Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 7th, 2012

[Elizabeth Denham]

Like Alberta, I would refer certain files to the police for very egregious and serious issues such as someone who was obstructing us in our investigation, but I would reserve the right to issue penalties to such cases as the third time somebody has failed to register or the third time they've filed late. Then I think penalties are the better way to go.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Andrews, you have seven minutes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Just on the penalties question, Ms. Denham, I know you said there have never been any penalties charged under your act as far as you know.

What about the other jurisdictions? Have any of you had administrative penalties issued to any lobbyist or since...?

[Neil Wilkinson]

No, we have not.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Ms. Morrison, you mentioned I think in the part when we were talking about penalties and that, that just the ability to name the lobbyist does have some effect, and we heard that from some lobbyists that, yes, the ability just to name them as a breach of the act does come with some penalties. Do you want to elaborate on that just a little?

[Lynn Morrison]

Here is one of the things we are seriously considering in Ontario. Lobbyists are required to terminate a registration within 30 days of ceasing any activity. Some lobbyists just don't do it and they don't renew either, and we send them three or four notices to remind them. I then have to terminate it. That goes into an inactive registration list. I'm looking very seriously at having a separate list: inactive, terminated registrations and registrations terminated by the registrar. We're not sure yet how that will all play out or what exactly we will put attached to that document, whether we provide a reason or whether we just put it in a list indicating the registrar terminated and let the public take a look at it and decide whether they want to ask further questions.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Ms. Denham, at the end of your presentation, you said the ban should be shorter if there were more investigative power and administrative penalties were given. If those two things were given, what should that ban be in your opinion?

[Elizabeth Denham]

What should the ban be?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Yes.

[Elizabeth Denham]

Unfortunately I haven't had experience with cooling-off periods. In B.C., we just have a very limited cooling-off period. I don't think I'm equipped to answer that question. We recently held a conference in Vancouver on lobbying. Everybody who attended—from academics to industry to legal counsel and to my fellow registrars and commissioners—thought that the five-year period was too long and, in fact, it wasn't in the public interest to keep some of the talent out of the industry for that long a time period.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I think that led into one of the other questions too when we asked each one of you how long the cooling-off period has been in each jurisdiction.

Mr. Wilkinson, getting back to the low threshold on lobbying activities. You mentioned that yours was very low. Can you just give us a little bit of the history about why it was set at that bar? Has that been effective? You also made a comment that there's been a lot of discussion or you recently had some review around the threshold. Do you want to just elaborate a little bit on that aspect?

[Neil Wilkinson]

Yes, I'd be happy to. If you don't mind, I'll turn it over to Brad Odsen, our registrar.

[Bradley Odsen]

Thank you.

Where it came from initially I cannot tell you. Part of the legislative drafting...that's what they came up with. When I am contacted by an organization and questioned around that issue because they're trying to determine whether they might fall below the threshold and therefore not register, this is what I tell them: “That's fine. That means you'll have to track every single lobbying activity all of your staff are engaged in. You'll have to devote resources to that, because I may be coming in eight months from now to do a forensic audit to see whether or not you've met the threshold. On the other hand, if you register you don't have to do any of that. Decide what you want to do.” The typical response is “That's kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? I'll get my registration in this week.”

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

The lobbying commissioner is recommending eliminating the “significant part of duties” threshold, the 20%. Do you think that's a good recommendation from the commissioner?

[Bradley Odsen]

I can't speak to the public policy aspect of that. I don't think it's our role to say whether there should be a threshold. But I think that a lower threshold such as ours means there will be very few organizations engaged in any kind of regular lobbying activity that are not registered, if any. I'm quite confident that there are none in Alberta engaged in any kind of regular lobbying activity, even if it's somewhat sporadic over the course of a year, that are not registered. I'm sure they're all registered.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You have just about two minutes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

If we give investigative powers to our commissioner, what powers should they actually have? Subpoena documents...? What do they need to do effective investigations? It's okay to say you can have investigative powers, but if you don't have the ability to get what you need, it doesn't really make sense.

When we talk specifically about investigative powers, how much power and what should we look out for in giving our commissioner that power?

[François Casgrain]

What I can say is that the authority that the lobbyists commissioner is given in Quebec is the authority of an investigations commissioner. That authority makes it possible to find all the evidence necessary, which isn't always easy to obtain.

You just spoke about the concept of "significant part". It's one of the major reasons that makes it difficult to comply with the act. Every piece of legislation that has been adopted in Canada has in part copied what existed. In my opinion, that explains some of the problem.

As for the authority to investigate, it's important that we be able to go and see public office holders and that they be required to provide the information required so that we can conduct an inquirty. It's also important to be able to go and get the lobbyists' side of things, when the time comes, if explanations are required.

The lobbyists commissioner is best suited to get to the bottom of things because it is his responsibility to ensure that the act is respected and because he administers that specific act. He knows all the ins and outs of it. He's the one who can go the furthest in finding the truth.

Since the purpose of the act is to enable the public to know what has happened, in other words, making the activities of lobbyists transparent, I firmly believe that the commissioner must have all the authority to obtain all the information needed to be able to report to Parliament, to the National Assembly or to the provincial legislative assemblies.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Andrews, we're well out of time.

Does somebody else have a very brief comment?

Ms. Morrison.

[Lynn Morrison]

Under the Members' Integrity Act in Ontario I have the power to investigate a complaint right up to a public inquiry; however, we haven't resorted to that since 1989. So I think Commissioner Casgrain is absolutely right that we need whatever it takes to get the information we need.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Ms. Denham, please be brief.

[Elizabeth Denham]

I'm just going to add immunity. I think it's very important that the commissioner be protected from prosecution.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mrs. Davidson, for seven minutes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, thanks very much to each of you for being here. Certainly it's brought a perspective to our review that we definitely need.

Ms. Denham, with respect to your remark on immunity, that is one of the things our commissioner has talked about. It is one of the changes she would like to see happen.

Could I have each of you make a comment on the need for immunity and whether that would be a positive change in the federal legislation?