Evidence of meeting #7 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 public.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Before you get on to that, Mr. Nelson has requested to say a few words.
Registrar of Lobbyists, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
I have two very quick responses in support of two parts of the act that I think are very, very important.
In your earlier comments about no convictions and no consequences, two extremely important parts of this act, I believe, are the extension of the investigation powers of the commissioner of lobbying from just the code of conduct to the act itself, so you can actually go after people quickly with powers that mean something, as opposed to asking people to cooperate voluntarily, which is the case right now; and the second one is the duty to educate.
Unregistered lobbying takes two people. It's very, very important to educate public office holders to know what the obligations of lobbyists are. Those are two extremely important parts of the act in terms of going some way to alleviate your earlier comments about no convictions, because I agree with you.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I also agree that Hy's and Café Henry Burger, and these outfits, would be out of business if public office holders turned down lunches from lobbyists, because at any given lunch time, that's who fills all the tables.
Justice Gomery said the registrar should have the ability to both investigate and prosecute and give fines under the act, because the RCMP doesn't bother to follow up on most of these complaints. So while Mr. Duguay says we should send any information we have to the RCMP, they neither have the time nor the resources to go after what they would see as a very low priority. It's only in the province of Quebec where the registrar there has in fact issued a fine recently. That's a very, very rare occurrence. It's the first one ever.
The RCMP hasn't the time to follow you guys to Café Henry Burger and check your expense accounts. That's not going to happen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Your time is up, Mr. Martin.
We have a problem. The Conservatives have a little over a minute. Do I have unanimous consent that they have a full seven minutes? Agreed.
Mr. Lukiwski.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be very brief. I want to split my time with Mr. Poilievre.
To Mr. Weber and Mr. Duguay, if I interpret your remarks correctly--and please correct me if I'm wrong--you think the five-year ban on lobbying by ministers and ministerial staff is too strict or goes too far. Is that correct?
Chairman of the Board, Canadian Society of Association Executives
Yes, I do. It's much too strict.
When you talk to employment lawyers on non-compete clauses, normally non-compete clauses are anywhere from six months to two years. So why are we going to five years?
Also, for unregistered individuals, former ministers, when you look at the conflict of interest guidelines now in the act, they talk about not talking to former colleagues, and so on, for a year, or former public servants, or two years for ministers. So there seems to be, for me, an inconsistency between the conflict of interest guidelines in the act and the lobbyists act. So there's where we're off.
President, Government Relations Institute of Canada
Five years is beyond what is normal in commercial interests, but at the end of the day you will find out with experience whether this prevents good people from coming into the public service or prevents good public servants from going into companies. So if you go ahead with this, I'm sure with some experience you'll be able to make the determination of whether this is good policy or not.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you.
Mr. Poilievre, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I want to address some of the misconceptions that are developing with regard to this particular act. First of all, it's been suggested here that somehow incidental contact is going to be thwarted. Someone said that discussions that happen on the steps of a church or at a hockey game, where people bump into each other, are going to become regulated. In fact, that's not true. The act was written in a way that specifically does not cover incidental contact. So if you bump into someone at a supermarket, it will not be necessary to register those conversations.
Furthermore, someone raised the issue of what happens when someone attends a concert or a hockey game and spends an entire event with a lobbyist or a firm that does lobbying, and whether the person is then going to suffer the injustice of having to have that registered and put on a website somewhere. Frankly, I went to a concert with the Bank of Nova Scotia recently--I paid my own way--and when this act comes into effect that encounter should be on a website, because if I'm up in the House of Commons a week later giving a speech about why I support bank mergers, I think the public has the right to know that some moneyed interest was connected to me and that I've been meeting with them and that they're influencing my thinking. Frankly, I would have no problem having people know that I communicate with the Bank of Nova Scotia, because they have a branch in my riding that does a lot of local good, but there's no reason why I shouldn't have to defend that. There's no reason whatsoever why public office holders shouldn't have to defend who they meet with, especially when those people they're meeting with are paid to lobby them.
Imagine if a government came out with liberalized policies with respect to the tobacco industry and you found out that in fact the health minister had met on 33 different occasions in the past six months with the tobacco lobby. I think the public should have the right to know who's being paid to lobby our decision-makers.
Frankly, I don't care if the public finds out what was said in those meetings. People are paid to go in and influence the decisions of government. That should be done out in the open, and I'd like to know why you have a problem with that.
Michael Anderson President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Society of Association Executives
Mr. Chair, may I respond?
When I take a look at the situation with respect to the membership that is part of our organization—it may help to give a fast overview—these are people who are running and leading charitable organizations, trade associations, professional associations, and issue-specific groups, and part of their job in representing their volunteer constituents is obviously to interact with government. But I think the primary concern that we raised with respect to the reporting area lends itself to a situation where I think a chill would settle in with respect to ongoing contact between not-for-profit executives and government officials.
When we take a look and we use the word “lobby”, I think what we have to keep in mind is that a lot of these discussions are for sharing information. A government official will ask one of our members to provide them with information with respect to the industry—
Conservative
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Society of Association Executives
—we report already. The issue is that if we're looking at every detail, in terms of every time the phone call is made and interaction comes the other way from a minister to an association, you have a situation in which a number of these not-for-profit organizations have very small staffs and you run the risk of an inordinate amount of time being spent detailing every phone call that's made, when in fact, as Mr. Weber mentioned, under the Lobbyists Registration Act they're already reporting twice a year.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
My question has been answered. My question has been answered.
Conservative
Registrar of Lobbyists, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
Just to make it clear, Mr. Chair, the way the act is currently applied, informal lobbying is a registerable activity, and if someone is being paid and they've said that they're going to use informal methods and that includes meeting at a hockey rink, then that is something they have to register.
What is different now concerns the frequency of contacts, but it is clearly a registerable activity at this time.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The lobby firms actually bill based on the number of interactions they have with public office holders. So they manage to keep those records nice and up to date when it comes to sending the invoice to the client.
I don't understand why it would be so difficult and onerous for them to keep those exact same records. In fact, they could merely be photocopied for the purpose. I'm talking about the comment made earlier here, which was that it's so onerous now to record that 15-minute phone conversation. Well, you bill for that 15-minute phone conversation, so your firm is obviously recording that somewhere already for commercial purposes.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Society of Association Executives
I have a point of clarification. I do not work for a lobby firm. I run a not-for-profit association.
President, Government Relations Institute of Canada
Let me just add one thing. I don't disagree with anything you have said about the public's right to know about the contacts and the discussions. I only raised one single possibility, and that is that there are times when the discussions are confidential, and everyone agrees that they are confidential, and the act ought to make some provision for the exclusion of those irregular activities, like merger-acquisition discussions. That's all we're asking.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Mr. Duguay.
We've run out of time. I thank all of you for coming and giving us your thoughts. Thank you very much.
President, Government Relations Institute of Canada
If you get into this some more and you would like us to come back, we'd be very happy to come back.