Evidence of meeting #19 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lobbyist.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks very much, Mr. Jordan, for being with us here today. I think we all have a lot of questions about how this is working, so it's great to hear from you with the hands-on information that you're bringing us today. I think it gives us a much better perspective.
It has been interesting to hear the discussion about the 20%. I think that's something we're grappling with and trying to figure out how it's figured out, and how organizations and lobbyists determine that.
One of the things the commissioner said when she appeared before this committee was that all oral communications, regardless of who initiates them and whether or not they are planned, should be reported. Right now I think it's only oral and planned communications. Can you comment on that?
Senior Consultant, The Capital Hill Group
I would say at the outset that without clear definitions of what we're talking about in terms of communication, you're going to run into problems. Is the communication a registerable communication or not? I think we could bring some clarity to that.
For example, it's not registerable if I ask you for information. Every citizen has the right to ask government for information, free and unencumbered by this legislation.
I think the committee might want to focus in on exactly what you're trying to accomplish, and be clear on that. Then some of these questions may answer themselves.
Right now I think that's going to create a big mess, because people won't know. The general model that seems to work—and you are on the other side of the fence—is that groups will come to Ottawa on a certain day, they'll book a number of meetings with MPs, and they'll go through their spiel, and that's registerable and the communication reports are filed. Then they generally have a cocktail party or reception that night, and you potentially have constituents there and you go. You are now bringing what happens there into this framework. So I would be very careful about that one. Unless you can figure out what the mechanism is to get everybody clearly understanding the rules and when it is registerable and when it is not, we're either going to have a lot of unregisterable activity going on or we're going to flood the system with bits of information that really aren't getting us anywhere in terms of our transparency goals.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Do you think it's possible to define that enough that you can get around the problems with it?
Senior Consultant, The Capital Hill Group
I think it is, but then again the other side of that is are we better off? Is that information of any use in terms of what we're trying to accomplish with the transparency objectives of the legislation?
I don't mean to minimize the job the committee has; you are trying to balance some pretty serious rights and responsibilities here.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
One of the other things we've heard about from the commissioner on many occasions is the issue of penalties or the lack of the ability of the commissioner to levy any type of a monetary penalty. Things get referred to the RCMP and then the commissioner suspends her investigation while that is ongoing. There are no monetary penalties adopted or levied.
Can you talk to me a little bit about what your feelings are on monetary penalties, and whether or not the commissioner should be able to levy any penalties on issues that get referred?
Senior Consultant, The Capital Hill Group
As long as there is due process, I don't have any issue with monetary penalties. I will say this, though, and I say this sincerely: if somebody is a registered consultant lobbyist and they get named in a report as being offside of these rules, I can't overstate the effect that has on that person's livelihood. That is a very severe sanction. Nobody is going to want to hire somebody who has danced on the wrong side of the line. So don't buy into this notion that having your name in a report isn't a serious penalty; it is.
If the commissioner sees value in having some additional sanction at her or his disposal, I don't see any problem with that. The only thing is that when you bring in the Criminal Code as the underpinning for this, in some cases you're making it harder to convict someone because of the very high standards within the Criminal Code. So it is almost paradoxical. We think we have a tough law because we're underpinning it with the Criminal Code, but in actual fact you may have an unenforceable law because of the ambiguity that is around a lot of this stuff. Again, it's what you are achieving at the end of the day.
I don't see the monetary penalty having any detrimental effect that doesn't already exist if somebody has been named as not following the rules. Who is going to hire somebody if they can't keep this legislation straight and be on the right side? How can they possibly give anyone advice on how to do it?
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
There's one other thing I was interested in from what you were saying. Right now, when only the lobbyist has to register and it does not have to be registered from the other side, the commissioner almost has to rely on anonymous tips, and so on, for incidents to come to her attention.
Can you just elaborate a little more and expand on that? What do you see as the solution to that?
Senior Consultant, The Capital Hill Group
The problem is that any solution brings its own issues and unintended consequences. If, as the bill was originally written, both sides independently file registrations, then at the end of each month—because it's all computerized and the computer system is working really well—the lobby commissioner could probably just get a printout of one-sided meetings. Either somebody who had a meeting filed from the bureaucratic political side and the participants from the lobbyist side didn't file, or the lobbyist filed and the bureaucrat didn't file. Then you could focus your time on sorting those out.
Right now the lobby registrar's office gets a number of filings every month. There's no way to know whether that reflects reality. Somebody who doesn't register isn't going to show up unless something happens that gets the commissioner's attention. For example, I think a couple of months ago an organization sent out letters to MPs stating a case and asking for a meeting, and they weren't a registered organization. Somebody must have checked and made a complaint, and I think they subsequently registered. But if that's the process for enforcement, it's not a very good process; it's not a very efficient process.
NDP
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think I am right in saying that this is our last go-round; I am going to share my time with my colleague Pierre-Luc.
Thank you very much for joining us today, Mr. Jordan. Thank you for your presentation: it really was very interesting.
I have a question about your proposed definition, which I find extremely broad. As I see it, if everyone who communicates with a lawmaker, a public decision-maker, with a view to influencing public policy has to be considered a lobbyist, there are potentially 83,000 lobbyists in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. That is what people do any time they meet with us: they try to influence us and to tell us to go in one direction or another, to do or say this, that or the other. It's a lot of people.
So if you want the 20% idea to be eliminated, if you don't want to say that people must be paid to be considered lobbyists, and that anyone who communicates with us in order to influence us is a lobbyist, you are going to be up to your ears in lobbyists.
Senior Consultant, The Capital Hill Group
If everyone's a lobbyist, no one's a lobbyist. But if you're not a DPOH, it's not an issue.
If the goal is to bring transparency to the various groups that are influencing decisions, your challenge is where to put the fence. Who are you interested in finding out about, and who are you not--or is it everyone?
Believe me, I don't minimize the challenge you have, but I don't think it's individuals--it's groups, associations. It's people who have a certain amount of sway in the public policy arena. I bump into these people in the halls, and I'm subjected to completely separate rules from what they are because I'm paid to do it and their benefits are more indirect.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
So you feel that every charity, every church, every university professor and every research centre should have to register as a lobbyist.
Senior Consultant, The Capital Hill Group
I think they need to be considered if they are engaging in trying to influence the outcome of decision-makers. I guess the logic is why would you not include them? Again, I don't have an answer for that. They're there for some reason. They obviously have an interest in this. It may not be directly financial, but you can't minimize the impact they're having on the process. If it makes sense to shine a light on what I'm doing, surely it makes sense to shine a light on what everybody's doing.
It's really a matter of degree as to what's practical and enforceable. I think that's what the committee will struggle with.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I am going to let my colleague Pierre-Luc Dusseault take over now; but first, I must say that you certainly are a good lobbyist yourself.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you.
I have a quick question that I hope will clarify your introductory remarks. I am not exactly sure that I understood them.
You said that, when lobbyists are working, they are not obliged to say which clients they are working for. That is the part I would like to clarify. Lobbyists can have several clients. Is it the case that, when they meet with a public office holder, for example, they are not obliged to disclose whom they are working for?
Senior Consultant, The Capital Hill Group
Oh, no. If I left you with that impression, I apologize. That's not the case at all.
Every time I file a communication report, it lists exactly who I'm acting on behalf of. It couldn't be clearer. You can go into that lobby registry and you can find out from consultant lobbyists exactly who is working for whom and what meetings they've had for those people. Even if I have two or three clients in the same meeting who have a similar issue, separate communication filings have to be filed for each of those clients. It's absolutely clear who you're working for.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Fair enough, that is clear. So let me take my questions in another direction.
You are a good example. In the past, you were a parliamentary secretary and you complied with the five-year rule, I hope.
Just now, you mentioned people who can wield a lot of influence with one phone call or in a couple of meetings. Do you feel that people who have held a public office similar to yours still have a great deal of influence after five years? Is five years appropriate? What do you think?
Senior Consultant, The Capital Hill Group
First, to clarify, when I got out of politics, it was only a one-year rule. It wasn't five. It's like anything else: There are probably some people who will have influence for the rest of their lives, just because of their personalities and who they are, and there are some people who don't have any influence two seconds after they leave the building. So what's a reasonable number? To me, five years seems like a very long time to restrict what somebody can do. I mean, that's what you're talking about. You're talking about somebody's right to work. We need to take those kinds of step-ins seriously. Is two better than five? I don't know. The problem, again, I recognize, is that if you drop it from five, you open yourself up to criticism that you're being less transparent than you were. It's a challenge.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Thanks, Mr. Jordan.
We'll go to Mr. Carmichael for the final round of questioning.
January 31st, 2012 / 12:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Jordan, for your testimony today.
I'd like to go back to a couple of comments you made in your opening statements related to board governance, because I would like to better understand. When we talk about advocacy, government relations, and lobbying, then you look at corporate boards.... From Rotman, you certainly have exposure to the ICD program--
