Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 13th, 2011

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before I begin, I would like to make a motion.

The commissioner, whom I would like to thank for coming, twice mentioned that the RCMP would be an important witness for this study. The role played by the RCMP in connection with this legislation has also been raised several times. I would therefore like to present this motion, which reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics request that officials from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police appear before this Committee in order to testify about the RCMP's investigative role pursuant to the Lobbying Act.

I feel that it would be quite reasonable to ask RCMP officials to appear before us. I'm hoping that I will therefore obtain support from all committee members.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you.

Does everybody understand the motion as presented? Are there any questions or comments on the motion?

Then I'll move to a vote on the motion.

(Motion negatived)

Thank you, Monsieur Dusseault.

Do you want to come back to your questions to the commissioner?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I find that somewhat surprising. On two occasions the commissioner said that it would be important to have RCMP officials appear before the committee. But I guess there are reasons that I am not aware of. So I will ask some questions that I feel are important.

I was quite surprised to find out that you have so little authority. Yesterday, you tabled a report that clearly indicated that Mr. Jaffer had broken the law. Could you explain what is going to occur after the report is tabled, what action could you take under this legislation?

[Karen Shepherd]

As I mentioned, I believe, no monetary penalties or prison terms are provided for. I tabled my report and, under the current legislation, that is all I can do.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

If I understand correctly, the only action you can take is to table a report in Parliament. Will the matter then be referred to the RCMP? At what point and under which circumstances will the RCMP intervene?

[Karen Shepherd]

In this situation, when I believe that an offence was committed under the act, I have to suspend my report, as I did in the case of GPG-Green Power Generation Corp. When the RCMP decided not to pursue the matter further, I decided to continue myself and to investigate under the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

It will not be possible for us to hear RCMP officials explain their organization's role, but you may be able to provide me with a few details on the matter.

When a file is referred to the RCMP, it has to investigate. However, it did not really do so in every case. I would like to know how, in your opinion, we could deal with this shortcoming in the RCMP, which does not appear to be doing the job it should be.

How do you see your role with respect to the RCMP? How can we establish a procedure which would suit everyone better?

[Karen Shepherd]

When I refer a file to the RCMP, there is nothing more that I can do. I can submit a complete file, containing all of the information, but that is all I can do at that time. I do not have the authority to request that an investigation be conducted. Even if I were to ask for an investigation, I cannot sit down with them and the prosecutor afterwards to determine the monetary penalty, as an example, that should be imposed.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Do you think that you should be given greater authority in this regard? Do you think that you are able to handle it?

[Karen Shepherd]

Yes. That is why I would like the authority to set monetary penalties. If I had that authority, I would no longer always have this requirement, when I see that an offence has been committed, to suspend my investigation and refer the matter to the RCMP.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I think that would be the best way to proceed. I hope we will be able to find a solution.

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You have 45 seconds.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would also like to talk about the 20% rule. You mentioned that some people, with a single phone call lasting 10 minutes or so, could change a major part of a decision, or something very important. I would like to know how to reconcile all of that. It has to be 20% of the duties. When it is less than that, it flies under the radar, as my colleague said. With a single phone call, some very influential people can change a lot of things.

[Karen Shepherd]

That is why I suggest that the “significant part of the duties” provision be removed. An important person can make just one call or go to a meeting that may only last 15 minutes.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.

Go ahead, Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's nice to see you again, Ms. Shepherd.

I wanted to go through a couple of things. I read through your summary of recommendations, the nine you indicated in the report that was presented, and there are a couple I had some concerns about.

First, you talked about communication for registered activities. It's sort of the only part that needs to be captured in the act. You talked about recommendations 3, 4, and 5, which more or less talk about a change from “oral and arranged” to simply “oral” communications. Also, in recommendation 4, you talk about disclosure on particular subject matters for DPOHs, regardless of who initiates them. You also spoke in recommendation 5 about disclosing the “ultimate client of the undertaking”.

I'm just wondering if you could expand upon where you're going with those recommendations.

[Karen Shepherd]

In terms of recommendation 4, regardless of who initiates them, right now if a designated public office holder initiates a request for a meeting with a lobbyist to discuss the introduction of a policy or program or the changing of a bill, those particular encounters do not need to be filed in terms of a monthly communication report. The only ones that do are the ones that deal with a financial benefit.

When you're looking at one way those transparencies...certain meetings are likely not being captured because a public office holder is initiating the meeting. This is one way of ensuring that all those key meetings, which is what the act is about, would be captured that way, so that's this particular one.

In terms of recommendation 5, the ultimate undertaking, what we have started to find is that lobbying firms are hiring a consultant lobbyist who is doing work on behalf of a company. So the act requires them to list their client, the person benefiting. Some were initially putting the lobbying firm, but the lobbying firm is not the ultimate beneficiary; it's the gas company or something behind them that hired the lobbying firm. What we have done with those now registering, when we see that, is to put who the ultimate beneficiary is, the firm. So that is showing now on the registration.

To make it clearer in the legislation, my suggestion is that the requirement be there, so that it's the ultimate beneficiary. It avoids the situation whereby somebody may be hiring a middleman and the middleman is using the lobbying firm as their client.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

To take this back more to the local level, if you have a group coming to meet with you in your constituency office—they are part of some major organization and they want to talk to you about an issue—and they've brought along three or four local representatives and so on...you talked again about the chill of having to have your name on a list. I wonder if you could give a little advice as to what one should be thinking about under those circumstances.

[Karen Shepherd]

In terms of the group coming to see you, if they're all lobbying and communicating in the meeting, then I think their names should be on a list.

Are you asking if it's government initiated, if the meeting is transparent? Some of the things that come up—and I have an interpretation bulletin on government-initiated consultations—if they are transparent.... For example, appearances before the committee are quite transparent. Minutes of the meeting are being taken. Anyone can figure out who attended the meeting and what was said.

The issue with private meetings is this: are they now behind closed doors and should there be more information? Those individuals who are coming to see you would participate and communicate in the meeting and would then show up on the list.

This is the whole thing of getting out there. Lobbying is legitimate. It's just that it needs to be done in a transparent manner.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Do I have some time?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

No, your time is up. Thank you very much.

Monsieur Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In front of everyone, I want to emphasize my view that something absolutely incredible, pathetic and totally lacking in seriousness has just happened at this committee.

The commissioner has told us twice that it would be a good idea to bring in representatives of the RCMP as witnesses in order for us to be enlightened and well-informed about the changes and improvements to the act. However, Conservative members have voted unanimously against the NDP's motion that would have allowed us to ask questions to RCMP representatives.

It is as if they took out a card saying: “Get out of jail, pass Go and collect $200.” It makes no sense. I find it deplorable that the Conservatives defeated that motion. It's as if they aren't serious and have no intention of hearing all about this act. We aren't able to hear from the key witnesses in order to find out why, in 23 years, no one has ever been found guilty and why the RCMP is never able to conclude an investigation that leads to any consequences. So I denounce and deplore the Conservatives' vote in this committee, and I want to say that loud and clear.

With that said, Commissioner, I want to come back to the fact that you want to eliminate the words “significant part of the duties” from the definition of a lobbyist, someone who lobbies on Parliament Hill.

It could actually be problematic to eliminate the 20% provision. Although we do not want every community group in our ridings to have to register as a lobbyist in order to come to talk to us, there must also be a clear definition.

The 20% rule may not be the right solution. People who spend 18% of their time lobbying would not have to be registered. So it would not be transparent. Someone spending only 5% of his time lobbying could influence the public service excessively. Think, for example, of former ministers who are retired from politics. Imagine they have been away from politics for five years; they still have a tremendous number of contacts. Even if they spend only 5% of their time lobbying, they would be able to influence decisions.

In your opinion, how do we balance the desire for transparency and for knowing who the players are without penalizing the smaller players acting in good faith?

[René Leblanc, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying]

That is one of the difficulties with regard to the act as it stands at the moment, as is the concept of influence. The quality or quantity of influence is absolutely impossible to quantify with any precision. So we must make an interpretation and, as it now stands, the interpretation the commissioner has made is the figure of 20%.

But in the act, there is no mention of 20%.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It uses the words significant part.

[René Leblanc]

The act says “significant part of the duties”. So, in order to enforce the act, if you want to find a guilty person and charge them, you have to be able prove with certainty that this person has violated the act.

From an enforcement point of view, we go by what the act says, because that is our role.