Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 31st, 2012

[Joseph Jordan]

I will answer that, but I will say, too, that I have some sympathy for the commissioner, because I think the commissioner is in a position where they have implied responsibilities without the underpinning authorities. So I think the fact that the committee is going to look at this is useful.

From my own personal point of view, and that's the only view I can give you, I have already done that. I made a decision that engaging in partisan political activities is first of all not in the interest of my clients. If I'm screaming at the government one day and then asking to bring somebody in and have a sensible discussion the next, I don't see how that helps.

I've chosen to be in this profession, but I'm also a political junkie. I grew up in politics. You're talking about somebody's constitutional rights, but I guess wherever you decide the line is, I think I'm already there. I didn't go to the last convention of my party. I don't donate to any party at the federal level. I quit going on TV to be a strategist for one side or another because I thought I might be, you know, endearing myself.

If you're asking me personally, I don't have a problem with that, but I think as you hear other witnesses, you're going to get some differing opinions on that. The only point I was making is to have a list that says do and don't. Make it clear.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay. I'd just suggest that you might want to donate to all parties equally. We'd be good with that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Of course, I'd also suggest that some of the folks appearing as party strategists haven't always got the party strategy down, so you might not necessarily be endearing yourself to anyone in that function either.

You talked about your view that it might be a good idea to insert a definition of lobbying into section 2. Do you think the public has a good idea of what lobbying is?

[Joseph Jordan]

I don't think so. I teach government relations, so I've been down this road before. It's not shoving money in a paper bag. The analogy I use is that the legal system in this country is complicated, it's changing, and if you come in contact with it and get it wrong, the ramifications can be severe. Government is complicated, it's changing, and if you come in contact with it, the same story.

As for what a lobbyist does, it's less of a Rolodex industry now; maybe 20 years ago that's what it was. What you're trying to do is you're trying to prepare a business that has very real economic interests that have to be balanced against other interests of other sectors. They're trying to have a strategy to intervene to make their case heard. I guess it's like anything: it's not as exciting as it sounds.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I've spent some time talking to people in my constituency about this, and I think that government relations, and lobbying in general, are quite a bit different from the way they're actually perceived.

One of the things you understand once you get here is that government is a very big machine and legislation has long tentacles in some regards. You may not understand how it impacts on any specific industry, so hearing from folks who are representing those industries is invaluable to members of Parliament, because you're not going to hear it on the Hill otherwise. I think there are some very valuable functions that are performed.

In talking about the process of registering and reporting, is it timely? Is it exhaustive? Is it difficult?

[Joseph Jordan]

No, it's not. What our firm did when the legislation was first passed was to designate a compliance officer in the firm. We conducted and documented training so everybody knew what the rules were. We had a very close relationship with the commissioner's office. They were extremely helpful.

That process is very routinized now. It's not a burden on our firm; it's part of our job, and there's no economic cost to us to do that.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay, so if you were to look at the 20% rule and say we're just going to have everybody report things, it wouldn't be an exhaustive function for them to have to undertake.

[Joseph Jordan]

I don't think so.

But going back to Mr. Angus's point, it would be a situation where all of a sudden you capture a lot of groups that traditionally haven't seen themselves as engaging in lobbying; they may see it as advocacy, or whatever name they want to use. I think the problem you would have is the transition, for people to realize they are now covered by this.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Right. I guess I'd go back to my earlier question, which was to ask whether you think people know what lobbying is.

Most people don't have a good idea of what lobbying is. To assume that what they're doing is not lobbying.... I think you're putting a burden on folks who don't have an idea what constitutes advocacy or lobbying.

I think advocacy, lobbying, government relations are all the same. Advocacy groups are often speaking more about the public sector. Where is the government going to invest funds? How is it going to invest those funds? How might it invest funds better or what have you? Lobbying tends to be more in the private sector; they're talking about the impacts of government on the private sector.

Ultimately, as far as the government is concerned, it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if it's the government spending money or the government reducing a taxation impact—for example, some of the things we did for manufacturing on accelerated capital costs; it's the same ultimate impact on government one way or the other.

But I do think it's perceived differently by the public. You may capture some folks who don't consider themselves lobbyists, but then again a lot of folks don't really know what lobbying is either.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Del Mastro--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Is that my time?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

It's well after.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I just made a salient point, so this would be a good juncture to move on to someone else.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Jordan, do you have a very brief response?

[Joseph Jordan]

I'd say that's why the inclusion of communication with decision-makers to effect outcomes I think demystifies.... It lays out exactly what we're talking about. Something is going to come out on who was involved in moving that balance point before it happened.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Jordan. In your opening statement you talked about the lobbying commissioner's ability to investigate. The commissioner can only investigate if she receives tips from individuals. It's very difficult for the lobbying commissioner to find out where there might be a breach. She sees the reporting, but is there lobbying going on that is not being reported?

Do you think we can tighten up on that a bit? How do we make both sides more accountable?

I've asked the question about reporting on the office-holder side. They report. The lobbyist reports. You compare notes, and if there's a consistent absence of reporting on one side or the other then there might be some reason to investigate.

I think you also said that this was in Bill C-2, the previous bill, but it didn't make it into the final draft.

Do you have any comments?

[Joseph Jordan]

You make a good point, and I touched on this in the opening. Originally, the design of the system was that both sides report independently. Therefore, the commissioner's office simply reconciles the meetings, and if you get half of a meeting reported, then you know where to go and pick up the phone and find out what happened. Without both sides reporting—I was just speculating, and maybe the commissioner has spoken to this—the commissioner's office then has to tell them there is a potential problem or an unreported meeting. That's a whole different process, and it is very random. I think it would be much more effective to look at the original model.

Then, the other thing you want to look at is why that was left on the cutting room floor. I didn't look at the transcript of the testimony, but if you go back to Bill C-2, there must have been some pretty persuasive discussions at committee for the committee to say “Let's not include the bureaucratic or political side. Let's just put the onus on the lobbyist.” That's fine, but I think it's less efficient in terms of enforcement, because you don't have a way to flag when there is an issue every month, which you would have if both sides had to report.

Incidentally, as MPs, as designated public office holders, you have certain responsibilities under the act as well. You don't have to report your meetings, but you have to keep a record of your meetings and make that information available to the commissioner if you are asked. I don't know whether that presents any problems in your constituency work, but you are being dragged into this framework, either knowingly or not.

On a separate point, I do a lot of work with defeated MPs as a volunteer through the parliamentary association. Most MPs don't realize they are now covered by the five-year ban. When you leave politics, as a designated public office holder, you are now banned for five years from engaging in any registerable activities. Is that a hammer kill on a flea? I don't know. You may want to look at that.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

With regard to that ban, is that five-year prohibition a reasonable thing? Is it something we should look at? Maybe we've overstepped our boundaries a little too much. Furthermore, when you're defining where lobbying starts and where government relations begin, I would argue that if you're in a government relations firm, advice given to a client is much more valuable than actual lobbying itself. There is a difference between government relations and lobbying. Where does that start and where does it end? Is the five-year ban actually something--

[Joseph Jordan]

If you look at what it used to be.... When I left politics, if you were a minister, there was a two-year ban. If you were a parliamentary secretary, there was a one-year ban, but it applied to files that you had handled in your portfolio. Maybe that was setting the bar too low. When you go to a five-year ban on all activities, the challenge you face is that it's very hard to back away from this stuff. It's very hard to step away from that without giving the impression you have lowered the bar. There are all kinds of stories about former political staffers—even in the current environment—who go into the government relations industry. You are absolutely right.

If all I do is work out a strategy for companies and I never engage in registerable activity, I am not covered by this. It's a free country, and I can do whatever I want. The restriction is only on actions that would require a registration. In my view, I think five years is too much. Or actually, I should be arguing for ten years to keep more people out of this profession and drive up my wage. For the people I deal with—defeated MPs—it just takes a realistic option right off the table in terms of post-political employment. There is a process for reducing that. I notice that is posted, and that seems to be working. If somebody thinks they weren't in the office long enough to be covered, they get a fair hearing, and in some cases they get that waived. That may be a problem that fixes itself.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

With regard to the 20%, the way you define it and calculate all that is actually better than any other way I've heard of. Is there a standard for calculating that 20%, or does every firm perhaps calculate the 20% in a different way?

[Joseph Jordan]

I was reading from the document that came out of the lobby commissioner's office. I didn't understand it either. The problem is that it's very complicated. At the very least, take travel out of there. It doesn't need to be included.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

The commissioner is actually recommending eliminating a significant part of the duties altogether. Would you support that recommendation from the lobbying commissioner?

[Joseph Jordan]

In my world—the world of registered consultant lobbyists—everything we do is regulated to the highest degree. What you are talking about with regard to reducing the 20% rule is increasing individual companies' or associations' requirements to register. You had better be careful with that one. You'll be bringing a lot of people into this framework who historically weren't covered or didn't see themselves as being covered by this. You're going to have to calculate whether or not that's worth it.