Evidence of meeting #39 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
The input is by the lobbyists themselves.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
But there would be no organization on your part to organize and collate those lobbyists?
Commissioner of Lobbying
They go right into the system. One of the determinations made when the Lobbying Act was coming into force, given the importance of the 15th of the month for transparency, was that these communications would go directly onto the system, onto the website, so that they'd be visible by the 15th of the month.
And then what we're doing, as the act allows me to do, is to take a random sample. For example, last month, given the change, we sent out a number of letters to MPs to verify 81 communication entries.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
But it would stand to reason, from my perspective, that if there's an increase in recordings, there would also be an increase in the random sampling. Otherwise we're simply diluting the number of random samplings we're taking. Or is that—
Commissioner of Lobbying
We're trying to maintain an average of 5%. For example, we send out a number of letters, and instead of maybe sending out 30 or 40, whatever the random sample was, it's now almost 80.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
So in spite of the increase in the numbers of registrations and the increase in random samplings, you're able to handle it, which I'm glad to hear, and you are not requesting additional funding.
The other point you made in your deck, on page 9, is that you have the power to summon attendance or to compel the production of documents, but you've never had to use that power. I think that's a good indication there's been a high degree of cooperation—
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
—which I'm glad to hear.
Finally, I have a question regarding the eight investigations. You indicate that you have had 47 reviews and that 32 were completed, but eight investigations have been opened, and then in parentheses you indicate that one of those investigations was opened without an administrative review.
I'm just wondering what the criteria would be to jump immediately to an investigation without having gone through the administrative review.
Commissioner of Lobbying
As I was answering Mr. Siksay earlier on how we monitor and then maybe make further determinations, this individual was a registered lobbyist and there was a question as to whether the person had breached rule 2. In the first time around, it was questionable. It was determined that the individual hadn't intentionally done so.
Commissioner of Lobbying
He had not done so intentionally, so I sent him a letter with a warning.
Subsequently, the individual did the same thing, with the same government institution. So given that I had done an administrative review and warned him, his repetition of the same activity I thought warranted actually opening an investigation. That's when I decided it was necessary to ensure compliance with the act and the code.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
So instead of a second round of having offended once, the second time you went straight to the....
Commissioner of Lobbying
Yes, on that particular case, I thought it was warranted.
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, lady and gentlemen.
I would like to come back to the last question of my colleague Mrs. Thi Lac. You said that, in the review of the legislation, we should define very clearly what is a lobbyist and what is the work of a lobbyist.
Did I understand correctly that answer you gave earlier?
Commissioner of Lobbying
I may have misunderstood the question. I thought she was asking me if I believed that other lobbyists should be included in the definition.
At this time, we refer to consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists. The problem is that the Act refers to activities. Is the person being paid? Does she deal with changes to pieces of legislation or to regulations when communicating with a public office holder? That would be the test for being registered.
In the case of in-house lobbyists, one must also look at the issue of a significant amount of time. It may be interpreted differently for different persons. Some people decide not to register. My position is that this would be the opportunity to see if there are other persons who should be included.
I know that some critics claim that they are people who do a lot of lobbying without being paid. My concern is that, when I look at the principles of the Act, I cannot ignore the fact that having access to government is an important matter. One has to take account of those citizens who simply want to talk to a parliamentarian or their MP. That is one of my concerns.
The city of Toronto, for example, does not use the expression ”a significant amount of time”. It is not in the legislation. Instead, they have decided to include several exemptions, for instance for many recreation organizations and community organizations. So, Parliament should discuss who should really come under the Act.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
From what you are saying, we will need several paragraphs for a clear definition of a lobbyist.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
When you appeared last October, you refused to reveal the nature of your investigations. Since then, Mr. Robert Walsh, the parliamentary legal adviser, sent a letter to the committee, on November 2.
Have you read Mr. Walsh's letter?
