Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2016

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Great.

It seems as though their five minutes last a lot longer than our five minutes, but anyway....

Getting back to some of my earlier questions, I would like to maybe get a bit more clarity from the lobbying commissioner.

You mentioned preferential access and what that looks like. I think you mentioned in the code you published that you view the matter of having that access realistically and practically.

Where I'm coming from is that yesterday in the House there was mention of the Minister of Justice having a spouse as a registered lobbyist. I'm curious as to how you view preferential access. If you're sitting down at a dinner table every night, there's a bit of preferential access. What kinds of steps do you take, so we're clear on this side about what that means?

[Karen Shepherd]

In the guidance I've provided to lobbyists, preferential access occurs when they share a relationship. For example, I've defined “friend” and “family member”. It's also if there are financial dealings.

In terms of “friend”, it's where there is a close personal bond of affection that goes beyond simple association. To be clear, it's not part of the lobbyist's broad social or business circle. For a “family member”, it's immediate family members—spouses, children, and parents of both—and the financial interest.

In terms of making sure, in doing my outreach activities I've been making very clear to lobbyists that it's out there. I also do outreach activities with public office holders, in terms of talking about what the obligations and requirements of the lobbyists are.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Do you then work with the conflict of interest commissioner? Do you touch base on any of this at all? Is it completely separate?

[Karen Shepherd]

During my two-year consultation process, I did hear from public office holders. Before publicizing the guidance, I showed it to my colleague. In terms of the “friend” definition, it is actually based on a definition that was used by my colleague in another report that she had done.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Then a spouse wanting to be a registered lobbyist would go to you, obviously, because that falls within the Lobbying Act, but the member would talk to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, who would then determine whether or not there is a conflict of interest. Are you solely looking at the lobbyist without, then, any of the perceived preferential access that you mentioned earlier?

I'm trying to draw the connection here.

[Karen Shepherd]

I think the way you said it is correct: the lobbyist would be coming to me to determine whether he or she is in breach of the code or to get good guidance—as I was saying, a number of people are doing that—and the member would be going to my colleague, I assume, to determine whether the relationship is problematic for the member.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Would the member then report back to you?

[Karen Shepherd]

The member would not have to report to me. The guidance I'm giving to the lobbyist is clear: if you have a relationship in which there might be seen to be a sense of obligation, you should not be lobbying that particular individual. If the individual is a minister, you should not be lobbying that minister and/or his or her staff.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Even though the minister is part of a larger cabinet, and...?

[Karen Shepherd]

The overall precept that's in rule six is that the lobbyist should always ask himself or herself if the sense of obligation or the preferential access would exist if the lobbyist were to call someone else.

To be clear, lobbying is a legitimate activity. It's not to stop someone from lobbying.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

So don't call your wife. Okay.

[Mary Dawson]

I should mention that quite often the public office holder will come in with their spouse or the other implicated person so that they both understand what our rules are. That's not uncommon at all.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

That ends that round.

Our last five-minute question goes to Mr. Saini of the Liberals.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madame Legault, I would like to pick up on my honourable colleague's comments in the last round of questioning.

In your report you wrote that 2014-15 was an annus horribilis—those are my words, but that is what I think you meant—and you said there was a continued refusal to properly fund the office and that it had led to an increase in the background of complaints.

I may be paraphrasing what you said, but you said that this was a concerted effort to deny Canadians the right to know. My question under what you've written, which is somewhat strong language, is this: do you believe that this was something done politically to diminish your ability to provide Canadians with answers? Could you just elaborate on that, please?

[Suzanne Legault]

It was very clear in all of our requests for funding that the office simply could not—and it still cannot—manage its workload. When I started as Information Commissioner, we had 2,500 files in inventory. We managed to bring that down to about 1,700 files after three years, and then budget cuts started. As we speak, we now have more than 3,000 files in inventory, and it keeps going up. It takes close to a year before we can actually assign an investigation file to an investigator.

This is in the context of a fundamental democratic right. This is what the Supreme Court of Canada has stated. I don't make these rules; I'm just here to administer the complaints function, which is part and parcel of Canadians' democratic right to hold their governments to account. In a situation in which the funding of the office continuously was cut....

As well, it was very well known to the government that this was the situation. I tried every possible avenue open to me to secure additional funding, which was refused. Hopefully this situation will be corrected so that we can properly investigate cases in a timely manner.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Why do you think it was refused?

[Suzanne Legault]

I don't know. I'm not privy to these discussions and these decisions.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The next question I have is for Ms. Dawson.

We talk about perception. Just to give you a bit of background, I'm a pharmacist from a small community. Now that I'm politically involved, I'm much better known, but a lot of my patients are very influential members of the community. When I go to events I may see them, I may appear with them, and they ask me for a photograph. You mentioned the term “broad perception.” How do you navigate that sort of profile that you now have as a politician and the profile that you also had prior to entering politics?

I know judges, I know captains of industry, I know academia, and I know people who own their own companies as a politician now, but I knew them before, not only as their pharmacist, but also as a member of the community. As a politician, how do you navigate between the two? I think there's this issue of perception that's getting muddled. Can we provide some clarity on that, please?

[Mary Dawson]

The main question is whether there is something that you can do for them as a politician. If you're involved in a committee hearing on some piece of legislation or something that will affect them, you'd better be careful. If, in fact, there's nothing between you and them in the way of business, there is no problem. People will make out of instances of people taking pictures together all sorts of inferences but, if there's nothing at stake, it's not a problem. My test is whether there is a situation of conflict of interest.

There's also the issue of old-time friends. Of course it's logical that you won't drop all your old-time friends. On the other hand, it's probably wise to be careful about what you're doing in a period of a year or two around some kind of important decision that you have to make in your professional job.

It's really fairly easy to decide whether there's something there that you shouldn't be letting them influence you on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I think that's about it. That does it for five minutes. You've got a prescription for perception there, I think, Mr. Saini. That's good.

We now have the last three minutes. Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to briefly go back to the budget, particularly in the context of the situation at the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.

Ms. Legault, if the government changes laws on access, how do you think this will impact your office's capacity or resources to process all of the requests?

[Suzanne Legault]

We are currently asking for additional funds simply to eliminate the backlog. Such a backlog has important consequences. I was listening to my colleague talk about surveillance in connection with national security. The Office of the Information Commissioner is not in a position to process 400 files on national security. A monitoring system is in place, but it cannot be effective. I have the right to see the documents to know whether disclosure is appropriate or not, but I do not have the resources to do so. This problem is real and present.

If the government decides to propose legislative amendments to the Access to Information Act, we would then be in a position to determine the impact on the office's organization. Legislative measures granting the power to issue orders were proposed in the mandate letters. Such an amendment would have an impact on the organization and the structure of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. We would then have to assess the situation.

We have already contacted our Ontario colleagues, who have the power to issue orders and whose office is of a similar size. We want to know how they are structured and how much money they spend. We are already doing that work.

We are also putting in place a code of procedure for investigations and institutions so as to clarify how files will be processed. This could easily be adapted to an order model.

We also intend to send some of our employees on arbitration courses to prepare for the transition. We are working in this way and if there are concrete legislative amendments, we will then do an assessment.

The funding we are requesting is temporary. Our purpose in requesting it is to eliminate the backlog.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you. That's three minutes.

At this time I'd like to ask a question from my prerogative as the chair.

Ms. Shepherd and Ms. Legault have been able to address the budget question that was asked earlier. I'd like to give Mr. Therrien and Ms. Dawson a few seconds each, if you don't mind, to advise this committee on the current situation when it comes to budgets for your offices.

We'll start with Ms. Dawson.

[Mary Dawson]

We have never had a big problem with our budget. We were generously given a budget when we started. We've gradually edged up so that we're spending almost the whole of our budget now, and we're not spendthrifts by any stretch. There probably will come a time in a year or two when we will ask for a bit more, but so far we have not had a problem.