Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

There has also been a discussion that public office holders should have to put in a monthly report too, and I can understand what you're saying, but there have to be some checks and balances. It's obvious.

[Michael Coates]

On that point, I go back to the preamble to the act. Do we want a system that impedes the free and open access to government? How would you feel about doing all those registrations each month? Would that make you less likely to see people? It might.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I was interested in your comments about the five-year rule for former public officer holders. We have had witnesses here who have suggested that this is too long and that in many other countries the period is shorter. I'm curious about that. When I finish here, I will probably have 20 years in, not just here but in other offices I've held, and I feel I've gained a lot of knowledge and I think it's valuable to other people who are dealing with government. I'm wondering if five years goes a little overboard, that there should be an opportunity for people such as me, when I'm finished here, to be able to share some of the experience and knowledge I have gleaned from the years of service.

[Michael Coates]

People in public life pay a price, for sure, for being in public life, and this particular government has set a high standard, a high bar. Five years is a long time, but all the knowledge that you have gained can still be put to good use, even though you cannot lobby or communicate to public office holders.

We have hired people out of government who we make absolutely sure do not lobby, but they do provide advice and counsel to our clients because of all the knowledge they've gathered over time.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

In your sector, as far as a lobbyist consulting firm is concerned, do you think the definition of what you do is a little more cumbersome on you?

Take unions, for instance. They're very active politically during elections, and it's obvious they have a reason for that. They're trying to influence or get an advantage for unionized labour, and they're also looking for financial benefits for their membership. I feel this is lobbying. I almost feel that it's of greater concern than having lobbyists such as your company that would maybe not have as big an influence on a party as a union might.

Do you feel the restrictions are tougher on you than they are on some of the other people who want to express their support for political parties?

[Elizabeth Roscoe]

I think you may be referring to a private member's bill that's been put forward. We haven't looked at the specifics of that issue. Transparency is the cornerstone behind the Federal Accountability Act, so we would see that it needs to be carried forward as well to other acts.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The other thing for me as a backbencher rather than a cabinet minister is I feel that access to me is not as critical as maybe access to a cabinet minister for decision-making. That was something that was brought up, and maybe those who are not in the cabinet position, or parliamentary secretary, would have a different restriction on the reporting and also the term that you have to wait for an opportunity to work as a lobbyist.

Do you have any comments on that?

[Elizabeth Roscoe]

My only comment is that the amendment that included the broader category really was intended to provide clarity for all members of Parliament, because they can influence an outcome of a decision. If you were going to rethink that, we'd certainly be able to help you with some of the thinking, but as far as we are aware, that's not under consideration at this point.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I appreciate your suggestions. I think they're very valuable for the committee. Thank you for them.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Mayes.

Mr. Morin, you have five minutes.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Coates, following my colleague Mr. Del Mastro's question, you asked that you, as a Canadian citizen, be allowed to campaign for a political party.

Let's say you were participating in fundraising activities and managed to raise $80,000 for a candidate or a party. Once the election was over, you went back to lobbying. You would have established your own ties to the newly elected member. Don't you feel that could create ethical issues?

I would like to know what you think about that. I see a clear conflict of interest there, since you would not be a simple campaigner as would an elderly woman in my constituency who makes phone calls.

[Michael Coates]

It's a good question.

Both the previous Liberal government and this Conservative government made very significant changes to the ability to fundraise with corporations and other institutions. They put great limits on what those donations can be. I think it's $1,000. You're not going to influence anybody for $1,000. In the United States this is a major problem. There's no question about that. Due to reforms the government has put in place in this country, lobbyists don't go out and raise $80,000 anymore to contribute to political parties. Years ago they did. I can tell you I was on the board of the PC Canada Fund and I did in fact have to raise money. I never got $80,000, but I got $20,000 or $30,000. I'll also tell you this: I never saw an instance, ever, where that money influenced anything.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

I want to congratulate you on making The Hill Times' top 100 lobbyists list in 2010. That makes you a very influential man and brings me to another topic.

On September 6, 2011, when Alberta's legislation on lobbyists was being studied, you were used as an example. Your name is in the records. You are registered as your firm's lobbyist. However, you are not the one who engages in the lobbying activities. Other people do that.

You are the face of lobbying for your firm, but the lobbying is actually conducted by many other people whose identity is unknown. Don't you think that is a problem? Don't you feel that all lobbyists in the field who have personal relationships with elected members should be registered? Don't you think that would help enhance the transparency of the Lobbying Act?

What is your take on that?

[Michael Coates]

Oh, I agree. I agree completely. I think the province you're referring to is Alberta. I would be treated much the same way that a corporation head would be treated here at the federal level. One of the recommendations that I think the CBA made is in fact that the individuals who are doing the lobbying should be the ones registered.

I would agree with that.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Roscoe, a little earlier, my colleague Pierre-Luc Dusseault asked what you thought about the regulations on the five-year lobbying ban. You know what I am talking about. You refused to answer as an individual and as a professional. However, a few weeks before those regulations came into force, you were part of the wave of employees who left the Office of the Prime Minister to work as lobbyists. I think that your actions speak louder than your words.

So I put the question to you again. What do you really think about the five-year rule?

[Elizabeth Roscoe]

Thank you for the question and for the opportunity.

Just as a point of clarity, I was one of the first affected by the five-year lobbying ban. I served two weeks as a volunteer for the Prime Minister's transition team. I was not an employee of the Prime Minister's Office. That needs to be clarified.

Because the amendment was brought in to actually capture all members of that current transition team and any others that would go forward, I adhered to the five-year provision whereby I was prohibited from lobbying for that entire period, which expired, actually, in February 2011. That is now complete, so I can now be a registered lobbyist.

So through that five-year period, I, like you, Mr. Mayes, was able to bring my counsel and understanding of government—which had been many years prior to that—and to provide, to both the clients and the individuals I was working with, advice on government, how to position their relationship, and how to go forward with their requests to government.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Ms. Roscoe.

Your time is up, Monsieur Morin.

Mr. Carmichael, for five minutes.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I wonder if we could spend just a couple of minutes going a little deeper on your fourth point on clarifying the treatment for boards of directors. We know that in the last, oh, 10 years anyway, with Sarbanes–Oxley in the U.S., and a lot of the board of governance changes in Canada, we've seen tremendous education and development for professional directors, the establishment of risk, and a better understanding of what they're doing and what their responsibilities are when they take on corporate board positions specifically.

I'm wondering if you could just talk a little further about applying the lobbyist designation to corporate board members and the benefit of it. That's number one. I think I'm pretty clear on the definition issues. But does it provide or create any further deterrent for those who seek out being a corporate director?

Right now, under board governance rules, I know there is a tremendous reticence as far as jumping into the corporate board world is concerned, based on risk and on a number of different questions, for which we have all come under scrutiny in the past 10 years. I wonder if this just adds to that or if it's strictly a clarification. How would you go a little deeper on that?

[Michael Coates]

Thank you for that question.

I think it might help. Remember, when you accept a board position, your fiduciary responsibility is to that corporation. Right now, a member of the board is treated like a consultant lobbyist. Now, I think consultant lobbyists are great people—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Coates]

—but that's not really where.... Their fiduciary responsibilities are to that corporation, so I think this might make them less concerned if they are asked to take part in conversations with the government on behalf of that corporation. They'd be properly designated as directors of the corporation and not as consultant lobbyists.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

I do actually agree with you on that. I think it's important.

From the perspective of the Lobbying Act, and since the Lobbying Act has been put into place, what has happened to the industry? Have we seen more lobbyists, have we seen growth in your industry because of the regulations, or has it made it more difficult to get into the industry? What's happened, as a rule, across the board?

[Michael Coates]

That's a good question.

I'd say it has made it more difficult to get into the industry. But on the other hand, for those people who are established, it's probably been a benefit.

[Elizabeth Roscoe]

The one other thing, if I could add, is that it has expanded people's capabilities around communication, and we talked a little bit about social media. So many individuals who might have been practitioners or thought they were going to be involved in lobbying have broadened their skill set to other communications activities.

As Mike mentioned, we're more than a lobbying firm. We're very much into strategic communications and marketing and communications as well.

[Michael Coates]

Madam Chair, I've been around long enough to see these trends. When I started out in the industry, practically nobody lobbied. Then we went to a situation where everybody felt they had to lobby. Now we're pulling back to where there's advice, counsel, and people who lobby.

We stand by the comments we made earlier on here. Our clients really are their best lobbyist. There are situations when we go in to help them, particularly if it's a foreign company, for example, and they don't understand the rules, the process, the people. But, on balance, if they're a Canadian company of some size, they have their own people who can do this type of thing.