Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 27th, 2009

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Shepherd, it's nice to see you again. Thank you for your annual report.

Like Mr. Desnoyers and Ms. Davidson, I was also quite interested to see that the registrations by consultant lobbyists, and in fact by lobbyists in all categories, had decreased. Here we have the most significant increase in infrastructure stimulus spending in several generations and in fact lobbyist registrations have gone down. I would have thought there would be a dramatic increase.

Did you find that curious as well?

[Karen Shepherd]

We have found it curious. As I explained, Mr. Chair, there seem to be some reasons in terms of corporate rationalizations and the fact that the number of firms actually did go up last year. But I have to admit from the complaints coming into the office on different matters that I have no evidence to suggest there is unregistered lobbying occurring.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Right.

Here we have these wild and crazy allegations of favouritism by some members of the House about the billions of dollars being spent on infrastructure across the country, including support for the auto industry, and yet the registrations are going down. That should make Mr. Martin very happy, I would have thought. So thank you for that.

[An hon. member]

He looks happy.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

He looks very happy today.

When we last met in March, I'd asked you about comparisons of lobby registration and lobbyist restrictions in Canada versus the United States. I was wondering if you could comment on lobbying activity in the United States as compared with that in Canada. Are you aware of any lobbying activity in the United States that would be a violation in Canada of either the Lobbying Act or the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

[Karen Shepherd]

Regarding the member's last question about ethics, Mr. Chair, the lobbying legislation in terms of the culture in the U.S. is quite different from that in Canada. They have to report on the amount of money they spend on lobbying activities and sometimes, I believe, on the success of lobbying as well. They have quarterly reporting, whereas we have monthly reporting. So there's some similarity in trying to keep things current.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Ours is more stringent in that it's monthly.

[Karen Shepherd]

Yes, and in ours we actually have the names of the designated public office-holders who are being lobbied, which they don't.

[Pierre Ricard-Desjardins]

The context is different. Canada has developed ethics legislation, mechanisms, and infrastructure that is different from what we see in the U.S. One of the major changes is electoral financing. The way it is regulated in Canada is unknown in the United States. And the relationship between lobbying and money is quite different. So for that reason, I think it's hard to compare the two systems.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

In the United States, there is a lot of stimulus spending going on. I expect you'd see a lot more lobbyist activity there. I think these things tie together and indicate that Canada is handling the lobbyist registration system very well.

I want to thank you for all the good work you've done to help regulate this industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Commissioner, you report to Parliament, do you not? I notice you have a letter to both the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, tabling your report. You also tell us that you won't confirm or deny whether you have initiated investigations on any particular complaint or firm. I'm critical of that. I think you should tell us, especially the parliamentary committee.

But if you won't tell us, Parliament, about companies you are investigating, how does the PMO know that you have an investigation on Navigator, a big lobbying PR firm out of Toronto? Who in your office is telling the PMO who you are investigating when you won't tell us? Does the PMO have a mole in your office who tells them things that even members of the ethics committee, which is the parliamentary oversight committee of your office, can't seem to find out? And if you are telling them freely, why won't you tell us that Navigator, the new Earnscliffe, is now under investigation by your office?

[Karen Shepherd]

That's a good question. But I honestly don't know, nor do members of my staff with whom I've spoken know, where that PMO comment came from.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Have you initiated an investigation in your office to see who the rat is? Who is the mole in your office who is telling the PMO stuff you won't even tell members of Parliament, your oversight committee? I think you should be discussing these things freely with us and the PMO. But the fact that you're telling them and not us really irks me as a member of Parliament. Will there be an investigation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Martin, let's be clear. That's certainly in the public domain today. But under the act, the commissioner can't comment directly or indirectly on matters before her office. You might want to get to this by asking whether the Prime Minster's Office informed the public about something that is going on. That could be the more likely scenario. I wouldn't assume that the commissioner's office has leaked anything. But she can't comment, so we're not going to get there from here. Maybe we should consider that angle, too.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It almost constitutes a matter of privilege. Our privileges as members of Parliament have been breached. Information is going to the PMO that should properly come before Parliament first. That gives an advantage to the PMO, because the investigation into Navigator is about the revolving door that exists within Navigator and the PMO and people like Guy Giorno and Jaime Watt, who used to work together under Mike Harris, and now have this very friendly....

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I don't heckle you, Greg.

And Robin Sears, everybody's favourite pinko. I think Navigator should be investigated, but you should be telling us first.

Is there an investigation going on in your office to find out who might have leaked this information? If so, is this an action that warrants discipline, if you find that somebody is leaking this information to the PMO?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Don't look to me. You're on your own with this one.

[Karen Shepherd]

I don't have any evidence, with the professional staff I have on board, of any indication of staff having spoken to the PMO.

The member is quite correct. If I could comment, I would be reporting to Parliament. I would not be reporting to others.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That doesn't answer my question. Will you be investigating your professional staff? You have no evidence on your desk or in front of you. What steps are you taking to plug the leak you may have in your office?

It's a matter of serious concern. I'm not overstating things here. We worked very hard to put in place a new Lobbyists Registration Act and to put in place a commissioner with teeth, an independent third party who reports to Parliament, to govern what we thought was a problematic lobbyist regime in Ottawa. If there's a leak, if there's some kind of advantageous direct connection between a senior lobbyist and the PMO, it should be investigated. That shouldn't be leaked by them. Somebody in your office could have leaked this to wind up in today's Globe and Mail. I think it's a horrifying situation, personally.

[Karen Shepherd]

Again, Mr. Chair, I have every confidence in my staff, but I will look into this when I get back.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I appreciate that.

My last question is about the amount of money. In the United States, they have to report the scope and scale of their lobbyists' campaigns. If it's big tobacco, they have to say that they spent $2.5 billion lobbying Capitol Hill last year, or whatever. Do you not think that's an oversight or a weakness in our system? In the same spirit that nobody should be able to buy an election, we believe that nobody should be able to buy public policy or legislative change or procurement advantages. Yet we have lobbyists being paid $600 an hour to drift around Parliament Hill. Somebody's spending millions and millions of dollars to try to influence that government. Don't you think that's one of the things the public should be able to find out?

[Karen Shepherd]

Mr. Chair, in terms of the member's question on the money being spent, my understanding is that this has come up before, when previous versions of the act came up for review. Each time, Parliament has chosen not to include how much lobbyists are earning or are spending on campaigns. The act is coming up for review again in another year, and that may be an opportunity for Parliament to reconsider that position.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If I could shed some light on that, that was in the days when businesses were still allowed to donate money to political parties. In my opinion, that's what influenced that choice. Nobody wanted to tick off the private sector, which could in fact be your biggest benefactor politically, by exposing how much money they were spending, whether it was for the tar sands or big tobacco or big pharma or whatever. Now we don't have to worry about it any more. We've cleansed one part of our system by not allowing them to buy influence through political campaign donations. But we haven't fixed the other side. They can buy influence through massive, sweeping lobbying campaigns that overwhelm the poor minister sitting in the steam room at the members' gym.