Evidence of meeting #8 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 lobbyists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Meaning in order to prepare the report on plans and priorities....
April 20th, 2010 / 12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I'd like to start with legal definitions. I've just been looking through the definitions section of the Conflict of Interest Act and the interpretation section of the Lobbying Act, and the analysts have been sharing with me some information on the Parliament of Canada Act. It seems to me that there are three different definitions of a public office holder, and that one definition is not consistent with another. Part of that is because we're dealing with statutes that have been developed over decades, sometimes in isolation from one another.
Just to summarize, in the Conflict of Interest Act definitions section, parliamentary secretary is included along with minister and minister of state.
In subsection 2(1) of the Lobbying Act, a designated public officer does not include a parliamentary secretary, at least as I see it here.
I understand--and please correct me if I'm wrong on this point--the Parliament of Canada Act includes not only ministers and parliamentary secretaries, but also members of Parliament.
Is that your understanding?
12:10 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I don't....
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
They're just order in council...so that would include parliamentary secretaries, but not members of Parliament?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So is it your view that we would be better served if there were a single, unified definition of a public office holder?
12:10 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It would probably make things easier in some respects.
In terms of the different legislation, when I look at the office of Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, there is some overlap between our two definitions, but our acts are targeted at sort of different individuals, in terms of communicating. I think with lobbyists who are communicating with the government, it's the broader group that they're actually meeting with.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
The definition of public office holder in the Lobbying Act is very broad. It includes members of the armed forces and members of the RCMP. So it's very much anyone who receives a pay cheque from Her Majesty--or maybe not entirely, but it's very broad.
I think the commissioner has said this act is targeted at dealing with the registration and the activities of lobbyists. So the public office holder definition is not, strictly speaking, to capture the public office holders per se. Rather it deals with who it is that lobbyists must register having had communication activity with.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Right, so there is a different approach. I guess that leaves the committee with some things to think about for the future.
I'd like to talk about the process that follows an allegation of an infraction of the Lobbying Act. Let's start at the very beginning.
If someone comes to you with a complaint, an allegation of a Lobbying Act infraction, what do you do? What's the first thing you do?
12:10 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
The first thing I would do is to decide whether to open what we call the administrative review, which is a fact-finding exercise to gather information. It conducts searches of publicly available sources and does interviews. I am then presented with a comprehensive report that allows me to make decisions, such as whether I have reasonable grounds on which to believe that a breach of the act has occurred and to refer the matter to a peace officer, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or whether I have enough information to determine that an investigation is necessary to ensure compliance with either the act or the code.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
What would differentiate between an instance in which you would carry out an investigation under the code or act and one in which you would refer it to a peace officer, through the RCMP?
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There were three recent cases I actually referred to the RCMP. After opening an investigation, I determined that I had reasonable grounds on which to say there was an offence under the act, so I referred it to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Something I should point out is that once I refer something to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I must suspend further looking at that until it is dealt with by that body.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Again, the question is, what is your criteria for investigating something yourself versus giving it to the RCMP? Is there a protocol you follow?
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There is a protocol. If I have reason to believe that an investigation is necessary to ensure compliance with the act or the code, for example, because the activities that have occurred, that have been brought to my attention, are sufficient. But if during that investigation I actually determine that there are reasonable grounds, then I will refer it to the peace officer right away and I must stop. Because there are no penalties under the act in terms of fines or imprisonment, a code of conduct investigation is something I would do, and I would not refer that to a peace officer.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner, I noticed in your statement today, and in your RPP, that you were talking about doing a review or update of the code of conduct, or possibly doing that. Is that in your work plan?
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
With the act coming up for review, I've been looking at it. I recently issued the guidance on rule 8. I think for this year it's more looking at the actual existing code and seeing whether we should be providing guidance on some of the other rules. With the act coming up for review, that could be one of the things that actually gets touched during the review. Bruce could elaborate on this further, but right now, if I took the Conflict of Interest Act, for example, the code is actually in the act, so it would not be prudent at this point, probably, to actually launch something in terms of reviewing the code. The act requires that if I were to do it, it would be a major consultation, and I think these same groups will be applying to Parliament, in terms of what there is on the review. But it could be a decision as to whether I actually have the ability to do something with the code, so I will probably wait for a full review at this point.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Okay.
When the code was originally developed, I think it was supposed to be run by a parliamentary committee. Which committee looked at the code when you originally produced it?
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I must admit that was before my time, but if you're interested, I can get back to the committee on that one.
Do you know?
