Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thanks very much, Mr. Easter.

Before we go to Madam Freeman, I just want to state that the chair disagrees with the statement by the witness that she cannot discuss these cases. The rights of Parliament are very clear. We do have the right to obtain the particulars of cases. The test, of course, to be used by Parliament and parliamentary committees is whether it's in the public interest to do so. It would probably not be in the public interest to discuss at a public meeting the details of cases presently being investigated by the lobbying commissioner. Certainly the right is very much with us, and it's a decision to be made by the committee if they want to pursue it and go in camera. Again, you have an overriding public interest that has to be maintained at all times.

Madam Freeman.

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

I'm going to jump at the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Shepherd is here to tell us about her activities, and we find ourselves in the same situation as the one Ms. Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, was so critical of. On July 22, 2010, she called for greater freedom to discuss the investigations themselves. They are public investigations, but everything is kept secret. We are parliamentarians, after all; we can get more information. I do not see why these people have to withhold information.

As a matter of fact, as part of Ms. Shepherd's mandate, in her annual report, she quite clearly states that her goal remains to ensure that the act is administered in a way that supports greater transparency and high ethical standards in lobbying activities. That's precisely what her colleague, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, was so critical of; she said the requirement to keep everything secret did not support transparency and that a better balance should be struck.

I would like to ask Ms. Shepherd if she feels the same need for greater freedom to discuss her investigations. What prevents her from discussing them with us here today?

[Karen Shepherd]

I think that conducting investigations in private is important for my report. The reason is that if I have to send the RCMP, I have to protect the integrity of the investigation it will conduct. To me, what's important is that it be clear in the act.

When I have concluded an investigation, I have to submit a report to Parliament, with all of my findings.

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

We are familiar with that stage. Once you have finished, you report to Parliament; we know that. We don't want to know the details of your investigation, but we would at least like to know...

You know, there are so many complaints about lobbying these days. I don't know whether you follow the debates in the House of Commons, but we speak out against this kind of conflict all the time. People looking for government contracts who are not registered, they are like lobbyists, they are lobbying. It's a question of what kind. This kind of thing comes up all the time in the House of Commons.

You are here as the commissioner responsible for administering this act and you are silent because you are not allowed to tell us anything. There is a problem. Do you have any answer?

[Karen Shepherd]

Would like to answer, Mr. Bergen?

[Bruce Bergen, Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying]

I can help the commissioner answer, if you like. One difference is that offences under the Lobbying Act are truly offences that entail criminal sanctions. So if the commissioner does an administrative review and finds reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed by the individual in question, she has to refer the matter to the RCMP. In that case, if it is not done in private, that can put the RCMP in a difficult situation, if they want to investigate. That's one of the differences between the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Act, which Ms. Dawson is responsible for administering.

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

We could go in camera, if you want, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, if you want to make that motion, Madame Freeman, I don't know where you're going. I'm not sure exactly where you're heading. Did you want to talk about it in much detail? Perhaps you could describe to us where you're going.

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

Every time a commissioner appears... I went through the same thing with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had the RCMP, CSIS, etc. Now I am here at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and the commissioners cannot talk. As parliamentarians, we represent the public. We need to know what is going on in various departments, in various places, and every time, those responsible for giving us information, be it within the RCMP or elsewhere, are mute, silent, and not allowed to disclose anything at all.

For some, like the RCMP and the intelligence service, it's a matter of national security. In this case, it may be in case there is any investigation. But ultimately, as parliamentarians, we never get any information other than the number of complaints, reviews or investigations referred to the RCMP, for example, and that is all. It's very sparse information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I take it you are making a motion to go in camera. Is that so moved?

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

Yes. I move that we proceed in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Madame Freeman has made a motion that the meeting suspend for a minute and proceed in camera.

(Motion agreed to)

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Siksay, please, for seven minutes.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that you are here today, Commissioner, and with your colleagues.

Commissioner, in your remarks this afternoon you said that back in July 2008 there was a subcategory of designated public officials introduced in the act, and then you noted that on September 20 of this year that was expanded. In 2008, was that due to a legislative change, an actual piece of legislation that changed the act?

[Karen Shepherd]

The designated public office holder category is defined in the act in terms of the prime minister, ministers, ministers of state and their staff, and then bureaucracy, assistant deputy ministers and above; also comparable rank, which I have defined in an interpretation bulletin. But there were also, at the time that the act passed through regulations, an additional 11 positions passed. The expansion on the 20th was an expansion through regulation.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Okay. So there were regulations involved previous to this most recent time?

[Karen Shepherd]

Yes, in July 2008.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you.

This afternoon you also said you were showing great results and the number of pending registrations is at about 100 and that the turnaround time is continuing to improve. Does that conflict with what you said in the annual report, where you announced that the backlog was completely gone and that it had been completely eliminated? So is it now up to 100 pending registrations?

[Karen Shepherd]

Prior to the act coming into force, we had roughly about what seemed to be a normal workload of around 300. When the Lobbying Act came into force, there was a significant backlog in terms of more than, I think, 1,000 registrations that we had to process because there was no transition period in 2008. In indicating that the backlog had been removed, we got back to around that 300 level, but what we've been looking at is trying to actually work on getting that number down and get the registrations up onto the system. So we've been improving that. We're now at roughly 100.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

So your service standard for an inventory of applications to process is 100? Is it lower than that?

[Karen Shepherd]

That's one of the things that, to be honest, we're trying to determine. When we were looking at the registration system this year, one of the improvements we're working on, trying to get better at, is in terms of predicting results. If you've seen the annual report this past year and so on, we've been talking about transactions, and that was important in terms of seeing how the registry could actually accommodate the number of changes that were occurring with the monthly reports.

This year what I've asked the director to work on is looking more at results so that we can actually figure out how many days it's taking us to process a registration and improve those service standards, because it also helps for lobbyists and so on as well to have an expectation of how long it should take.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

So how long does it take right now?

[Karen Shepherd]

I don't have a clear answer for you right now. That's what we're trying to determine. Our goal is that something shouldn't be, hopefully, taking us longer than three days. So that's what we're working on.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Can people do it themselves on the website, or do they have to make contact with somebody in your office? How does that get accomplished?

[Karen Shepherd]

One of the things we've spent a lot of time and effort on with registration is making it as easy as possible for lobbyists to register online. What happens when a registration is filed is that there are advisers that go through it to make sure that the registration is complete before approving it and putting it up onto the system. So the lobbyists will certify that everything in there is correct, which they are obligated to do, and then we do the verification for completion before it's actually put up onto the system.