Evidence of meeting #3 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 investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
...table the report in Parliament after conducting the investigation. I do not refer the investigation to Parliament; I do it myself.
10:35 a.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
She tables an investigation report. The investigation has been completed, and the report is tabled in Parliament for information purposes.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
If it is then revealed that there was a violation, that something should not have been done, is it up to us, as parliamentarians, to determine what measures should be taken? In cases where the law was violated, we would like to see jail terms, fines or other similar penalties imposed.
Is that possible?
10:35 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
In cases involving rule 8, there is a conflict of interest. As I just said, in those instances, there are currently no penalties, jail terms or fines set out. If you consider that a very important addition, you could decide to codify it when Parliament conducts its review, and that would allow for the inclusion of those kinds of provisions in the act.
Furthermore, I would like to add something to my recommendation: I could take action if I had an administrative and monetary penalty system at my disposal.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
You table reports stating that an individual has violated the law, and afterwards, you have no authority to impose a penalty. Is that what you are saying?
10:35 a.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Actually, those reports are produced following an investigation. In cases where the investigation deals with the act, and not the code, the files or the individuals are initially referred to the RCMP. The RCMP is the only body with the authority to legally go after the parties or individuals in violation of the Lobbying Act. The commissioner does not have that authority.
10:35 a.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
If, for some reason, the RCMP decides not to follow up on the file—and the act does indeed prescribe jail terms and fines, so they can be imposed further to an RCMP investigation—the case comes back to us. We can then report to Parliament and make the case public.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I would like to discuss another case that has been on my mind. During the last session of Parliament, we heard about the case involving Rahim Jaffer. I know that you will be submitting a report, and I was just wondering where you were in that reporting process specifically.
10:35 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
My investigation is ongoing, I am still working on it. I plan to submit my report by the end of December.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Thank you very much, Mr. Dusseault.
Mr. Del Mastro, for the final five minutes today.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you very much.
And thank you, Ms. Shepherd and Mr. Leblanc, for your appearance here today, especially on short notice.
Obviously, there are an awful lot of questions, especially for MPs, as to what they're responsible for when it comes to lobbying and what their role is, with respect to Mr. Mayes' question. I think the important thing to note here is that the onus is on the lobbying firm or the lobbyist to register and for them to report their contact with MPs. If I'm not mistaken, the changes we made last spring.... Under the Accountability Act there was some question as to when you had to report contact, but we are now requiring them to report contact with all MPs. Is that correct?
10:40 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There's always been a confusion, too, whether initial registration was required or the monthly report. MPs and senators have always been public office holders, so an initial registration was always required if all of the other elements that I've been mentioning today were there. The difference now, with MPs and senators becoming designated public office holders since September 2010, is that if there is oral and arranged communications as per the regulation, then there would be a monthly report. One of the reasons why--and again, when I talk about removing significant amount of duties and the transparency of activities, given why the monthly report, I believe, was put in--is if an organization or corporation does not have to file an initial registration because they do not hit the significant amount of duties test, then they would not be required to file a monthly communication report either.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Okay. The onus is on the lobbyist or lobby firm to report their contact. Is it almost an honour system? I'm just curious.
In the case of the NDP, their party president is also the president of ACTRA, a registered lobby firm, and obviously has a lot of contact with all of the members of the NDP, including right to the very top of the leadership of the NDP. How would you determine when he's in fact acting as a lobbyist and when he's in fact acting as president of the NDP, or should he report all contact he's having with the NDP members as he's president of a registered lobby firm?
10:40 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Well, the act is pretty specific in terms of what constitutes a registerable lobbying activity and that it needs to be oral and arranged. One of the things that I have actually recommended as well is that the arranged issue be taken out of the requirement so that it would capture more perhaps of the ad hoc discussions that occur. But again, it needs to be on a registerable activity. Running into someone and talking about the latest hockey score or the kids would not be a registerable activity.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Okay, but theoretically, being that there is all kinds of interaction and it would be arranged interaction, because as members of Parliament especially, the upper tiers of parties...their schedules are frankly very tight, very busy, so these would be arranged meetings.
Is it really just an honour system for Mr. Topp to indicate when he's actually working on behalf of ACTRA and when he's actually working on behalf of the NDP?
10:40 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Well, the onus is on the lobbyist to ensure that they are complying with the legislation, in terms of either filing an initial registration or a monthly report, and to ensure—as I mentioned earlier, there is a Lobbyists' Code of Conduct—that they are conducting themselves to the highest ethical standards. You've seen from reports that I have filed to Parliament that there is a principle of professionalism as well, which is that you must conduct yourself at the highest ethical standards and abide not only by the law but by the spirit of the legislation, including the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Thank you.
I have one small question for you, Ms. Shepherd, if I may. I know in some jurisdictions this percentage of work or percentage of time can be a tricky thing to actually understand, even for the people who are potentially lobbying. Have we ever considered, or have jurisdictions considered, just a flat hourly compendium to find out if, once you've passed a certain number of hours per month or per year in the effort of lobbying members of government, that act should be registered? If you plan in this month to spend 15 hours, that would trigger some sort of effect. Has that ever been considered, or would that system not work?
10:40 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Actually, I'll get back to committee on the particulars of it, but I believe B.C. and Alberta both use hours as a means of determining.
10:45 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
It seems to me, and maybe to some others, that the subjectivity of the percentage of work can be difficult if you spend 40 hours a week doing this and some percentage down. It seems to add an element of vagueness, and maybe potentially a loophole for those who are looking for one, to decide when they have to register with you and when they don't.
10:45 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
That would be one way of getting.... I think also, from what I understand--and that's why I said I could get back to you on what this--100 hours preparing one case is.... I know one of the provinces does not include preparation time, for example. As you can see from my significant use of the interpretation bulletin, I think preparation time is quite important, because you can spend hours preparing for something and send your CEO for only 15 minutes. That's quite an impact.