Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[Nancy Bélanger]

That's interesting. I have groups that tell me it would be so much easier for them to register in one place or at least be subject to the same rules across the country. I do not believe that any commissioner of lobbying from across this country would be against that idea, because we're all dealing with different thresholds.

It's not easy for lobbyists out there to know. In one place, it's 10 hours. In another, it's 30. We are very different. Some models are copying other models.

I think that having a great vision would be wonderful. Whether or not we can get all provinces and the federal government to agree to have one type of regime for lobbying, we'll see.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm finding that it makes it hard for organizations to know what they can do.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Absolutely.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm an Ontario MP. The provincial rules there are far more lax than they are federally in terms of lobbying. I think it can be hard for them to differentiate.

[Nancy Bélanger]

I don't know that I would agree that they're more lax. They're different.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

If you look at what happened with the Greenbelt, I would say they're a lot more lax.

[Nancy Bélanger]

We'll see where that goes.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for six minutes.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Commissioners, thank you for appearing before us again today. It's a regular exercise.

I will address you first, Ms. Bélanger.

Are you satisfied with the new Lobbyists' Code of Conduct?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Yes, I'm satisfied with the new code. Someone asked me recently if, in the event that I had to start that work over again, I would do certain things or enact certain rules differently, and the answer is no.

The new code took effect six months ago. So far, we've received a lot of questions because people don't want to breach the code, but that's a good thing.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

What has the new code changed in your day-to-day work? Have you been receiving more requests, for one thing?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Yes, absolutely.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

How about compliance?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I hope people are complying with the code. It must be said that the new code has only been in effect for six months. We get a lot of questions about receptions. Many receptions are mentioned in the newspapers. In some cases, we've been contacted; in others, we haven't, so I contact those concerned.

Since the code came into effect, my office's workload has increased a little when it comes to requests, but we anticipated that and it's all going well.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You're halfway through your term, aren't you?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I have 14 or 15 months left. My term ends in December 2024. So I have a little over a year left.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You're accurate.

Is there anything that wasn't included in the act that you would like to leave to the next commissioner? Is there anything still missing from the act?

[Nancy Bélanger]

The act needs to be reviewed because there are plenty of things missing from it. I can't say it enough: There are some major gaps.

Right now, many lobbying activities take place without needing to be registered. In addition, the means available for imposing sanctions are inadequate. Either the file is referred to the RCMP, or a report is tabled in Parliament; there's nothing in between. Furthermore, a lot of information doesn't get recorded in the register right now, when it could be.

Basically, there is a lot of room for improvement. I'd say even lobbyists agree that some improvements are needed. It's about time that the act be reviewed. It was last reviewed in 2012. In fact, the act includes a review provision. So it's not a choice, it's an imperative, a requirement. However, on two occasions, it hasn't been reviewed when it should have been.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I think all the commissioners will agree on this.

Ms. Maynard, earlier you talked about disinformation and misinformation. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? We're very concerned about it.

[Caroline Maynard]

Disinformation is when the wrong information is provided voluntarily or intentionally. Therefore, the goal is to make sure people don't get the right information.

Misinformation is when people don't get all the facts.

Often, what people are trying to do through access to information is fill in the information gaps. In principle, information should always be accessible as quickly as possible and it should be provided voluntarily. Government should be proactive about providing information. If it isn't, we want people to get reliable, factual information quickly so they can understand the history around something and make the right decisions. When it comes to history, we've seen recent cases that demonstrate how important it is for people to have access to reliable information.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

We've talked before about the principle of cabinet privilege. Where do we stand on that?

[Caroline Maynard]

Nothing has changed since the last time we saw each other. I still don't have access to documents that fall under cabinet privilege. I requested an amendment to the Access to Information Act so that the cabinet would be subject to our investigation. I was pleased to see that, as a committee, you made that recommendation.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

This morning, I read a newspaper article about the case of Ms. Wilson‑Raybould and SNC‑Lavalin, at the time. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner recommended that the veil of secrecy be lifted. Citing the RCMP, today's article said that if the veil had been lifted, things would have ended differently.

I assume the reason you're pushing for secrecy to be lifted is precisely to stop this type of thing from happening.

[Caroline Maynard]

The Rouleau Commission is a very good example. A huge number of documents protected under cabinet privilege were handed to the commission, because they alone could explain what happened and the decisions that had to be made quickly. In the end, the sky didn't fall and people got a lot of information.

It's not my place to tell you that information should be released, but someone in an independent commissioner's position like mine should at least be able to check the information to make sure that it truly falls under cabinet privilege and it isn't just a standard document providing advice or recommendations.