Evidence of meeting #5 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lobbyist.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Chair.
I have a question for Karen. It was useful dealing with an example like Jim did, with his analogy of the board member, etc. I have an example that I'd like to ask on which of these categories of breaches that would fall under, under penalties.
We have information, and I think it's filed as a complaint with your office, that a former minister, within three months of ceasing to be an MP, was in fact lobbying on behalf of Indian reserves in northern Ontario and northern Manitoba, a former minister of Indian affairs. Were that proven to be true, and if the allegations proved to be borne out, which of the breaches would that be? Would that be a breach of the Lobbyists Registration Act or the lobbyists code of conduct?
5 p.m.
Director of Investigations, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
The lobbyist has breached the code? I'm not clear about that.
5 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Which would they be in violation of? A former minister, within three months, not years, of being a minister, was lobbying his own area that he was minister of within that time period. Which are they in violation of, the act itself or the lobbyists code of conduct--or anything?
5 p.m.
Director of Investigations, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
It's my understanding it would be in violation of the conflict of interest, which is not part of this particular legislation.
5 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
So they're not doing anything wrong as a lobbyist; it's only about the ethics code, essentially.
5 p.m.
Counsel, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
If I may say a few words, I would think that in a situation like that, that individual, if they are engaged in lobbying activities on behalf of somebody for payment, would have a duty to register as a lobbyist, which is where this might become public knowledge. There may be one of the rules in the code of conduct that is being breached if there is some conflict among the clients, perhaps.
I think that what Ms. Shepherd was saying earlier about this.... You mention a time period, Mr. Martin, of three months following the individual ceasing to be a minister of the crown. I think that's where the issue of the post-employment regime for that individual would be in question, where it would be outside of the lobbying area and it would be a matter of that question.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
It certainly would be. It would be within the cooling-off period, under the conflict of interest guidelines. But is there no enforcement from the lobbyists' end of things? Are they not in breach of, if not the Lobbyists Registration Act, at least the lobbyists code of conduct, by influence-peddling to their own previous department within that short a period of time?
5:05 p.m.
Registrar of Lobbyists, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
Mr. Chair, may I try to take that on?
Just to be clear, we're talking in the abstract here, without talking about any case.
5:05 p.m.
Registrar of Lobbyists, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
First of all, as Mr. Bergen has pointed out, if the person hasn't registered and somebody is paying them, then there is a big problem there. That's covered in the act.
The code of conduct applies to people who should have registered, even if they didn't. That's my interpretation of it. The way I'm running the shop is that if someone should have registered and they didn't, that doesn't excuse them from the code of conduct, because that's what the act says. That doesn't get them out of it.
Once again, one always needs to look at the facts, and I know you appreciate that. If someone showed, for example, that a lobbyist was exercising—and this is a pretty high bar—improper influence, or causing someone to act some way perhaps because of information they had, or using some kind of very heavy persuasion because of their previous employment, then that would certainly be worth looking into, because that person would not be dealing professionally. They might be using improper influence. It's very difficult to get to the bottom of these things. At the administrative review, we do our investigation by triangulating. We talk to the lobbyist, we talk to the client, and we talk to the public office holder. It's the only way to really get at the truth in these situations.
I'm sorry if that's an oblique response.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I don't understand any of this, frankly. I find the whole lobbyist registration regime a mystery. It seems pretty straightforward that this is wrong. But you're telling me that it wouldn't be corrected through your avenue of recourse. It would have to be addressed under the very loosey-goosey ethics and conflict of interest guidelines. So there is not much satisfaction from the other end, either.
Actually, when this individual was interviewed by the media and asked whether he thought it was wrong to now be a lobbyist for the very department he had just left three months earlier and used to run, he said, “A guy has to make a living.” So, in other words, he knew that nobody could get him from your end or from the other end. So that's not very satisfactory.
5:05 p.m.
Registrar of Lobbyists, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
I do want to provide some hope in this scenario. While there are aspects that are outside my reach, there are those that are within it.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
By the way, the Ethics Commissioner is coming here on Wednesday, so your example might be put to the Ethics Commissioner at that time.
Mr. Stanton, go ahead, please.
September 18th, 2006 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I apologize for getting to this question before you get to the wrap-up on your summary page, but I'm watching the clock here, and we're winding down.
As I prepared for today's meeting, I referred to our original briefings on this topic, going back to our early days when this committee was established for this Parliament. I read there that in the 38th Parliament and towards the end of November or October of 2005, this committee actually raised a number of issues regarding lobbyist registration, and admittedly was unable to follow up on those items. These briefing notes don't really lay out specifically what those items were.
I wonder if you could comment in general on what those areas might be, and to what extent Bill C-2 will address them. I assume they're covered in the areas that you've already touched on, about enforcement and the independence of the office. Are there any outstanding issues if we look back to November of 2005?
5:05 p.m.
Registrar of Lobbyists, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
My recollection of what members were interested in pursuing with some vigour, and you've hit on a couple of them I think already--and I believe Mr. Tilson was in the chair at the time--one was the independence. There was no question about that, and Bill C-2 addresses that completely, I think.
One issue was contingency fees. At pretty well every appearance I've made, the issue of contingency fees arose, whether you should have them or whether you shouldn't and what does the current act say. Just to recall that, the current act only says you have to say whether you're receiving them; it doesn't say whether they're good or bad. The proposals in Bill C-2 completely eliminate the possibility. In fact, they go further, in my estimation, than the current regime does that forbids them with respect to government contracts and contribution regimes by forbidding them entirely in Bill C-2.
There was definitely the question of resources--I say this without being self-serving--for the registrar because it was a long-neglected function. I think it lived in the shadow of the ethics regime for quite some time, and then there is just the fact that it was sort of handed off to an ADM as something else to do. It took us a while to get there, but it eventually broke out. This is a full-time job--the creation of the offices.
Those are things I think Bill C-2 is addressing.
The education mandate--“Mr. Nelson, why don't you get out there and talk to more people?”--just as Mr. Wappel was suggesting, was also a theme that came out.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
So in a way what we hope will soon be the third incarnation of this office in about the last three or four years, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, will actually be a separate office reporting to Parliament.
In terms of issues around budget approvals, that will go to whom then? Will that be to the Speaker, or what is the likelihood...?
5:10 p.m.
Registrar of Lobbyists, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
The way I understand the machinery aspect of it is that it will be treated more like a department of government. It won't be like Mr. Shapiro's office, for example. It will go through the supplementary estimates and to Treasury Board for submissions.
However, I guess what I'm very encouraged with so far is that because this whole notion.... Looking at the election platforms as we did, there wasn't a party that wasn't behind an independent, resourced commissioner. So I'm hopeful, as I look forward to supplementary estimates and that sort of thing, that Parliament will continue to resource. It's up to me to make good arguments for these things, as it always is, and it's up to Treasury Board officials to challenge those, which I assure you they have, because that's their job, but I'm quite hopeful that the office of the commissioner that I see portrayed in Bill C-2 is going to be able to make a significant difference.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
As we wrap up here, I have just two points, if I may.
I was stunned to hear that the 20% rule that you've been talking about is from an interpretation bulletin. From what I understood, or from what I assumed, it was in the statute. So I merely ask the question, because I don't say it's right or wrong; I'm just surprised. When you developed your interpretation bulletin and pulled up the 20% figure.... Are there other jurisdictions around the world that have that figure as part of the definition?
5:10 p.m.
Registrar of Lobbyists, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
Just to be clear, and to make sure that this is not an accountability issue, because I did inherit that interpretation bulletin--it's been around for quite some time--but I also didn't get rid of it, so this is my baby, I know there are others who have adopted it. So if it's a bad idea, it has proliferated because some of the other jurisdictions in Canada that have the word “significant” have also adopted the 20%.
I'll just look to my colleagues to see if there are any other jurisdictions that we're aware of where this idea has migrated. I mean outside of Canada.
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
I'm not aware of others outside of Canada.
5:10 p.m.
Registrar of Lobbyists, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
Not that we're aware of. They may not have used the word “significant”, but that's kind of the way it happened. The others, for want of a way to describe this, I guess, said, “Well, the feds are doing it with 20%. I guess we'll do that too and see how it works out.”
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
So here's an example of an interpretation bulletin that some aggressive person might want to challenge some time.