Evidence of meeting #55 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 lobbying.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Just getting back to the one-year or two-year piece, listening to the questions and answers about the election cycles and how unreliable they are these days, was there any thought given to maybe defining it by the election cycle?
Someone who helps you in a campaign couldn't help you throughout that period when you're in office.
9:40 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It's interesting, because lining it up with a full election cycle also doesn't recognize that there are some political activities that can happen when we're not in an election period. I did not want to actually limit the application of this rule with respect to election cycles.
We said two years for the more important activities. It's from the moment the political work stops; it would be two years from there.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Thank you very much for your comments, Commissioner.
We've gone through a difficult time as a nation with COVID worldwide. A lot of money flowed from federal government coffers to assist.
There was one contract that has received some attention. I would appreciate your comments on this one. It was for $237 million for ventilators. It was a sole-source contract for twice as much as the competition, so it was a lot of money.
The problem with this is that the company—a new company—was owned by former member of Parliament Frank Baylis. In the 2019 election, he didn't continue, and it was just a number of months later.
I'm not sure how the application of this code applies right here, but I wonder what your comments are about this situation, Mr. Baylis's company and even those who worked with him.
Obviously, there are a lot of conversations. There's a lot of money and a lot of concern. He made a quote to the media, saying that he saw an opportunity to help and he took it. It seems like he helped himself and the company.
This is a real concern. Can you talk a little about this right here?
9:40 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
With respect to organizations and corporations, contracts are not in my bailiwick right now. If it is the wish of this committee and Parliament that it be, then the Lobbying Act needs to be reviewed.
Because contracts are not subject to the Lobbying Act, individuals who do have communications about contracts are just not subject to my code. Those who will have had this contract are subject.... There is a procurement ombudsman. I don't know if he has a role to play in this situation. You may wish to speak to him.
Public office holders are subject to their own regime. I do not regulate people who have contracts with the government because they're not considered lobbyists at the moment.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Okay. I have another example. It has to do with a lobbyist.
I'm thinking of the Aga Khan Foundation, which has received tens of millions of dollars. I know that this is maybe a few years back, but still I feel that very significant breaches were made, and the public feels this also.
It regards a trip that the Prime Minister accepted, receiving gifts and flights with all sorts of benefits. I wonder if you could comment on this and how the new code applies.
9:45 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Again, with any organizations that are registered to lobby, the individuals who are listed on the registry would be subject to this code of conduct. The Aga Khan is not someone who is registered to lobby. Therefore, he was not subject to it. This matter has gone to the courts and it's done. He was not a lobbyist.
Mainly, the Lobbying Act applies to people who are paid, so you need to be an employee of an organization or you need to be paid by a client. Currently, volunteers are not included in the Lobbying Act. That is another issue that we could discuss if the Lobbying Act were ever reviewed.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
The foundation itself is a registered lobby. That's just a comment on that point.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
The code is non-statutory, and it's supposed to complement the Lobbying Act. What teeth does the code have?
9:45 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
The teeth are that lobbyists are supposed to comply with it, and I am supposed to investigate when they don't and report it to Parliament.
The teeth right now are reputational. It is a report to Parliament about someone who has breached the code. That's it.
9:45 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It's reputational. Yes.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Very quickly, what element or aspect of this new code would you say you most want to highlight as far as the benefit is concerned?
If you can pick one thing, what are you most proud of or do you think is the best?
9:45 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It's all very good.
I'm extremely proud of my team. They have worked very hard on this. The client services people who work with lobbyists day in, day out will appreciate these rules.
I think it's the clarity. I'm proud of the process. We've listened to people. We have looked at everything. We have come down with an excellent code, which I'm very proud of.
I can't pick one thing, except for its clarity, possibly.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for being here today, Ms. Bélanger.
I have two questions for you.
I think my questions and those of my colleagues involve two key concerns. The first is the $80 annual limit, and the second relates to rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the political participation of Canadians, in this case, lobbyists.
Let me say that this is one of those things on which probably reasonable people can disagree.
Let me come in on the $80 question first. I love the idea of putting a $40 limit, or whatever limit you want to put, per interaction for hospitality for members of Parliament. I think that's very important. As a former lobbyist, I think that allows us to avoid les déboires.
If we do not want people going to a méchoui bearing gifts of gold, among other things, I think $40 is a reasonable amount.
9:45 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I agree with you.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
What I think can be problematic, however, are evenings and receptions hosted by a sector of activity. Consider an association that represents a number of members, such as Universities Canada, which includes 96 public universities from across the country. They can hold a gathering. MPs will attend to talk to their local university presidents. This is entirely acceptable, and is even beneficial. As an MP, I can meet not just the rector of UQO, but the rectors of all universities in Quebec. I could have a discussion about innovation, for instance.
If the number of meetings per year is limited, we will force universities to have individual interactions instead of group gatherings which are a time-saver for me. They are probably more worthwhile for them as well.
Would it not be preferable to set a limit per activity, say $40 for food and drink? On the other hand, if you are informed that a particular member, private company or organization contacts an MP five or six times per year, that is not reasonable.
Would it not be preferable to impose a limit per interaction, and provide guidelines to prevent excesses?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
That is a good question, but I am not convinced.
The whole issue of hospitality is not regulated right now. We decided on a limit of $40 per activity and $80 per year. In other words, if an association wants to hold more than two receptions, it will have to limit its budget for each reception. The limit is $40, but it is not necessary to spend the full amount.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
That's true. I can tell you that my daughter got married a few months ago—
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
That certainly cost more than $40.
