranged, and who was initiating it.
What we've found in doing the reporting is that 80% of this is overreporting. And that's the question. There's a significant amount that is going to members of Parliament and senators who are not designated public office holders. When the act comes up for review, the debate should be whether the communications should now be captured through designated public office holders.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Earlier, you indicated that there were some cases--and I thought four--that were sent to the RCMP. Mr. Poilievre asked a question along these lines and you said that three were sent to the RCMP. How many was it? I'm not sure I heard you.
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
We were talking about a question of process and where I am, actually, after conducting one of the administrative reviews. I felt I had reasonable grounds to refer the matter directly to the RCMP, which is what I did. I didn't wait to open an investigation.
So there actually were four referrals to the RCMP.
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There are four files that I have referred.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
And some you have started to investigate and then sent them, and one you just sent.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Okay, thanks. That clears up that matter.
You monitored the media. From your monitoring of the media, how do you determine a suspicion that somebody is doing lobbying or whatever? There has been lots of media around this issue lately, but what triggers a request by you, from monitoring the media, that somebody may be doing lobbying that's not registered?
