Evidence of meeting #23 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cba.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thanks very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks to our guests here this afternoon. We're certainly getting some valuable information. Certainly having it laid out in recommendations is beneficial to us.
I have a couple of questions.
Some of our previous testimony—as well as the commissioner's recommendation—recommended statutory immunity for the commissioner. Can any of you comment on that?
12:10 p.m.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
It's not something the CBA working group discussed.
I think, speaking personally rather than for the CBA, neither of us would have a problem with that. It's quite common for regulators to have that protection to ensure they can fearlessly go about doing their job.
12:10 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
I have no opinion on that.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
No, in fact what I say...
I would require that anyone who acts on a particular file be identified.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Hudon, I'm not sure if I heard you comment on the administrative monetary penalties. Do you think the commissioner should have the ability to impose the monetary penalty?
12:10 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
Well, it's...
I have in the past been reluctant regarding this request from Quebec's lobbying commissioner. Given the progress on these issues over the past few years, it would perhaps be appropriate that the lobbying commissioner himself or herself be able to file complaints or institute proceedings. Otherwise, we lose track of files in the red tape and the limitation period comes up when files are transferred from one office to another.
I would authorize the lobbying commissioner to institute proceedings and impose monetary penalties.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Giorno, you talked a little bit about some of the provincial legislation—at least I think it was you who spoke about that—and some of the differences between the different provinces and the federal legislation. Can you just outline what those differences are, which way you feel is the most beneficial way for us, and whether we should be moving towards that? Is that what you're recommending or not?
12:10 p.m.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
That actually opens up a very large area. The reason it opens up a large area is that the Lobbyists Registration Act was the first lobbying transparency law in the country. Provincial legislatures then followed suit. Ontario and Nova Scotia have very weak acts because their acts basically reflect the way the federal law was 15 years ago. Then the federal law was amended. The strongest laws in the country are not the federal law but the lobbying transparency and accountability laws in Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would urge the committee—I know you've heard from the regulators—to look at the Quebec statute and the Newfoundland and Labrador statute. They are among the toughest in the country.
Specific recommendations that the CBA has made that align with provincial laws administer the monetary penalties. They're on the books in Alberta and British Columbia. It's something that CBA recommends this committee look at and adopt as a federal model. Treating directors of companies as in-house lobbyists, which they are, is done in Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia. It will be done in Manitoba when their law—which just passed—is proclaimed. That's another area.
There is the elimination of the 20% rule. There is no 20% rule in the City of Toronto bylaw. There is no 20% rule in Quebec. They have a triple threshold that doesn't approach that. This 20% is not carved in stone in other jurisdictions either. The CBA thinks the 20% could be removed.
I could go on. I'd be happy to follow up in writing with points of similarity and difference between the acts, if that would be of help to committee members. That would be a Guy Giorno submission, not a CBA submission, because the working group didn't go to the extent of doing an entire national cross-jurisdictional analysis.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
When you talk about eliminating or changing the 20% rule, what should it look like? Should it be totally gone or should it just be redefined?
There's always been a grey area about what's considered part of that 20%. We've had discussions about whether a lobbyist from Vancouver has to include his travel time, as opposed to a lobbyist from Ottawa.
Can you make some comments on how you think it should look?
12:15 p.m.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
The short answer is that we should eliminate the 20% rule, which would eliminate those questions. Then you simply rely on the definition of registral activity in the statute, which involves a communication between a public office holder, for compensation, and an employee or consultant, about one of an enumerated list of decisions or the arrangement of a meeting.
The complicated analyses of travel time and prep time were introduced in the calculation of the 20%. Eliminate the 20% rule and you eliminate all those confusing questions.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
I agree.
I agree entirely. In effect, that resulted in red herrings and in extremely arbitrary calculations. I come back to my former position and I wholeheartedly agree with the Canadian Bar Association in this regard. We talk about lobbying at 20%, 10%, 19%. At some point in time it all becomes absurd.
Were we to eliminate that rule, I think we would promote greater transparency. I'm not certain that it would follow automatically, but at least it would be a signal in that regard.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank the witnesses for appearing before us today.
I have a question on a topic that was touched upon. It deals with more informal meetings that were not arranged in advance. Take the example of the Hy's Steakhouse case, for example, where there were meetings that were not necessarily planned. There is also the example of the Albany Club. It is said that these are social encounters. This involves both lobbyists and public office holders. These meetings were not organized in advance, but there probably were discussions on certain issues.
I would also like to discuss a document that Mr. Giorno sent to the City of Ottawa when the city wanted to set up a lobbyists registry. You wrote it in December 2011. I will quote you in English because we were unable to find the document in French.
Continue to cover all types of lobbying communication (oral and written, formal and informal).
Is it therefore still your position, as far as the federal registry is concerned, that you wish to go and search through even informal discussions?
I would like to hear you on this point.
12:20 p.m.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
Thank you.
The CBA working group did not take a position on this particular issue, although the group is aware of other recommendations. My personal view is that the commissioner is right that this needs to be expanded. But Madam Chair, I should clarify this.
Under federal law there are two regimes. There's general registration and then there's specific monthly reporting. Everything the member has referred to—dinner at Hy's, cocktails, walking the dog and trying to lobby—all of that activity is registrable right now under current law if you do it. The only gap is that not all of those chance encounters are covered under monthly reporting.
My personal view is that monthly reporting should be expanded to cover that. In fact, if members wish to refer to the Senate committee in 2006, that was my position back then. It's my personal position today.
Since the member has referred to my submission, Madam Chair, I would be happy to send to the clerk my submission to the City of Ottawa council in both languages for the record.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Hudon, do you have any comments on the issue of informal meetings?
12:20 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
It is difficult to prevent these informal meetings, but at the same time, I would say that lobbying activity does not have to be planned and deliberate in order to constitute lobbying activity.
Where should the line be drawn? I clearly stated in my conclusion earlier on that it was not a question of setting up a detective state. But we cannot stray from the rules regarding citizens who, for their part, want to know, but perhaps they want to know too much. They are somewhat curious and it is of course a certain kind of yellow journalism, if I can put it that way. As I was saying a while ago, it's a very difficult line to draw in the sand. As far as transparency and representations are concerned, both are legitimate and democratic. That is where we have to show some intelligence.
Let's go back to informal meetings. I think that in some respects, we have forgotten something in all of our activities, which is judgment. We cannot constantly rely on rules, with all due respect to legal professionals. Anglophones have an old adage which is not an invitation to commit offences, as I emphasize, but it says the following: rules are made to be broken. Therefore, the more rules you create, the more people will try to get around them.
There has to be a measure of reasonableness in all of this. I am not in a position to state what the rules should be, to say "this is the truth or this is where the line should be drawn". I do not have that authority and I think that in your discussions among yourselves you will be able to find where that line should be drawn.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
On another subject, what is your opinion of people who organize these meetings, such as Stockwell Day? In the reports, it is not mentioned that they acted on the file. What do you think about that?
