Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 9th, 2012

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.

I'd actually like to pick up on this question of astroturfing, as you've suggested.

I think it's a tremendous recommendation you're making in this regard because I do think groups should have to demonstrate who is funding them. If they appear to be a public interest group that's actually funded by, especially, money outside the country, I think Canadians have a need to be able to see that, so that they can understand what might be motivating that position.

Is there a specific recommendation that you would make in this regard?

You've indicated that when they register they should have to indicate where their funding is coming from, but it would seem to me that it would have to be some kind of an ongoing process so that they would have to indicate if they have money come in. At the point of registration they might not have that money. It might come in at some other point, which could change the nature of that lobby group.

How would you do that? Do you have a specific recommendation on that?

[Prof. Stéphanie Yates]

If we take a look at the American example, groups have to update that information quarterly. In the American context, if they receive funding that exceeds $5,000, they will have to update their registration every three months.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

All right. You talked about the—

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Del Mastro, I think Mr. Conacher wanted in on that briefly.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Well, I have second question, and I'd be happy to have Mr. Conacher make a comment on that.

You and Mr. Conacher both talked about the scope of the waiting period. We've heard his recommendations on it, and I'll re-phrase the question to him once I have your answer, but what is it that you're proposing in that regard?

[Prof. Stéphanie Yates]

This actually sort of goes back to what we were saying earlier about how to politically sell the idea of going up a scale from one year to five years. I completely agree with that suggestion.

I think that, if we expanded the definition of lobbying activities, it would be easier to sell this at a political level. Rather than casting a wide net and excluding a number of activities from lobbying, why not expand the definition of lobbying? And then why not change the scope of the waiting period to include those who lobby in a broad sense—including preparation activities, research, and strategizing—and put it all under lobbying? Once we do that, we can change the waiting period based on the strategic nature of the role public office holders play. It really makes no sense that a political staffer who works with the team of the opposition leader is subject to the same rule as a former cabinet minister.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Conacher, in part I've heard people make the argument—and in some ways you witness it here on the Hill—that when you put restrictions in place, like a five-year waiting period, it does have an impact on who applies for jobs here on the Hill, because they begin to worry about their future earning potential and so forth.

One of the things that's been recommended.... And I'd be interested in getting your view on this, because perhaps what you're suggesting could work in tandem with an administrative monetary penalty. If you put in place a sliding scale—and people understand what that is, so they understand what the restriction is on them—and if you were to put in place an administrative monetary penalty so that the commissioner had some teeth in the rules, do you see that these could work in tandem towards a positive kind of outcome?

[Duff Conacher]

Oh, very much so.

But I would say that this rumour—that people are not becoming staff of ministers because of the five-year ban—is a rumour. There's never been a case that anyone has ever come forward and said he or she didn't join the government because of the rule. There's no evidence that it is discouraging anyone. In fact, when it was a minority government situation, I think what discouraged people was that they didn't know when there was going to be an election and they didn't know whether they'd still have a job in two years. Would you really move to Ottawa, move your family, become a senior staffer, when you have a situation that is so unsure, because it could last one or one and a half years? That is far more likely to be a reason why people may not have joined Conservative cabinet ministers' offices as staff after these measures came in.

I don't think there's any evidence that five years is too long, but I think it is too long for MPs, and it shouldn't be the same standard. A sliding scale with the administrative monetary penalties would be a good combination.

Just to mention, when you were talking about disclosure of funding, Democracy Watch's and the coalition's recommendation is also that there should be disclosure of how much you spend on a campaign.

When you're asking about updates, there's a requirement for organizations to update any changes in their registration every six months already. That could be moved to quarterly, as in the U.S., but you would at least know every six months whether new money had come in, if you put in this requirement to disclose funding sources.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Does Democracy Watch have to register?

[Duff Conacher]

No, I actually de-registered it a decade ago, in protest—

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

So you don't actually lobby.

[Duff Conacher]

—of the loopholes. I had been before committee three times. Three times the government had said it was not going to close these loopholes. I'm not required to register. I was the only staff person, I wasn't lobbying more than 20% of my time, and I said before a Senate committee actually at one time that I had de-registered and I was not going to register again until it closed the loopholes. I'm not going to just register out of the goodness of my heart, when all sorts of other people are out there doing secret, unregistered lobbying.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Some might say that you're not really holding up your own standard.

[Duff Conacher]

It's a protest against the loopholes.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It's a protest against your own standard.

[Duff Conacher]

No, it's not. My standard is to require all lobbying to be disclosed by law. If you're not going to do that, then don't expect people to register, and don't expect me to register. I did it as a civil action protest against the loopholes in the law and the continuing ignorance of those loopholes and failure to close them.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You have 15 seconds, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chenier, you said the question that keeps coming up is: are we there yet? What is the destination that we should be heading towards?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Give a brief response, Mr. Chenier.

[John Chenier]

Total transparency in the policy process would be the 15-second answer.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Andrews is next for seven minutes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, folks, and thanks for coming today.

Mr. Chenier, I'm going to start with you. In your presentation you talked about knowing the client, and that the clients are well aware of which lobbyists are connected with which political parties. Obviously they further their careers by doing that. A lot of the lobbyists are commentators on radio shows. Some of them actually go out of their way to do commentary. Some of the lobbyists get paid to do commentary, and the more commentary they do, the more connected they are seen to be.

I guess this is where rule 8 comes in. What rules...or how do we curtail this? How do we legislate that you can't do this? It's a really grey area. I don't know if you can help us out there a little bit. Do you get my drift?

[John Chenier]

Oh, I get your drift. That is probably the thorniest problem the commissioner has to deal with. You've dealt with war rooms, working on campaigns, and being part of campaign teams. But when you get to this region where someone is a spokesperson for the party in the media, it is obviously a difficult situation.

My own view is that if you wish to be a spokesperson, you shouldn't be a lobbyist. That's the way it should be.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Then some people say they're the official spokesperson, or they're not the official spokesperson.