Information & Ethics Committee on May 2nd, 2017

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to also give you a chance to answer—I'm not sure if we'll have time or not—what my colleague asked you in his question about the situation with Santis Health. He asked about your mandate and the law on public office holders who become lobbyists. In this particular case, it's a former adviser to a minister seemingly being able immediately to turn around and lobby the government. Can you comment on your mandate and how this would...?

[Karen Shepherd]

Well, what I can say in general terms is that the five-year prohibition applies to designated public office holders, who cannot act as a consultant lobbyist for five years in terms of lobbying the federal government. They cannot work for an in-house, non-profit organization for a period of five years, no matter what their percentage of time individually is spent on lobbying the government.

The five-year prohibition for those going into a corporation, though, is that they cannot lobby more than a significant amount of their own time, which is 20%.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Are you at liberty to comment on the particular issue that my colleague referred to? Are you aware of the particular situation?

[Karen Shepherd]

I can't comment on that one.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly. We're out of time.

We now move to Mr. Erskine-Smith for five minutes, please.

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

Commissioner, thanks very much for being here.

As a new commissioner comes in, there is a transition period. You spoke a little bit about the electronic changes that are happening. If you were to look ahead for the next mandate, what advice would you give to the new commissioner in terms of resource allocation? Is everything as it should be, or are there areas of improvement that you would identify within the office?

[Karen Shepherd]

Well, I guess it would all come down to the priorities of the new commissioner. I think the base funding for our program, as I was saying, is fairly stable. There does need to be continued money into the registry and in the development. There was a period of time, after the budget cut of 5%, when as a stopgap measure the development was put aside. Development needs to continue. With investigations we're trying to be proactive as well, so trying to improve the technology in terms of getting better integration and getting better business intelligence will help in terms of being able to find the trends and go after things in that way a lot better.

If more money could be found for things like outreach, that would be helpful. The more that the roles and responsibilities are clearly understood, it potentially reduces the money going toward compliance or other areas of investigation. But in terms of the priorities, when you're looking at the system in terms of the registry, for example, things like that, I mean, that's something that can't be stopped.

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

I take from your comments a couple of the ways in which the act, or your office, could potentially be improved. One is the inclusion of administrative monetary penalties in your powers, and there's another that maybe you could expand on. Would you have any other recommendations for improving the act or your office's powers? From Mr. Ehsassi's questions, do I take it there's a definition in the act that you would potentially look to expand or improve upon?

[Karen Shepherd]

In terms of whether administrative penalties were given, or compliance agreements, I would suggest that, yes, this is something I would have in the act. Then the process would have to be developed to ensure natural justice and so on.

In terms of where transparency could be improved, as I was mentioning, at this point it's oral and arranged with designated public office holders, with the exception of a financial benefit but organized by the lobbyist. I say “exception” in terms of a financial benefit, because it doesn't matter who organizes it. When I look at the monthly communication reports and the importance of transparencies with these high-level decision-makers, then I think it would be more transparent to have those who are actually attending the meetings being listed in the registry.

With regard to removing the word “arranged”, as I think I said before this committee the last time I was here, a lot that happens—running into somebody at an airport lounge or at a reception—may not be planned. If it's not planned, it could be some good concentration of lobbying. I think if the encounters are important, then that's something I would suggest—

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

In looking at the administrative monetary penalties and the size of the penalties, do you think the current sanctions that exist are effective enough?

[Karen Shepherd]

I would see it complementing, because I think we would have more of the continuum. Right now for summary convictions it's the maximum of $50,000, and $200,000 for indictments.

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

Yes.

[Karen Shepherd]

On educating and monitoring, if I'm looking at the fines, there is nothing in between. Even my colleagues in the provinces, as I mentioned, have a maximum of I believe up to $25,000. Then there are penalties that would still go to the courts.

So it would not be replacing it. There would be clear criteria and it would be at the discretion of the commissioner as to whether it's something that could be handled within the administrative monetary regime and not something that has to go forward to the RCMP, who then have to investigate the issue again, and then it has to go through the prosecution. It's more costly, but I would not remove it, because there are some things that might warrant things going that far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Mr. Erskine-Smith. That ends that five minutes.

We now move to Mr. Jeneroux for five minutes, please.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Wonderful. Thank you very much again.

I will follow up on some of my questioning.

You mentioned the media monitoring. Would you mind explaining a little bit of what you do with the media monitoring? Does that include question period as well?

[Karen Shepherd]

It's anything that's brought to my attention. Media monitoring is is done on a daily basis to see where there have been references to lobbying. Further analysis is then done to determine whether it is provincial or federal...because sometimes the word can be used quite loosely if there are individuals who are paid within the organization. For organizations or corporations, we may end up sending out advisory letters to an individual to make sure they're aware of the act and to let them know whether they're in compliance. Those are the kinds of things, so any manner of things might be brought to my attention.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

So you wouldn't necessarily open an investigation from that? Would you need a request for an investigation? Or would you do that based on somebody being monitored?

[Karen Shepherd]

Do you mean to look into a matter? No, I can open something, but as I was mentioning before, it has the continuum going through. When an allegation is brought to my attention, whether through media monitoring or complaints or some other means, the first thing that is done by the investigative team is to assess whether it falls within the mandate. We have had things that have not been within my mandate; they've been within a colleague's mandate, or they've provincial matters, for example.

Then there's an assessment, what we call a fact-finding stage, which can be quite extensive. With what we call the “level two” ones, senior investigators are doing those. They're doing a more comprehensive analysis. They're interviewing witnesses, and then coming up with a determination as to whether something is founded or not founded, whether there is reason to believe that an investigation is necessary to ensure compliance with the act and the code. All of those are taken into account at that stage before a recommendation to open an investigation happens.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Okay, so just to close that loop, if the recommendation from your investigators—are they called investigators?

[Karen Shepherd]

Yes, they are, senior investigators.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

If they make a recommendation to you to open up an investigation, then it's your decision to do that or not?

[Karen Shepherd]

Yes.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Okay.

I guess now with regard to what's commonly been referred to as the Prime Minister's cash for access, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are wondering what's going on, and it falls to you to make that decision. You've opened an investigation, and now it's an active investigation, which we know you're not commenting on, and we're hoping that you will conclude it by June 28. Is that...?

[Karen Shepherd]

I just want to be clear. I said I'm looking into all of the matters. I haven't confirmed what the status any of the files I'm looking at might have.