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.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I understand full well that you have a position as an organization but it's especially your personal opinion that interests me, since you were very close to power for many years.
12:35 p.m.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
My personal opinion is that the five-year ban is appropriate and ought to remain. It ought to extend, as it does now, to the current group of designated public office holders, which would include MPs and senators.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
You talked a bit about the five-year waiting period. I think that I share your opinion in this regard. Your personal experience in the corridors of power must also remind you of certain things. Your five-year waiting period is not yet over. I think that you stopped being a designated public office holders less than five years ago. I imagine that you still have a lot of contacts within the Prime Minister's Office. A five-year waiting period is sufficient; that goes without saying. We should keep that five-year standard. I agree with you on that position. Having that many contacts in such an influential office—
12:35 p.m.
NDP
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I wanted to point out your position and find out if Mr. Hudon was in agreement on that.
12:35 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
Yes, I think the five-year rule is adequate. However, we mustn't exaggerate. Contacts do evaporate quickly and the apparatus evolves quite rapidly. This is minimal protection. The one- or two-year rule that we have in current legislation is probably insufficient.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Thank you very much.
Mr. Giorno, did you have a brief comment on that before I go to Mr. Calkins?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I appreciate the debate that is going on here. As you can tell, we have several issues before us. We have recommendations from various organizations that have appeared before this committee prior to you who have recommended precisely the opposite, or have recommended changes that would be substantially different from what we've heard today. I'm glad to see that the Canadian Bar Association seems to be fairly consistent with what the commissioner herself has recommended. I think that's great.
As you know, the Conservative government took great pride in 2006 in bringing forward the Federal Accountability Act. This is the five-year review of how that has been working to date. This is quite important work that all parliamentarians are seized with here today. I think we need to get to the meat and crux of the matter.
I'm curious about some of the questions that have arisen before. We've had testimony from an individual who said there was a particular example whereby the lobbyist in question was investigated by the lobbying commissioner and the particular designated public office holder was investigated by the ethics commissioner. The ethics commissioner found no wrongdoing on behalf of the public office holder, yet there was continuing investigation against the lobbyist under the same set of facts and circumstances arising out of a similar meeting.
This goes to your earlier comments in regard to the consistency between the two offices and how they could or should be harmonized. My question is to both sets of witnesses here. Are there any examples whereby the offices of maybe the ethics and the lobbying commissioners should be merged into a single office? Are there any examples of where that happens in Canada? Are there any examples of where that happens around the world, in order to maybe put the same investigative tools and administrative penalties, and the same investigation...? It seems to me to be a duplication if you have an investigation going on by one commissioner arising out of a set of circumstances and one by another commissioner arising out of the same set of circumstances. Would any of you like to comment on that?
12:35 p.m.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
I'll comment on that. I'll comment personally because I don't think the CBA has a developed position on all of that, although it touches on the CBA recommendation. The short answer is that there is consolidation in some jurisdictions. Ontario is one, where the integrity commissioner and the lobbyists registrar are the same person. B.C. used to have the information and privacy commissioner acting as the lobbyists registrar. That has now been separated. I think one of the provinces has the registrar of commercial registrations being responsible for lobbyists. So that's possible.
With respect to the specifics here, it's important to remember that many of the witnesses you've heard are consultant lobbyists. As far as I know, the committee has not heard from any in-house lobbyists, who represent 90% of the lobbyists. You have to understand that the Lobbying Act doesn't exist for lobbyists; it exists for the public. Lobbyists have a particular point of view. They have their own beefs. It's important for the committee to take lobbyists' beefs with a grain of salt.
The lobbyist who was making that particular complaint perhaps failed to realize that there are two different statutes with different rules. In fact, the code of conduct for lobbyists contains different wording from the Conflict of Interest Act. Therefore, you have the same facts and the same situation, but with different statutory wording, and you may well have different conclusions. As I said, that's something the lobbyists may not have been apprised of, or may not have been forthcoming about in presenting the beef to the committee.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Hudon, do you know of any cases nationally or internationally?
12:40 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
Other than what Mr. Giorno has reported, the answer is no. However, I'd like to point out that the severity of the Quebec legislation has often been alluded to. For my part, I consider it one of the least strict for one reason. It's very strict when it comes to consulting lobbyists, but organizational lobbyists are not affected in Quebec. So here again, it's a very partial law.
Moreover, the prosecutions or penalties imposed are a very recent trend. This has developed in the past two or three years. The former lobbying commissioner, Mr. Côté, didn't particularly stress that and really didn't operate that way. This is very recent and I think that has to be pointed out. There have indeed been many investigations recently. I wouldn't say it's being done on an ad hoc basis depending on circumstances, but it is a recent phenomenon.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Oh, that's it?
In my last question I just want to address the issue of due process. I think my colleague, Mr. Butt, talked about that. I find it a little bit interesting that the position of the Canadian Bar Association would be administrative monetary penalties. Subsequent to the appeals process, Mr. Giorno, you spoke relatively eloquently about that. It would seem a little bit disconcerting to anybody I think to find themselves in a situation where they're not afforded due process, where they're not afforded any opportunity to face their accusers, and in a process where an administrative monetary penalty is applied.
Can you see any circumstances that we as parliamentarians should be aware of where that can happen?
12:40 p.m.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
Again, I'll speak personally because I don't want to tie the CBA to this. That is the uninformed, inaccurate, biased position of many consultant lobbyists. That's a distortion of the commissioner's process.
By the way, CBA is recommending a review and an appeal, to be clear. The commissioner's process already ensures that lobbyists who are the subject of inquiries have full knowledge and full disclosure of all the allegations against them, and they're allowed to respond. They're given time to respond.
I have heard people call her process into disrepute, and that is based on a misleading, biased, distorted, and falsified view of her process. The lobbyists who come before this committee making those allegations should know better.
But I add that when the witness list is larded with consultant lobbyists who have a biased point of view, this is what comes of that kind of consultation.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Thank you, and your time is up, Mr. Calkins.
Before I thank the witnesses, Mr. Giorno actually offered the committee two documents: one was his presentation to the Ottawa council, and the second one was that he offered to do a comparison between federal legislation and provincial legislation. If the committee is interested in that, I'll ask Mr. Giorno to submit that to the clerk.
Is everybody all right with that?
12:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Mr. Giorno, I thank you for that offer. If you could submit that to the clerk, we'll get that distributed to the committee members.
I want to thank the witnesses very much for your appearance today and for your testimony.
Given the limited time we have left, we have a motion being proposed by Monsieur Dusseault, and we're going to move right to the motion.
I'll just ask the witnesses to excuse yourselves. You're welcome to stay present.
We're not going to suspend. We're just going to go to Monsieur Dusseault for his motion.
12:40 p.m.
NDP