Information & Ethics Committee on March 4th, 2013

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Going to the 20% rule—and again this is something that we've discussed in the past—and the amount of time that a person is preparing for a meeting and the travel time someone might have if he or she were coming from western Canada to Ottawa to lobby here, have you and the folks in your office been able to come up with any new ideas how that should be addressed when you're trying to look at the percentage of time an individual lobbyist is actually engaged?

[Karen Shepherd]

In terms of the guidance, I think it's been quite clear. It's really the reason I certify travel, because there are some companies that will actually put somebody in Ottawa so they can have easier face time, whereas somebody else might decide it's more significant to have the president fly across the country for a particular meeting.

I am looking at whether I can see if that guidance can be made any clearer in terms of the lobbyists. But it is clear in the bulletin that if the individual determines that it's significant that they be there, then they should be looking at registering.

As I always say, lobbying is a legitimate activity. If you're ever not sure, then err on the side of caution and register is my advice.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

We look at other countries and the types of things they are doing. I know you've had an opportunity to go to different countries to present on behalf of Canada and to hear about other things that are happening.

Can you comment on any comparisons that you see? Are there any discrepancies between our lobbying rules and what you might see in other countries?

[Karen Shepherd]

What I have found in my experience talking about the Lobbying Act is that Canada is considered to have quite a robust regime model when it comes to lobbying. In fact, in terms of designated public office holders, they now report on a monthly basis if it's oral and arranged. In my experience, when I was in the United States, they're looking at the 20% rule. It actually applies to consultant lobbyists. When we're looking at why we have lobbying legislation and transparency, it makes sense that there is no 20% rule in Canada applying to consultant lobbyists.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

That's close enough.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

I now yield the floor to Ms. Borg, who has five minutes.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Shepherd, thank you for joining us today.

I would like to continue in the vein of the previous questions. Would adding the word “entity” to the definition clear things up a bit? Would it help us meet the OECD international standards?

[Karen Shepherd]

Are you talking about organizations or businesses?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Let's look at section 8 of the act. For instance, we could say, “seek to improperly further another person's or entity's private interests”. That would broaden the scope of the provision and is actually one of the commissioner's recommendations. The scope would be expanded to cover not only a person, but also an entity.

[Karen Shepherd]

If I have understood correctly, the Lobbying Act applies to lobbyists who work for non-profit corporations. The code of conduct applies to both. I don't know whether the definition must be changed because it applies to both. People who work for an organization lobby for the organization itself.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Would that help clarify matters and reduce the differences between the two acts?

[Bruce Bergen, Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying]

I am not really sure that would be a good addition, but the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct is not an act. It is part of the system, but it is drafted by the commissioner and it is....

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I don't think I asked my question correctly. I will just move on to the next issue because that's not what I had in mind.

The previous witness said that he would sometimes go shopping for the right answer. He would visit you and visit the conflict of interest commissioner because there are some grey areas, and he wanted to obtain the best answer or the answer he liked the best. Is there a way to proceed other than updating the definitions to make them consistent? Is there another way to work together to avoid that kind of a situation?

[Karen Shepherd]

I don't understand how someone could shop around, as the legislation is really clear. Lobbying activities are restricted for designated public office holders.

Definitions are also included for reporting public office holders. In their case, the post-employment prohibitions apply for two years after they leave their job. Those are the first two years of the five-year prohibition period under the Lobbying Act. I don't see how he can say that he shops around, as it's really....

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Regarding the example, I think he wanted to hire someone but couldn't do that because it was prohibited over a certain period under the Conflict of Interest Act. I will move on to my next question.

The commissioner recommended that the rules that apply to members be harmonized with the Conflict of Interest Act. Could you tell me how that could influence your duties within the office of the commissioner? Should the code be changed to be more consistent with the Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act?

[Karen Shepherd]

I am responsible for lobbyists' conduct.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I understand that, but you said several times that different definitions existed.

If the code were harmonized with the act, would there be any definitions in the act we should examine?

[Karen Shepherd]

The definition of a designated public office holder may apply to more people than the definition of a reporting public office holder. It is really up to Parliament to decide who you want to include in the definition and why.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I now yield the floor to Mr. Mayes for five minutes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Chair, the only concern I have—and here we talked a little bit about the post-employment conditions—is when you're recruiting somebody as a public office holder, whether it be in a ministry or another position. Do you think that maybe we're compromising the ability to get qualified professional people because there's that restriction? If they leave their employment, it's going to restrict their ability to use their knowledge base to help an organization. That's their value. Their value is in the fact that they have insights and a particular expertise in maybe a particular ministry. Part of that is the value of the office holders as far as a knowledge resource for both private and public administrations or interests is concerned.

I'm just wondering what your thoughts are about that. Was there a problem in the past that this definitely had to be put in place? Or is it just a perceived problem? I'm wondering whether it really is necessary.

[Karen Shepherd]

In terms of putting a post-employment prohibition into the act, as I understand it, with the Federal Accountability Act that was one of the things that was looked at: this whole revolving-door issue and to avoid having someone who was in some of these high-level decisions being able to leave office and to use the advantages they had gained through contacts and knowledge for a period of five years upon leaving office.

What I can say is that the five-year prohibition on lobbying activities under the Lobbying Act prohibits them from lobbying, in terms of their communicating with the public office holder in the original activity, but it doesn't stop them from earning a living. They are doing other jobs. They're going into government relations firms. There are some of them, as we've discussed, who can go and work for a corporation, as long as lobbying would constitute less than a significant part of their individual duties. So it isn't prohibiting them. It might be limiting them from wanting to do certain jobs, but it's not prohibiting them from gaining employment upon leaving office.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

One of the witnesses we had before talked about clear rules, and Mr. Angus talked about fair rules. Fair and clear sometimes are not necessarily the same.

As far as clear rules go, do you think we would have the ability to put in place rules that were clear enough to cover all the bases? Are we not better off to be in some ways a little more general? I like the idea that as long as there's a real or apparent interest that is maybe connected to a financial gain of some sort.... What is your feeling about trying to identify all the areas of conflict of interest?