Evidence of meeting #31 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lobbyists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Which of the recommendations you made in 2012 have not been applied and should be applied on a priority basis, in terms of lobbying?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Are you referring to the nine recommendations?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
As I said, in terms of transparency, there's no need to change the act. Transparency needs to be reviewed in the monthly reports. If the lobbyist requests the meeting, it must be registered.
It will be easier for me to speak in English.
Right now, if the lobbyist requests the meeting, it's registered. If the public office holder requests the meeting
unless there is some financial benefit,
then it doesn't need to be recorded.
So when you're looking at getting transparency, having the ability to see who is actually attending the meetings, I think, would increase transparency as well.
You can have the CEO of a company or an association listed on the monthly report, as required by the act, but he or she may not even be in attendance at the meeting. So, having the actual lobbyist in attendance is a priority that I would see, looking at the significant part of duties, and from an enforcement perspective, looking at the administrative monetary penalties.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
We'll now move on to the five-minute round, and we'll go back to Mr. Kelly.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll pick up in the same vein about the distinction of who calls a meeting and how that may colour how the activity is perceived.
Getting back to these small-style intimate fundraisers, to which lobbyists either may be invited or may be encouraged to attend, perhaps they think that's the most efficient or effective way to get the attention of a public office holder.
Do you see this style of fundraising as maybe a bit of a trap for lobbyists who really need or want to be able to get the attention of a public officer holder, in order to do their job? They may think that, if they are going to attend an event, they have to deliver, but they have to be able to gain access to the member, and the most effective way seems to be to gather in a small group to be able to interact with the member.
Can you comment on the obligations around both sides and how this creates an appearance, surely, of conflict of interest?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
As I've said, what becomes important is whether lobbyists are actually in attendance, in any encounter. With the act, because events where there are invitations would then be oral and arranged meetings, if lobbying occurred, they would have to be properly registered.
To go back to your question, this is something I consider to be serious, which is why I am currently looking into the matter. At this point, until I get more facts on the situation, I would prefer to wait to comment.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
You're welcome to keep it general and not talk about any particular event that you're investigating, but just general.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Well, it's hard to be hypothetical without having all of the facts, to be honest with you, because there are so many things with regard to people in attendance. I think the importance here is always that things happen to the highest ethical standards.
You're raising some questions that I think my colleague, in terms of the other side of things...are creating obligations. I mean, I think we're seeing in the media and so on that this is an issue that's potentially creating real or apparent conflicts of interest, which is why I'm looking into it.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
All right.
So, it's which side calls a meeting then. Again, if a lobbyist is advertising or holding a meeting with a member in attendance, can you comment on the distinction between that type of activity and an office holder holding a public meeting attended by lobbyists?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I guess I'm trying to understand your question. A meeting being agreed to by both parties is what determines whether a meeting has been organized in advance or not, and it doesn't have to be in a meeting room; it can be anywhere.
As I said previously, if someone were to see you going into the lounge or something and asked to talk to you, I would say that's an oral meeting and they have now arranged it, if you agree to sit with him or her.
So whether you ask to see them or they ask to see you, there's still an encounter.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Okay, I'll pick up on another thread.
Do you have any other suggestions for new directions that a potential successor needs to look at?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
To be honest, I think I've mentioned them. I have nothing else to add at this point.
Conservative
Conservative
October 27th, 2016 / 11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you for coming here, Ms. Shepherd. I think it's the second or third time you've come before this committee.
I'm going to ask a couple of very specific questions, and I'll get into some general comments. In some of the recommendations you made, and I'm highlighting recommendation number five, you state there needs to be an explicit requirement for lobbyists to disclose clients they are lobbying for rather than the firm that is hiring them.
Could you please speak a little bit about the background of this, and is there a serious problem with using big lobbying firms to disguise activities?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
What we have found in that particular one.... What we have now in the registration is to have them identify who the ultimate client is. But you have some consulting lobbyists maybe hiring, maybe subletting out, and so if you look at, let's say, the third consultant in line, they would be reporting to the consulting firm, but the consulting firm is not the client. Perhaps a non-profit or organization is the ultimate client. So it's who the ultimate beneficiary of the lobbying is. It wouldn't be that lobbying firm or that consulting firm. It would be the original client, so in the registration we have them now actually indicating that. There haven't been that many, but there have been a few cases, so the suggestion when we were looking at that was to make it explicit in the act, as a change.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Okay. The second point I have is this. Does the lack of an immunity provision, similar to the one given to the Auditor General, in any way hamper your ability to do your job, and do you think that having this addition would actually improve the work? Maybe you could cite some particular examples.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I don't have any particular examples because I have not, in my eight years, actually found anything that has stopped me, but it is interesting that it is in all of the other provisions except for the Lobbying Act, which is why to keep conformity, I would suggest it would be important. Maybe at some point in the future, if it could become an issue, it would be important to have it there.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Now here's a general question. Is there anything over the last eight years that you didn't expect, something that you encountered that you weren't prepared for? Did you resolve the issue? How did you resolve the issue? Is that something that maybe your successor should be aware of?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It's a good question. I think the one thing I would encourage a successor to keep is consultation, and this is where I think consultation has become particularly important. There was an issue that was brought before the courts by Democracy Watch, which found that is where the real or apparent conflict of interest had come in. So the previous code had rule eight, which dealt with conflict of interest but didn't have the specifics of real or apparent, and it was placing a public officer in it. After that ruling, I issued guidance on political activities because, for the particular event, the court case had dealt with fundraising.
What I found was that the guidance went out. There was a lot of stuff by the lobbyists who weren't happy, a lot of stories in the media about the conflict of political activities and restrictions. And the rule became very much known as “political activities” as opposed to “creating a conflict of interest”. That was one where—now looking in hindsight, maybe going back from what I learned with the consultation specifically in the code and since then—consulting and getting individuals to understand things would have probably made a difference in terms of that. That was, maybe, I don't want to say a backlash, but the unexpected...of applying a court case; I think it would have been better had there been consultations maybe with the lobbyists to say that this has changed and this is what it means. What I found for a period of time was that the rule really became almost about political activities. People were forgetting that there are other ways to place a public office holder in a conflict of interest, namely the gifts and the whole thing of preferential access. So that would be one of the things I learned over the years.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
You talked about education as part of your mandate. I know that part of it includes also educating or providing guidance to lobbyists. Do you think there should be a public education forum or somewhere where your office or your successor should try to educate the public on exactly what the office does, what the responsibilities of the office are, and what really defines lobbying?