Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 12th, 2006

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

That's right. That's the obligation of the public office holder in the existing act.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I was going to cite Coleridge, “In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree”, but I won't.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Wild, did you have something to add, sir?

[Joe Wild]

The only thing I would add is if a lobbyist filed a nil report, in essence, the commissioner could still ask a senior public office holder to verify that. I agree that you get to a certain point where, who is the commissioner going to ask? The only people they can ask are those people with whom the lobbyist has actually registered because they have to register who they're going to be contacting, on what issues they're going to be contacting. So it's in that sense that a nil report could be verified, if you will. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest there was some kind of onus on the public office holder. That doesn't go quite that far.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

If I understand correctly, as it now stands under Bill C-2 , there is no obligation on a public office holder to verify that an individual who has had a communication or a meeting with him or her has actually registered as a lobbyist and filed the appropriate report that would be required should Bill C-2 be adopted and proclaimed. Is that correct?

[Michèle Hurteau]

Yes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

And there also is no requirement that the public office holder actually verify to see that communication with them has been filed?

[Joe Wild]

If the commissioner sends a report to the senior public office holder for verification, the act then does create an onus on the senior public office holder to verify that report for its accuracy and completeness. But it requires the commissioner to take the step of sending the report.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

And it requires that a report has actually been filed with the commissioner under the Lobbyists Registration Act within 15 days of the month of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah; I won't quote it. So for someone who is either not registered, and therefore doesn't file a report, or is registered but neglects to file a report in which they disclose the meeting with the senior public office holder, the commissioner has no way of knowing that meeting took place or that communication took place because the public office holder has no obligation to file any kind of report regarding communications that he or she may have had with an individual who is not registered but is lobbying and therefore didn't file a report, or is registered appropriately, legally, in compliance with the law, but is not in compliance because that individual lobbyist has not filed the report as prescribed under Bill C-2. Is that correct?

I see Madame Hurteau is nodding her head affirmatively.

[Joe Wild]

In the second case, it's still possible the commissioner could go to a senior public office holder and say, “Can you verify that there has been no contact with you by this lobbyist who is registered to lobby for these purposes and identify you as the person they would be lobbying?” That is possible. So I don't think one can be completely categoric on the second category you're talking about.

On the first category, as Madame Hurteau was nodding, if you're not registered, you're quite correct, there is no trigger in the legislation on a senior public office holder, in that regard, to ascertain or verify that someone is registered.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Okay. Then would Mr. Owen's amendment, if adopted, capture scenario one, the hypothetical situation I've just given, in which an individual is conducting lobbyist activities but has not registered under the Lobbyists Registration Act, as prescribed under the act right now—and even as prescribed under Bill C-2, once it comes into force—and therefore is not in compliance with the act? Would Mr. Owen's amendment, if adopted, capture that type of scenario?

[Joe Wild]

The reason we're taking a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, is because it's somewhat unclear to us exactly how the first part of this would necessarily be captured by the amendment as proposed, given obviously that we didn't draft the language. So we're not necessarily in the same headspace as this amendment.

Currently it is the commissioner who has the obligation, if you will, to look after the registry. It is up to the commissioner to verify the accuracy of the registry and to investigate and ensure that those people who are engaging in lobbying activities are properly registered. If they are not, it is up to the commissioner to investigate and perhaps refer matters to the proper place for enforcement.

I guess the difficulty with the amendment is trying to see how it's putting an onus on a senior public office holder to verify that the person with whom he or she is communicating is actually a lobbyist. I don't really see that in the language there. I certainly see a requirement for the senior public office holder to name the individual with whom he or she is meeting, to name the date of the communication or meeting, and to include any particulars with respect to the subject matter. Then it's left open for the commissioner to prescribe what other information would be required.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It's clear that in Mr. Owen's amendment he doesn't specify a registered lobbyist. What he does do is say that the senior public office holder would be required to file with the commissioner--who has the mandate and authority to enforce the legislation and the registration list in that--the name of the individual who communicated, the date of the communication or meetings, and the particulars, identifying the subject matter of the communication, etc.

When I read this--and I quite possibly could be wrong, because I'm not an expert in this area--I would tend to think that if amendment L-5 were adopted, it would be easier for the commissioner to capture potential situations where an individual is violating the law, because they're not registered and therefore are not filing reports and are conducting lobbyist activities because one would presume that the senior public office holder would be in compliance with the law.

So if L-5 were adopted, you would have reports filed and that would then provide the commissioner with a possibility of capturing individuals who should be registered, because they are conducting lobbying activities as prescribed under the law, but are not registered and therefore not filing reports.

If L-5 is not adopted, there is virtually no way for the commissioner to detect an unregistered lobbyist who is conducting lobbyist activities unless there is some kind of investigative report or investigation that takes place, or a senior public office holder says one day, “Maybe I should check if so-and-so is on the list”.

That is all very well and good, but it could mean that there are illegal activities that go on for a period of time before they're captured, whereas this would at least give a time limit.

Am I correct or am I wrong?

[Joe Wild]

I think Ms. Meredith is going to actually talk about some of the policy aspects of this.

There is just one thing I want to point out, and it's part of the reason for the struggle and for understanding exactly what the amendment is intending to do.

The French talks about

“une entrevue a eu lieu avec un lobbyiste-conseil”, and in subparagraph a) it reads “nom du lobbyiste-conseil”.

In English that concept isn't there, and I'm not sure.... So again, we're struggling a bit here to understand exactly which version of the amendment captures whatever it is that Mr. Owen is trying to capture, Mr. Chairman.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

May I suggest that Mr. Owen's amendment--he can correct me if I'm wrong--contains an oversight, like one of the government amendments that on the English side talked about the Governor in Council and on the French side talked about the commissioner.

[Joe Wild]

Sure, I'm not trying to cast aspersions here; I'm just trying to understand whether we're dealing with lobbyiste-conseil or whether we're dealing with the English.

[Michèle Hurteau]

And there are different types of lobbyists.

There are consultant lobbyists and there are in-house lobbyists, which do not seem to be captured by the French version of the amendment. This raises a problem in our view.

Furthermore, to answer your questions, Madam Jennings, there is the burden of proving whether a public office holder is dealing with the lobbyist or not. The burden rests on the public office holder while the whole purpose of the bill is to capture lobbyists and their dealings. This is the difficulty we have trying to understand the basis of this provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Have you finished?

We have a list, but we have to hear from Mr. Poilievre first.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

To very quickly summarize, I'm not clear on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Order.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

On amendment L-5, who must the public officer holder record meetings of?

[Joe Wild]

That's the difficulty we're having. It's unclear, and we're not sure of the choice, whether it's the English version or the French.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

If I meet someone in my constituency who is passionate about sports, am I now registering a meeting because I have a recreational lobbyist here? Is there a definition of what constitutes a lobbyist?

[Michèle Hurteau]

Well, you have to look at subsection 5(1) under the act, which deals with

“les lobbyistes-conseils“. I have the French version in front of me.