Information & Ethics Committee on May 16th, 2019

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Fair enough. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

As mentioned, Commissioner, we wish you good health from our committee and we would like to see you again soon. Thanks for appearing today.

[Mario Dion]

Thank you for the good wishes, Mr. Chair. It was a pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

We'll suspend until we have the other commissioner come in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

I call the meeting back to order.

I won't go over what I read before, but we welcome, from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Nancy Bélanger, the Commissioner; and Charles Dutrisac, Director of Finance and Chief Financial Officer.

I apologize to everybody. We had votes that shortened our time even more than we had already shortened it.

Go ahead, Ms. Bélanger, for 10 minutes.

[Nancy Bélanger, Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Committee.

I would like to start by acknowledging that we are meeting today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you the Main Estimates, our accomplishments of the past year and our ongoing priorities. I am joined by Charles Dutrisac, Director of Finance and Chief Financial Officer.

It has been an extremely busy year for us. Just this week, we moved to a new location, designed as an activity-based workplace. This move was a demanding endeavour and would not have been possible without the incredible dedication of members of my team and the professional expertise of employees of Public Services and Procurement Canada and Shared Services Canada. I sincerely thank them for their commitment in ensuring the success of this project.

To mark this success, we are planning an open house in June, so you can soon expect an invitation to visit our new office.

The Lobbying Act mandates that I maintain our Registry of Lobbyists, ensure compliance with the Act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct and foster awareness of both the Act and the Code. To carry out this mandate, we developed last year a three-year strategic plan that included four key results areas. I will set out some of our accomplishments and current priorities for each of them.

The first key result is A Modern Lobbyists Registration system. The Registry enables transparency by giving Canadians access to information about federal lobbying activities. On any given day, there are about 5,500 active lobbyists registered. This past year, lobbyists used our system to report details of more than 27,000 communications with designated public office holders.

To make it easier and faster for lobbyists to register, we have streamlined the registration process for new registrants. In the next year, we will improve the system to make it more user- and mobile-friendly for the registrant. This will assist in information becoming public more quickly.

We will also continue to benefit from the recommendations following the evaluation of our client services. Overall, the evaluation concluded that our approach with clients is effective and contributes to increasing compliance. Some recommendations related to the Registry and outreach activities will need to be assessed.

The second key area is effective compliance and enforcement activities. I have streamlined the investigation process to address allegations of non-compliance while continuing to ensure that decisions are fair and impartial and meet the necessary procedural fairness requirements.

Allegations of non-compliance are now dealt with in two steps. First, a preliminary assessment is undertaken to evaluate the nature of the alleged contravention, to obtain initial information and determine whether the subject matter falls within my mandate. Following this assessment, and when necessary to ensure compliance with either the act or the code, an investigation is commenced. ln the last year, 21 preliminary assessments were closed, of which four led to investigations. There are currently 11 ongoing preliminary assessments.

With respect to investigations, I recently tabled a report to Parliament related to sponsored travel provided by 19 different corporations and organizations. I also suspended and referred three investigations to the RCMP, as I had reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had occurred under the act. Thirteen other investigations were ceased, and as of today there are a total of 15 investigations in our active caseload.

Finally, with respect to the five-year prohibition on lobbying, we are developing an online tool to simplify applications for exemptions by former designated public office holders.

The third area is an Enhanced Outreach and Communications for Canadians.

This past year, we provided 70 presentations to lobbyists, public office holders and other stakeholders in addition to the webinars offered in cooperation with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We also updated our guidance on the rules pertaining to the code.

The priorities for this year will include updating and redesigning our website to make it easier for visitors to find information. We will also use the data on information requests that we receive to analyze needs. That will enable us to develop targeted communication products and tools .

I will continue to develop recommendations for the next statutory review of the Act to enhance the federal framework for lobbying.

Our last but certainly not least key area is an exceptional workplace. It is important to me that the employees of my office feel valued, understand the importance of their work and that they be proud of working at the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying.

The results of the public service employee survey certainly indicate that we are in the right direction to be an employer of choice. When it comes to employee satisfaction with their workplace, the 2018 survey results placed the office among the top five of all federal departments and agencies.

We implemented and will continue to support our mental health strategy. We are also creating a career development program tailored to the reality of a small office.

The office delivers on its mandate through the invaluable work of 27 dedicated employees.

The 2019-20 main estimates for the office are about $4.8 million. With the exception of $350,000 dedicated to the relocation simply for this year, this is essentially the same amount since the creation of the previous office in 2005. Personnel costs represent about 70% of the expenditures, so $3.4 million. The remaining $1.1 million operating budget is used to acquire program support and corporate services, including HR, finance, IT and contracting services, as well as to cover miscellaneous costs. Fifty-five per cent of the $1.1 million is to obtain services from other government institutions. This approach provides access to a wide range of expertise in a cost-effective manner.

Looking ahead, I have concerns about the current budget envelope. Our fiscal reality is attempting to operate with a budget established in 2005. The amount of $4.5 million may have been sufficient at that time, but today it means there is practically no flexibility to reallocate financial resources, hire additional human resources or to make the necessary investments in systems with today's price tags.

The registry is a statutory requirement and is vital for transparency. Constant investments are required to ensure that the registry remains up to date with evolving IT standards and to enhance the accessibility of the information.

The work that is being performed by the office has also evolved in complexity, litigiousness and level of scrutiny.

I am therefore studying the cost implications and will make the necessary funding requests in the fall to ensure that we can adequately meet our mandate.

The Lobbying Act continues to be an important and relevant piece of legislation. Ultimately, it is essential to me that the work of the Office is done in such a way as to provide value-for-money to Canadians and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our operations.

I want to end by recognizing the unwavering engagement and resolve of the employees of the Office who, more often than not, are asked to go well beyond what is required of their position. I so very much appreciate their input and support in assisting me to enhance the accessibility, transparency and accountability of the federal lobbying regime.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I thank you for your attention and welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Commissioner.

We will start off with Mr. Graham, for seven minutes.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll get straight into it and I'll put it this way. I don't have a lot of patience for professional lobbyists. As far as I can tell, they bill clients based on how many meetings they get, multiplied by how many people are at them, rather than what they actually achieve at those meetings. I generally refuse to meet with them, unless they're from my riding or in my riding. Basically, if people have enough resources to tell me what to think, I probably don't want to hear from them.

Are you aware of how much professional lobbyists bill and are paid and does it matter for your purposes?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I do not know.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You have no idea how they're paid or what the pay structures are, and there's no impact.

[Nancy Bélanger]

No, and it is not a requirement of our current regime to ask how much lobbyists are being paid. It is a requirement in the U.S., and so it's quite a popular thing. In Canada it's not a requirement. Quite frankly, I have not seen the need for it so far.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

When I was elected in 2015, your predecessor, Ms. Shepherd, gave me an introduction to your office at my MP orientation. I asked her a simple question: What is the difference between lobbying and influence peddling? She gave me the simple answer that influence peddling is illegal, which was partly what I was looking for.

In my experience, a lot of former MPs and staffers go on to become lobbyists. I guess it's better money for fewer hours. What is it they're selling? Is it the fact that they are well known and well respected, and if they call, everyone takes the call, and based on their connections and reputations they can therefore get more meetings? Are they offering process knowledge on how the House works and subject matter knowledge to policy-makers? One of those, I think, is influence peddling and one is lobbying. Where do you draw the line between the two?

[Nancy Bélanger]

That's an interesting question.

First of all, lobbying, as defined in the Lobbying Act, is considered a legitimate activity. Influence peddling is a different story. If you're a former designated public office holder, you're not allowed to lobby for five years, so with the scenario you have given me, I'm not sure where we'd draw the line with respect to the facts, either.

I can only apply the law as it is written, and it recognizes that lobbying is a legitimate activity. In fact, I appreciate your opinion, but I have also met a number of public office holders who don't share your opinion and who actually believe that lobbying is a legitimate activity, and professionals in government relations actually provide them with information they need to make the decisions that are in the public interest.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

When they provide information, I find that useful. When they say, “You should do this because of who I am”, I find that less useful.

I'm wondering if you have any way of measuring if they're in compliance with the act, when it is still considered to be lobbying and when it ceases to be considered lobbying, regardless of the five-year cooling-off period. Not all of them were ministers or staff at that level.

[Nancy Bélanger]

What I can say is that under the code of conduct there are rules for which lobbyists are not entitled to put you, public office holders, in a situation where it puts you in a conflict of interest or demonstrates that it's preferential access or preferential treatment. If there is a previous relationship that exists for whatever reason, that would be improper. Beyond having fact-specific cases, I can't go beyond that.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Understood.

In what circumstances would you provide an exemption to the five-year cooling-off period?

[Nancy Bélanger]

The Lobbying Act provides that I can give an exemption for those who have been there for a very short period of time, who had administrative duties, possibly in an acting position for a very short period of time. In the last year we had 11 requests, and one that came from last year, so we had 12. Three withdrew. Of the nine requests, I granted four and declined five. The four were all because the individuals had been there for administrative support and/or were summer students, for example.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Understood.

I'd like to give the remaining time I have to Mr. Erskine-Smith. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

You have three minutes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

I take note of your concerns about the current budget envelope. We just had Mr. Dion here. He had no such concerns. I won't comment on the workload, but it does occur to me that combining the offices would.... You have complementary functions.

With the Information Commissioner, with which you have significant experience, to some extent there are complementary functions with the Privacy Commissioner, but oftentimes they are at odds, in the sense that sometimes access to information is at odds with privacy. They view their respective jurisdictions—and rightly, I think—as wanting to protect privacy if they're the Privacy Commissioner, and wanting to protect access to information if they're the Information Commissioner. In a way, I can understand not combining those offices, although there are probably efficiencies to be found.

In the case of the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Ethics Commissioner, I'm a bit baffled that they are not one office. What do you think about that?

[Nancy Bélanger]

For sure if there's consideration to join the two offices, there should be a study to look at whether or not there could be some efficiencies in costs. We have no one who does HR. Our server is held by OPC. We have the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which offers us all its services and contracting in HR. We use the outside. I don't have enough people, 27, so we do have a contract.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yet the Ethics Commissioner is sitting there with HR and...?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I don't have that luxury.

I do believe there are cost efficiencies that could happen. Whether it's worth amalgamating, I don't know because I have not done the study.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I see.

[Nancy Bélanger]

What I would recommend the committee do, if it's something that you are considering, is approach our provincial counterparts. Both information and privacy are joined in the provinces. On lobbying, my colleague in Ontario holds about seven hats. It might be interesting for you to speak to them.

The issue becomes institutional bias. How can you be requested something from the lobbyists, knowing possibly what a member of Parliament has disclosed to you? It's how you manage or create the walls to ensure that one set of information doesn't influence the other, although having the full picture sometimes might help.