Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 27th, 2009

[Bruce Bergen]

Before July 2008, in order to decide to initiate an investigation, the registrar had to suspect there had been a breach, a violation of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. That related only to the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. Now, in the Lobbying Act, the commissioner has the power to initiate an investigation if she thinks it is necessary to ensure...

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

... to ensure. Right, continue.

[Bruce Bergen]

... if she thinks an investigation is necessary to ensure compliance with the Code or the act. I have the impression that the powers are broader, not just as regards the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. And second, it is not necessary that the commissioner think an offence has actually been committed, under the Code.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you.

[Bruce Bergen]

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Merci, Madame.

Mr. Martin, please, you're up.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Shepherd. I'm surprised to see in your report that you report a reduction in corporate lobbyists and even staff lobbyists. It's been my experience that you can't swing a cat on Parliament Hill without hitting a lobbyist. It feels like an infestation sometimes, especially in the members' gym, where a lot of the highest paid lobbyists in the land are in fact former cabinet ministers who skulk around the members' gym and look for secret meetings, etc.

I'm very surprised to see you see that. I don't see it as a bad thing--a reduction in lobbyists--as you might be able to tell. I liken it to driving the money-lenders from the temple even, if you ask me.

I'm very surprised, though, to see you say that the ink is not even dry on the new act and you're already granting exemptions. Who have you granted exemptions to, to date?

[Karen Shepherd]

Mr. Chair, would the member like me to address the first point, in terms of the reduction of the number of lobbyists or...?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'd rather not. We don't really have time for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Take him off the list.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I just want to know who you have granted exemptions to, specifically the names of the people you've granted exemptions to.

[Karen Shepherd]

They're on the website: one is Mr. Mark Brosens, who was in the minister's office, and Monsieur Guy Bujold, who had been the former president of the Space Agency.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm not even going to ask you for the rationale, as I don't think any reasonable rationale would exist. Why you would, after all the work we went to, to put a Lobbyists Registration Act, a toughened registration act, in place.... And on the Federal Accountability Act, as I say, the ink is hardly dry.

I think we should remind ourselves as a committee how important this act is. The difference between lobbying and influence peddling is about five years in prison. And it's a fine, fine line. Lobbying in an incorrect way, lobbying in the way that we were trying to address under the Federal Accountability Act, bastardizes democracy, undermines democracy in a very substantial way. So you have one of the most important jobs on Parliament Hill.

I don't mean to be critical, but we didn't put in place a robust Lobbyists Registration Act so it could be ignored within months of it being finally implemented. We had frustrations with the former act. I turned in Don Cherry for lobbying on the Hill, I believe, illegally, and we are very frustrated that even after a lengthy investigation, they found nothing wrong with Don Cherry bringing his jar of COLD-fX into the Prime Minister's Office and the very next day having COLD-fX deregulated under the Canada Health Act as a medication.

There have been glaring problems with lobbying.

Well, I suppose my question would be this. Does it not concern you that somebody like these two individuals can peddle the information they used to have privileged access to, to advantage a private sector corporation or organization?

[Karen Shepherd]

Mr. Member, to answer the question, what I said to the other member, I meant it. In terms of granting exemptions it's very much that. There will be exceptional circumstances.

I very much respect what Parliament passed in terms of wanting to avoid the revolving door and to ensure that those who were in certain positions could not use their contacts or other benefits for lobbying purposes for five years. So when in reviewing those requests that I did grant—and I still denied more than I've actually granted—the review and analysis done by the team that presented me with the report was extremely thorough to ensure that the individuals in question could not use the contacts that they use for benefit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I may also add that it's not the commissioner who decided whether she would make exemptions. The act empowered the commissioner to do that. The committee that came forward with the act must have thought there would be some circumstances under which it would be appropriate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We should have slammed that loophole shut while we had the chance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's true, and maybe we can still do it. We could do it with another private member's bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

There could be one in the offing.

[Karen Shepherd]

The act is coming up for review in another year.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I guess this committee is particularly sensitive to the issue. We're the oversight committee for it. But we've also just gone through this exercise with Karlheinz Schreiber. The lobbying in the old days, with sacks of dough, exceeds it. Nobody ever said back then that what Karlheinz Schreiber was doing was illegal lobbying. That was just the culture of Ottawa at the time. People with vested interests sought the favour of people in power who had the ability to do what they wanted. I don't know if that's really changed today, except that we have no evidence of sacks of money changing hands in secret meetings in hotel rooms. But everything else is pretty much exactly the same, except for the five-year cooling-off period.

We're also faced with a problem. A lot of people bolted when the getting was good and got in just under the wire. We know that in the Conservative ranks a memo went out. It said that if you want to lobby, you'd better get out now, because the law is going to change pretty soon. There was an exodus, a rush, of people who established themselves before the rules. Is there any satisfaction available to the Canadian taxpayer regarding that flurry of new lobbyists who set up shop just before you and the act had the ability to deal with them? They got away with it.

[Karen Shepherd]

Sorry?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The act doesn't give you any ability to dig back retroactively.

[Karen Shepherd]

With the new changes to the act, there are more disclosure requirements regarding offices held and whether these people had been what we now call public office-holders. Moreover, the communication entries are showing which of those individuals, if any, are meeting with public office-holders.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

When you say “oral encounters”, does that include bumping into somebody in the members' gym?

[Karen Shepherd]

The regulations specifically mentioned oral and arranged meetings. If you were to bump into a member at the gym, an initial registration might be required if it's about a registerable activity. To just bump into someone, that would be oral, the individual would be paid, but the act also required the meeting to have been arranged.