Evidence of meeting #23 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It is quite prescriptive.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Okay, so that's the direction we're going in.
Finally, earlier, you talked about clarity. What aspects do you see as needing clarity?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
In fact, we would need clarity with regard to the rules concerning gifts.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
The concept of the current Lobbyists' Code of Conduct was very much based on what is reasonable.
I'm not sure that what is reasonable for one person is also reasonable for the other. So there may be abuses. I try to make the code clear with clear indications of what is beyond the acceptable limits. That's where I'm going on the side of clarity.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much.
I would suggest accountability; it's an interesting concept to examine.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It is, indeed.
Thank you.
Conservative
Blake Desjarlais Edmonton Griesbach, NDP
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our witness for being present with us today in person. It's a nice touch to be able to know exactly the folks who are doing such great work in our public service. Thank you very much for that.
You mentioned a few really interesting points related to the review. It was a review that was supposed to be regularly scheduled. The last regularly scheduled review was in 2012. That would mean five years from 2012 to 2017, so we're almost lapsed for a second review of the act. I understand the importance of your review and the work you've done in terms of your recommendations here. I think they're very good, and parliamentarians should take those concerns seriously.
I want to address one of them in particular, in relation to the final recommendation, recommendation 11. Recommendation 11 states, “Provide immunity against civil or criminal proceedings”. This is one that I want to wrap my head around to understand the motivation for your recommendation here. I think Canadians would also like to know what level of immunity these persons should be able to be protected by in order to actually do the work of advancing your office's mandate, and whether that is appropriate.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Every other agent of Parliament has that clause. I think it was simply an oversight in the Lobbying Act. It's in the performance of our work, obviously, but we do important work. I do send files to the RCMP. I do believe that my staff and I should have the same protection that my colleagues have. I think it was really an oversight, and I thought I should flag it as something that should be included in it.
Edmonton Griesbach, NDP
Thank you very much for that.
Given that experience and the understanding that other offices may be doing this, there's a slight difference in mandate, I would assume as well, so maybe it's not necessarily an oversight in that case. What concrete examples, in your experience, can you provide of prior situations where a lack of immunity impeded the work of the commissioner?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It has not impeded my work at all. I do my work. To me, I think it is an oversight. I have not felt threatened. There has been no situation in which I think that clause would have allowed us to do more work. It really was just a flag that it should be in there, like any other agent of Parliament.
Edmonton Griesbach, NDP
Thank you very much for that.
I guess we'll move to a different item related to the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. You mentioned it at the very end of my colleague's good questions. It's here in your department plan for this current year we're in. There's a renewal and modernization process that I understand is required for this code of conduct, and there are some key initiatives. Your office actually conducted some consultations. You mentioned that they've finished the second round of three.
Edmonton Griesbach, NDP
I'm really curious about how those first engagements went. Can you provide some feedback as to what you heard in terms of your engagement with those folks in the first two rounds?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Sure.
There is no requirement to renew the code. That was a decision on my part, because after five years of dealing with it and identifying some issues, some concerns I had with the code, I thought it was time to do it. I had also heard from the lobbyists that at the end of the day our guidance document was clearer to frame their behaviour than the actual rules themselves, so I thought, okay, we have a problem here.
The first consultation was in fact for them to tell me what they wanted me to know about how they thought the code was working. I did not have suggestions. In that round, I think I only had four responses. Then we issued a draft code, and I received 40-some comments and suggestions. There was also a template letter; I received about 180 of the same template letter.
Then I went through them all. Now we've readjusted and we are going out on the third consultation. As I was saying, I really want to get this as right as possible, so we should issue a third consultation next week.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Yes. I hope so.
Edmonton Griesbach, NDP
In terms of what you heard from these responses, I understand that this consultation is not yet complete, but in terms of the third round and the planning that would likely have to go into absorbing those recommendations, how long do you think before Canadians can expect to see a new code being released?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I suspect that I won't get that many comments this time around. I think what will happen is that I will be sending it to you for your review, because those are the steps, if you choose to review. If I get permission, I may end up sending it to you over the course of the summer. That's if I'm allowed. I'll look into the rules.
Obviously, I would want to see in the fall if you had a reaction to it. Otherwise, it would be gazetted and then in force after that, obviously with some transition, depending on when facts occurred and when the code would be applicable. I'm hoping that in the fall or in the new year there would be a new code in place.
Edmonton Griesbach, NDP
In my last 20 or 30 seconds—I apologize for the time—what can we anticipate some of those changes to be?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It's about clarity and making it a lot more prescriptive than it is now. That's really what you're going to see. It's straight to the point. It has very specific rules.
We've really enhanced the expectations we have from lobbyists. We've really defined it. There is no guidance required. Everything is in one package with very clear definitions, examples and standards for the behaviour.
