Evidence of meeting #24 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 come.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Senior Vice-President and National Practice Leader, Public Affairs, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Thanks.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Rule 8 says to clarify the rights of registered lobbyists to participate as volunteers in election campaigns. What I seem to be hearing is, “Can you please just tell us what's acceptable and what isn't?” Many people I've talked to who happen to work in GR are saying to me, “Listen, before I worked in GR, this is what I did, this is who I am. I didn't think I sacrificed that when I registered.”
Now they're hearing that maybe they did. Where would you like to see that line drawn? It's one thing to say to clarify it, but you must have an opinion on where you would like to see it clarified. Would you like us to clarify that anybody who's a registered lobbyist can't work on any campaigns, can't be involved with any elected representatives, has to come out and cleanse himself publicly of ever having had a political affiliation, or are you suggesting that another kind of line be drawn?
Of course, the other extreme is that they hire them because they happened to have a connection to the NDP, the Liberals, or the Conservatives, and that's why they were hired, and everyone knows that, so there's no point in trying to pretend otherwise.
Where do you want that line drawn?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Madam Chair, to me, Canadians are Canadians.
I don't know how you can take democratic rights away from one group of people. I feel strongly about this. I've worked in the political sphere all my life, and the toughest thing I had to do was to withdraw from the last campaign because of rule 8. I object to that. I have a right to be able to work on behalf of a political party.
Okay, so I'm getting on, and maybe campaigning has passed me by, but think about all these young people coming up in our profession. Why shouldn't they be able to run a campaign or take part in a national campaign? What a tremendous experience they'd be gaining. I just want us to be treated like everyone else.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Thank you, Mr. Coates. The time is up.
Ms. Roscoe, make your comment very brief, please.
Senior Vice-President and National Practice Leader, Public Affairs, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Just to situate what kind of affirmation we're looking for, we would like to see at least the level of clarity afforded to the public service through the Public Service Employment Act.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I wouldn't sell yourself short, Mr. Coates. I'm sure you can still work for—
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome to the witnesses today.
I think you support administering the monetary penalties portion of this. What levels of administrative penalties would you recommend the commissioner have, and within what range? I know there's been talk of 25,000 different jurisdictions. Have you given any consideration to the range of administrative penalties for particular breaches?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
We haven't categorized them except to say they should be tough. Make them tough. They have to be tough enough so that people understand there's a price to be paid if they break the code or, worse, break the law.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Okay.
What about an appeal mechanism? We've had some discussion on whether there should be an appeal mechanism. I know that one of the commissioners who was here said their appeal mechanism is to send it right to the courts. They let the courts decide on the appeal. Do you see the need for an appeal mechanism within the commissioner's office? Or do you think that once the commission has decided the penalty, and people want to appeal, they should apply right to the courts?
Senior Vice-President and National Practice Leader, Public Affairs, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Our view, and I think we spoke to this at the outset, is that there needs to be a clear process set out in terms of both investigative powers and an appeal process, which most other AMPs actually have. Anyone being investigated will know that they're going to have a judicious process that will be followed.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Okay.
On monthly reporting, in your last exchange with Mr. Del Mastro, you mentioned the protection of your clients. Instead of weakening the monthly reporting, could we put in a provision that would give some sort of commercial sensitivity to the particular report to help protect your clients if it's commercially sensitive in nature? Is there something we could do there instead?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Who would define that commercial sensitivity? If it's self-defined, then five years from now you'd be wanting to tighten up that provision. I just think it's easier and corrects the problem I've identified if you do that type of contact report quarterly.
February 16th, 2012 / 11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
You're recommending 20% for DPOHs. Why wouldn't you recommend or support getting rid of the 20% altogether, for clarity purposes?
Senior Vice-President and National Practice Leader, Public Affairs, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
It is for the exact reason raised earlier. There may be individuals from your constituency, from corporations, from small businesses, and from not-for-profit organizations that undertake lobbying for less than 10% of their time. For that reason, they need to have some guidance. That's what the 20% is about.
Our specific recommendation deals only with those individuals deemed to be designated public office holders for corporate lobbying. It has created, in essence, two different varieties of lobbyists. We think that if you're on the receiving end of many requests, many calls, it would be clearer for all.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
We've heard testimony and argument that if someone spends only 5% of the time lobbying but gets great reward in a contract that's awarded, that wouldn't be captured. How do you justify it for someone who does very little lobbying, but the reward for the company or the business is tremendous? How would you try to identify that?
Senior Vice-President and National Practice Leader, Public Affairs, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Again, we're guided by the fact that if individuals, organizations, or corporations are not using a lobbying technique more than 20% of the time, then you would also think, as you say, that the issue they're dealing with isn't going to be that material to them.
The committee chose, or Parliament chose, to use 20% during the review of the FAA some years ago.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
I have one last question for you, Mr. Coates.
This is more for an understanding of the business of government relations. In your brief, you said that you're a government relations firm. How do you distinguish between government relations and lobbying? From what we've seen or from testimony we've heard, you can do government relations business and never actually lobby. But a former DPOH might have great influence in giving a company advice, and that will never be captured.
Do you see the need to try to capture that or the difference between government relations and lobbying?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Let me be clear. Hill + Knowlton does both. We are registered lobbyists, and we provide advice and counsel. I think with the way the act is currently defined, the focus on actual communication with the public office holder is fine. If you start going down the path to broaden the definition beyond that, I think you're going to capture so many people it'll be meaningless.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Thanks, Mr. Andrews.
With the committee's permission, I want to follow up on something Mr. Andrews asked about the monthly reporting. One of the previous witnesses proposed that the commissioner rather than the lobbyist would determine if there was an exception, so they could submit their monthly report but with a request to the commissioner that they delay publishing the results on sensitive information.
Do you have an opinion on that?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Yes, I think there should be quarterly reports.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
I read your brief this morning. You make a comment about the global trends in lobbying regulation, and I quote:
Canada’s lobbying legislation, Political Financing Laws and Conflict of Interest Rules are clear and stronger than most other G-8 countries. The Commissioner of Lobbying affirmed this view on December 13th when she appeared before the committee. The Commissioner noted that Canada’s rules were strong, even compared to the US.
In light of this statement, would you say we've gone overboard, that because of those strong laws your opportunity to access government for the purpose of lobbying for various issues is encumbered?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Thank you for that question.
No, I don't think it has encumbered it in any way. I think the monthly reports are overkill, and I've tried to explain why, but on balance I've got to say I'm very proud of the system we have in place. It's a very good system. I can tell you it's head and shoulders above the United States' system. If we have to live with these monthly reports, we will, but I think an improvement would be to go to a quarterly report. From a “fix it” standpoint, that's a key one for me, and of course the recommendation on the 20% carve-out.