But they're registered lobbyists, correct?
Evidence of meeting #23 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Evidence of meeting #23 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Conservative
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Yes, they're consultant lobbyists; in-house lobbyists are in section 7.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
This amendment doesn't deal with unregistered lobbyists because it only applies to registered lobbyists. The public office holder would only be required to record meetings with registered lobbyists. It would not put any positive obligation on the public officer holder to determine who should or who should not be registered. Is that correct?
Conservative
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Chair.
On the amendment, I take your point that the translation may not be complete. I would only advise that since I put in the amendment, we should go to the English version as the more authoritative. If there's a mistranslation, we could then fix it.
I don't have any difficulty with Mr. Poilievre's observation that the unregistered lobbyist may not be caught, but he or she may well be caught if the senior public office holder has someone introducing people or lobbying him. He has a duty to record it, and it's then recorded by the senior office holder. There doesn't seem to be any corresponding record by the lobbyist, registered or unregistered, that would illuminate the problem.
That's really all we're trying to get at here. Let's make sure this is as effective as possible. I think we all accepted that it was not an onerous task for a lobbyist to post a record, and it's certainly not onerous for a minister or senior office holder who has staff, agendas, and meetings with people. It's only to complete the circle and make sure there isn't anything slipping through. That's the only reason for the amendment.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chairman, we are not lawyers but it seems to us this would be a complement to this section. Would this not strengthen section 69 in order to catch as many non-reporting lobbyists as possible?
Besides, if there is a divergence between the French version and the English version, I believe those errors can be corrected later. Those two notions are complementary and not contradictory. It is simply a matter of providing greater certainty, in order to confirm and provide more detail and to ensure that lobbyists do indeed report. We do not think that this goes against anything being said in section 69, it rather supplements what is already in there.
Assistant Secretary, Corporate Priorities and Planning, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Mr. Chair, perhaps I could speak to the intent of the clause as it's currently drafted.
We had in mind working off the existing registration system that, as my colleagues have pointed out, relates to lobbyist registration and to ensuring that the registry is verified. The onus will be on the commissioner to ensure that the registry is valid. We thought it practical for him to be able to verify it with senior public office holders. If the senior public office holder is to be asked by the commissioner to validate information, it follows that such a person would need to keep some records of their own as to communication they've had with lobbyists.
However, the solution we've found does not create in effect two registries, one by the senior public office holders and one by the lobbyists. So we thought this would be a somewhat elegant way of achieving the objective of having a valid registry, one that's validated by senior public office holders, albeit on a selective basis, through the commissioner.
To the point that the commissioner could be unable to validate information, for example where a lobbyist did not register, it would be best to ask the lobbyist registrar if that is the case. Our understanding is that he can manipulate the information he has on the registry so he can sort it by senior public office holder and he can give a report to any senior public office holder and ask, “Do you agree that these are the lobbying contacts that you've had over the period?” So I think there would be an effective means, given how he can use this registry, to validate it.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
A matter of clarification for me: I look through pages 68 and 69 of Bill C-2 and I look at subclause 69.(1), which talks about subsection 5(1.1), blah blah blah, replaced by the following: it's paragraph (1.1) and it's at line 24. It starts “An individual shall file the return...” so on and so forth.
On the French side it says:
“Le lobbyiste-conseil fournit la déclaration...“.
When we move down further through the various paragraphs, bringing us to page 69, line 3, it says, “The individual shall file a return...”, and on the French side at line 7, it says,
“... le lobbyiste-conseil...“.
Is there somewhere in the legislation that defines that when you use the term “the individual” it has the same meaning and definition as in the French side “le lobbyiste-conseil”? I only want to make sure.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
The provisions in 5(1.1) and the following subsections must be read within the context of section 5 where it says in English, under the title “CONSULTANT LOBBYISTS”:
“5(1) An individual shall file with the registrar...”.
Throughout the English version of section 5, we use...
I'll switch to English because we are discussing the English text.
We do speak about an individual, so we've kept it consistent. If you look at subsection 5(1) of the current act, “An individual shall file with the registrar...” and it continues on, that is the reason why we in the English text continue to use “an individual”.
You are right to say that in subsection 5(1) of the French text, it says: “lobbyiste-conseil“. This term even appears in brackets because it says “... toute personne (ci-après lobbyiste-conseil...)“. Therefore, the French is consistent in using the term “lobbyiste-conseil”.
Section 5 must be read in full.
Does this answer your question?
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, and I would like to have one last clarification. Maybe the members on the government side could provide it.
In the election platform of the Conservative Party in 2006, one of the commitments was to require ministers and senior public servants to divulge the names of lobbyists with whom they had dealings. So I would presume that the Conservatives will support amendment L-5 introduced by my colleague Mr. Owen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, we're going to vote on L-5.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So moved.
I ask for any insights, however brief, from our panel of experts.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
This is really a technical amendment to be consistent with the amendment in proposed paragraph 5(3)(a). It's to take out the references to “or with whom the meeting was arranged”. Any reference to “meeting” is taken out, to be consistent with the previous amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All those in favour?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(On clause 72)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We now move to the amendment under clause 72 on page 62.
That's a government amendment. Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
Assistant Secretary, Corporate Priorities and Planning, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
The intention of this provision was to allow the commissioner to put a time limit on the period during which he'd receive information. Otherwise, he could ask for information, and the party asked could take forever to provide it. So it's to enhance his capacity to investigate.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So it puts timeframes where before there were no timeframes whatsoever. Okay.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(On clause 75)