Information & Ethics Committee on March 2nd, 2009

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate you on the educational component. I appreciate that, and I know you've done a lot of work in that regard.

I guess one of the questions I would have is this. Do you intend to present an annual report at the end of 2009? And can you perhaps share some of the preliminary findings you might have with us today?

[Karen Shepherd]

The first answer is yes. The act actually requires a report be tabled on June 30.

[Bruce Bergen]

It's prior to June 30--within three months of the end of the fiscal year, or something like that.

[Karen Shepherd]

At this point we would be commenting, I guess, on some of the findings we've had with communication entries, some of our successes I mentioned with the outreach activities. We usually do our normal statistics, if you've looked at previous annual reports, as to number of firms and so on being lobbied. I would be commenting maybe on the exemption requests and how things have gone and the processes we've put in place.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

The other question I have is that I'd like to get some clarity on the Lobbying Act and the lobbyists' code of ethics, if you could just comment on that. The act doesn't talk about punishment for violations of the code, and I wonder if you could describe that, if there's a difference between what your investigation would find to be illegal versus a violation of the code.

[Bruce Bergen]

The act contains criminal sanctions, in essence, for breaching the act. The most common or potential violation would be a failure to register, as when one is engaged in lobbying activities for which one should register. There are also provisions for fraudulent disclosures. That might be a little more difficult to do if you were seeking to do that.

So those are the sanctions. As Ms. Shepherd mentioned earlier, the limitation period for a prosecution has been extended in the new Lobbying Act, under the Federal Accountability Act, and the penalties have been increased as well, so that sanction is a stronger one at this point.

With respect to the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, the sanction for a breach of the code has always been, since 1997, that the registrar--and now the commissioner--would have reason to believe they should commence an investigation. There would be an investigation following that, and a report of the findings of the registrar, or now the commissioner, and the conclusions would be tabled before both Houses of Parliament.

So the sanction, I think, was to be a shining of the light upon the activities in question and a report that would be public. In fact, I believe the case of Mr. Makhija has been mentioned in the four reports in question. This one individual was investigated by Ms. Shepherd's predecessor, the registrar, and his four reports were indeed written and tabled before both Houses of Parliament in early 2007--in March, I believe it was. Those are publicly available and in fact have been online at the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying website.

So that is the sanction for breaches of the code, and that hasn't changed in amendments to the Lobbying Act.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

And finally, Madam Wong. Welcome.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you very much for coming to the committee. Despite the fact that I just came in to substitute for another member, I do have a question.

I am very interested in the education side, because right now you mention that the general public has been made aware of the.... And on page 11 of your letter to us, you state: “I believe that by enhancing both the awareness of the Act's requirements and the nature of lobbying as an activity, compliance can be better ensured” and that “educating people about the act is important”.

My question is, has any effort been made to ensure that people from different cultural backgrounds are also aware of the implication? Very often some of the lobbying can be done in another language other than English and French, and some of the activities may be considered to be culturally appropriate yet violating some of the codes of ethics or whatever. Has that been dealt with, or do you have any intention to do that?

[Karen Shepherd]

As we look at our outreach strategy over the short to long term, that is something we should be keeping in mind, so I thank you for raising that.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you very kindly, Madam Shepherd. I appreciate your appearance and helping the committee to get a better sense of the state of the union within the commission's purview. And as I had indicated to the Ethics Commissioner, we hope that as long as you or your successor are there, you would consider our committee to be an ally of sorts to work on issues as they come forward and to keep us abreast of developments and areas on which this committee can assist in making sure your responsibilities are fully discharged, because when that happens, then our responsibilities are discharged. So I appreciate that and thank you.

[Karen Shepherd]

My position definitely is that this position does report to Parliament, which is you, so very much I see you as an ally in working. It's like reporting to the boss, so yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. Well, we appreciate that. Thank you very kindly.

Colleagues, I'd like to give you some idea of my thinking for our meetings.

As you know, we have Mr. Marleau on Wednesday. As with the other commissioners, it is his overview presentation to the committee. He also tabled a report to Parliament last week. I have been advised that Mr. Marleau is going to be leaving ten recommendations with us for updating the Access to Information Act, and we will probably not have time to do them justice. I think the members will have to have an opportunity to look at them, and I think we will probably need an opportunity to examine Mr. Marleau and his officials about the basis and rationale for those. I suspect that's something the committee would like to do. Then the committee will decide whether or not it wants to take it any further in terms of witnesses, such as the Minister of Justice or any other persons, and potentially prepare a report. I don't think we have to arrange a steering committee to do that. I think members are well aware of the matter.

But I am also aware that the commissioner is going to be away for some period of time in April. So I've asked the clerk to find out availabilities of not only the commissioner but also of the justice minister. I've also asked the clerk to contact the Privacy Commissioner to give us a response about whether or not she feels any further witnesses are necessary for us to complete our little work on the Privacy Act that was carried forward from the last Parliament. I hope to have that answer.

Mr. Hiebert, there was no draft report prepared in the last Parliament. But you have had circulated to you--and I believe all members have received it--a summary of the testimony. I've asked the researchers to pull together an appropriate report, given the work done, for the consideration of the members.

So that's where I am, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Sure. Which topic have you asked the researchers to prepare a report on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I've asked for a draft report on the Privacy Act for our consideration

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

On the performance of the Privacy Act?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Yes, I think I had mentioned in a previous meeting my desire to hear testimony from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. Has there been any progress in choosing a date to invite her to appear before this committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes. The issue is that they are not...

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

I understand that, and I think that her role is linked to some of the discussions we're having on access, on privacy, on registered lobbyists, and on a whole series of other subjects. So as the committee is its own master, we are certainly in a position to ask her to testify, and I'm sure there wouldn't be an objection to hearing from the Integrity Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, now that I understand the context, maybe what we can do is just contact them and find out how this fits in and how it might assist the committee in any of its work, quite frankly, as we go down the road. And we won't be issuing reports. But we do have a break week following next week, so I'm trying to.... If we can't get the access work done because of conflicts of dates with either the Minister of Justice or Mr. Marleau, we will try to do the privacy. One way or the other, we're going to do one of those the following week, but it really is the availability of the people involved in those. But now that I understand, we'll certainly inquire and find out whether that might be helpful.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

For the sake of clarification, on a previous committee in a previous investigation, I asked witnesses for information that I'd also requested through ATIP. The information and documents that came through ATIP were blanked out to a large degree; the documents provided to the committee were full and complete.

So just to clarify, can't the committee request documents--and if there are privacy issues, we do have the option of going in camera to review those particular documents--and in the case of a commissioner, wouldn't the commissioner be compelled to provide those documents to committee? After all, the commissioner is an officer of Parliament and that is work that's being done on our behalf.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

To the extent that there's any information left out for the standard ATIP request, that is pursuant to the application of the law, and notwithstanding how great we are, I'm pretty sure we're not going to get the information, because then all of a sudden we will have breached the law ourselves, even in camera. The commissioner has an act to follow. But if you have any specific examples, you may want to address that directly to either the Privacy Commissioner or the Information Commissioner. We can't get more than what the public can get under the same act.

Is there no further business?

The meeting is adjourned.