Evidence of meeting #24 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 come.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I'm just trying to recollect where they said to get rid of that.
Was that in the 20%?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
It was in their summary of recommendations. They had eight there, and the first one was to eliminate the distinction between in-house lobbyists in corporations and in-house lobbyists in organizations.
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I think it was listing them all—
February 16th, 2012 / 12:20 p.m.
Bruce Bergen Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
If I could comment, my recollection is that that was in relation to the five-year prohibition on lobbying. Someone who is subject to the five-year prohibition may in fact work for a corporation as an in-house lobbyist provided their lobbying activities do not reach that significant part of duties threshold, which we have called 20%.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Okay, and the other one we talked about was the corporations. The one here that they said went further was to ensure that monthly communication reports contain the names of all in-house lobbyists who attend oral or pre-arranged meetings.
Does that go beyond your recommendation?
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
What they did, I believe, was in addition to listing all of the in-house lobbyists who are present, they suggested that all of the public office holders who are present at the meeting be listed as well.
The first half of that equation, listing all of the in-house, is consistent with what I have recommended and what others have presented. The public office holders are different.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Calkins, for seven minutes.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's great to have the commissioner back. I appreciate that you get to bat cleanup here. You've had an opportunity to present to us before to give us your insights and we have your recommendations in front of us.
We've bounced some of those recommendations off various interest groups, whether they be lobbyists, the Canadian Bar Association, and others—university professors and so on—who have come here. They have provided us with feedback, and I think you've had an opportunity to review that feedback.
Notwithstanding the list of recommendations you have, I'm wondering if you could update this committee on the recommendations you have heard from the testimony presented here. Is there anything you think should be given a lot more consideration—something you might have missed or that you hadn't considered? Is there something that stood out in the testimony?
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
As I just mentioned, I think the board of directors, whether they are paid or unpaid, should actually be considered in-house lobbyists.
One that maybe wasn't mentioned and that I didn't put forward, but that I've heard during different discussions, is how to avoid certain situations, such as designated public office holders coming to speak to government lobbying, whether they're paid or unpaid. Rather than changing the definition of paid to include unpaid, I think one consideration might be to expand the definition of designated public office holders to include that you cannot lobby for whatever period—right now it's five years—whether you are paid or unpaid.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I want to pursue this vein of questioning a little bit more, because I think there were some people who came here and testified that the net should be cast a little broader. There are people who come here to Ottawa to influence policy, to influence government, and to influence the decision-making process, but they don't meet the criteria because they don't meet the technical criteria of being paid. They may have their flights covered, they may have their hotels, the per diems, and their living expenses covered, but because they're not actually paid per se—how does that definition work? Is that what you're talking about?
12:20 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I think that's getting at the directors of boards who may be showing up and not be.... Including them as in-house lobbyists, whether they are paid or unpaid, and getting rid of the significant amount of duties test would capture these particular individuals.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Good point. Okay. Very good.
I'd like to move to the investigative aspect of your duties, when you're looking into something. I think you testified before that you don't necessarily have to let somebody know that they're being investigated. Is that correct?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
If you were to move to the recommendation that you could apply an administrative monetary penalty, how do you see that happening? Would this be a situation where the first notice that a particular lobbyist might get is that they're being hit with a fine, or a letter saying they've been found guilty of a violation of a certain section of the lobbying act, a contravention of this act? I'm talking hypothetically. If we change the legislation, would that be a hypothetical situation? How would you see the implementation of the process if you were given the ability to apply administrative monetary penalties? What kind of due process do you think should happen there, so that people have a heads-up to know what's coming?
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Madam Chair, as I was explaining to the other member, first of all, I could see the idea of administering monetary penalties where there would be a range. For communication reports or registration that might be filed later, they could receive an automatic notice, but they would be given a time for a redetermination, for example, to pay it within a certain time. Regarding the more substantial fines that may come because of administrative review, the individual would be interviewed as part of the process before I would expect to see a file put in front of me, saying “Here are all the facts of the situation, and here's why individuals should be fined this amount based on the list of criteria”, which would be clearly spelled out, as my colleague in British Columbia has done.
They would have a chance, as they do in the investigation. They would be interviewed so that they would know what was going on. They would have a chance to present their side. But before issuing a penalty, I would write to the individual, saying “Here's the report that I have, and here's my intent to levy a fine in the amount...”, and give them the same sort of 30 days or extensions to reply, if they needed it.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay. So there would be an opportunity there. It wouldn't be a complete blindside. If the system were set up properly, it wouldn't be a complete blindside.
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
No, it would not.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay, fair enough.
I have one last quick question for you.
I don't know how much time I have left.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I have two minutes.
Let's just say that we're not able to do everything you want to do here. Out of the list of recommendations that you have, if you could pick three—
12:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I'm just saying. This is my way of asking you from a priority perspective.