Evidence of meeting #23 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 cba.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
That is exactly what I was pointing out earlier on when I asked the following question: who is a lobbyist?
It is precisely that. We are more and more aware that lobbying activity covers that. That is why, for example—I have not raised this yet—I would support declaring lobbyists' expenses, as is done in the United States, and not simply individual ones. It is an issue of reporting expenses, as we do in Quebec. If that was the case, it could then be included in the reports.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here today. We very much appreciate it.
We've heard a fair bit from a number of witnesses now about the administrative monetary penalty option we may recommend, which may be an improvement to the act. That may be much wiser than referrals to the RCMP that get lost in the shuffle and everything else. It may be a good penalty that will keep everybody on the straight and narrow.
My biggest concern, if we go that route, and I'd like some advice from you, is what you see as the appeal mechanism for someone who has been charged an administrative monetary penalty. How would they appeal that decision? How would they make an argument that they were not fairly treated or that the information wasn't correct, or whatever? Or do you see the commissioner's final decision on an AMP as being it?
Do you have any advice for us on what we may build in as an appeal mechanism for the individual who's been identified in this administrative monetary penalty?
Member, Canadian Bar Association
Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for the question.
The CBA position is that yes, there should be some form of appeal process. It should be an administrative process. In most cases with AMP penalties, it's a paper review process. It can be to the commissioner or some other authority. You can contest the actual imposition of the penalty itself or the quantum of the penalty, if it's felt to be too excessive for the circumstances, or those types of matters. The CBA position is that absolutely, there should be an opportunity for the individual on whom the penalty is—
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Would that be outside of the lobbying commissioner's office, or would you see an internal appeal process within her office?
Member, Canadian Bar Association
It could be within her office. Given her status as an independent officer of Parliament, I think it would be difficult to have an authority above her within government. But there could be an internal review process or a reconsideration based on other facts if, for example, the individual felt that not all of the information was before the commissioner when she made her initial decision. It could be that type of situation.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
I'd simply add that there are a range of internal reviews. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has in place in her office a review process before she imposes her own administrative monetary penalties.
Conservative
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
Very briefly, I would say that I support an appeal mechanism. That is why I said I had very strong reservations regarding the lobbying commissioner of Quebec's request that he be given the power to pursue offenders directly. In fact, that would become extremely arbitrary. We can trust the people who are in those positions, but at the same time, to be arbitrary is to be human. I believe that the right of appeal could protect people. A lobbyist should not be found guilty in advance. He has a right to defend himself if necessary. We can have confidence in the commissioner. It is not a sign of lack of trust, it is simply a way of protecting individuals.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I'd be curious to know the definition of designated public office holder right now. Is it too broad? I mean, it covers me as a government member the same way it does an opposition member. It covers many senior bureaucrats, etc. In your view, is it too broad? Maybe it should be broader and should cover more people. Should it cover fewer? Should there be different levels depending on the position you served in? A cabinet minister would be at a certain level, versus a backbench MP, who would be at a different level.
What are your thoughts on the definition we currently have of a designated public office holder, and do you have any recommendations for change?
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval
I think that the definition should be reviewed to include people who are not currently covered by it. I gave the City of Quebec and its mayor as an example. That's a public and well-known example, but there could be others. I'm sure there are others.
As a matter of fact, that brings me to another comment I should have made earlier. I think that we have to take a look at the phenomenon of revolving doors. They turn, people come in, people come out and so forth. Earlier, someone mentioned Stockwell Day. He's not the only one. I don't want to target anyone in particular, but this is a phenomenon that is spreading. In fact, there is research about this now. It's a phenomenon that's spreading and that has not been studied in Canada. There's a lot of data in the U.S. about this. I think that we should take a look at what happens when a designated public office holder ends his mandate either because he's forced to or by choice. That brings us back to a question that was asked earlier. It has to be included. Otherwise designated public office holders will simply designate people who are not covered by the act.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Thank you, Mr. Hudon.
Mr. Giorno, I'll allow you a very brief response. Time is well up.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
Very briefly, the CBA has no position on that. You can take from the negative recommendation the CBA is not advocating changing that.
I'll add this. When you're looking at who is a designated public office holder, what counts is not what you know, it's who you know, because the restriction is on making contacts. It's not important that someone had secret information, or didn't, in his or her head; it's important that he or she knows that.
My personal view is that senators and members of the House of Commons absolutely fall into the category of people who have contacts they can utilize for profit when they leave and should be covered by the ban.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for Mr. Giorno.
My colleague, Mr. Martin, talked about this earlier, but the answer you gave him did not satisfy me. I will therefore continue in the same vein.
Do you find it interesting that ever since the Lobbying Act came into being and that all these cases were sent to the RCMP, no charges have been laid? Do you find it strange that none of these cases led to any penalties or verdict?
Member, Canadian Bar Association
Madam Chair, the CBA has no position on that. I do, personally. My answer to the member is yes.
Member, Canadian Bar Association
My answer is I do think it is strange. Yes, I think it is strange.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Giorno.
As my colleague, Pierre-Luc Dusseault, will explain later, the NDP thinks it's very important that the RCMP representatives testify and explain themselves before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. As I mentioned, their offices seem to be a black hole when it comes to these complaints. We want answers.
With regard to all these stories, do you think it would be a good idea for representatives of the RCMP or of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics?
Member, Canadian Bar Association
The CBA has no position on that. I do, personally. My answer is yes.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you very much, that's very interesting. I hope that our Conservative colleagues will share your opinion. Representatives of the RCMP and of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada must explain themselves before the committee.
My next question was already broached by my colleague. In the report that you produced entitled
Supporting Ottawa's new lobbyist registry: making a strong proposal even stronger. Presentation to the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee
dated December 1, 2001, there was a reference to the way lobbying rules were dealt with by other levels of government. In your opinion, were there any charges laid by other governments that resulted in sanctions?
Member, Canadian Bar Association
The short answer, Madam Chair, to the member's question is yes, there are two jurisdictions in Canada where penalties have been imposed on lobbyists. One is British Columbia, where there's been one conviction. The most active and aggressive enforcement of the rules governing lobbying and lobbying transparency is in Quebec, where the lobbying commissioner has brought many convictions. By last count, I believe there were 21 convictions. These are against a total of seven people. The penalties have included fines. Also, the commissioner there has the power to impose bans on lobbying activity, so there have been not just fines in Quebec but also penalty periods where those people could not lobby.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I'd like to confirm what you said earlier. Did I understand you correctly when you said that you were in favour of the five-year limit for former designated public office holders? Do you think that that aspect of the law is adequate?
Member, Canadian Bar Association
Again, I'm losing track between CBA positions and mine, so I'm just going to answer personally here.