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.
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It is not a lot, but it sends a message. If officials themselves can stick to that limit for hospitality when hosting people from outside, I do not know why lobbyists could not do the same thing. That is the first point.
Secondly, I understand what you are saying about $80 when an organization has many members and wants to meet as many people as possible by holding a number of events. In that case, for any additional event, the organization can ask for my permission by submitting an exemption request and tell me how much the event will cost and who will be invited. That is a possibility.
I do not know what the ideal solution might be. I cannot rely on receiving reports on the number of times, let's say five, that a lobbyist wants to take someone to dinner. I do not receive that kind of complaint, but I can read the newspaper.
I would be pleased to hear what solution the committee would suggest in this regard.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
No. I apologize. We were over the five minutes.
Thank you, Ms. Bélanger.
We're going to go to the next round. We will start with Mr. Kurek.
Before we do, I'm also going to remind committee members that you've held off on posting this code in the Canada Gazette as a result of this committee's request. We sent a request to have you appear before the committee. I want that to be kept in consideration as we move forward, because obviously the delay in posting it has resulted in a delay in the implementation of the new rules.
There may be a desire on the part of the committee to provide some further recommendations to the Commissioner of Lobbying as a result of this meeting, or, as we discussed the other day during our committee business, it may be that there is interest in this issue and that other witnesses may wish to appear.
With that backdrop, Ms. Bélanger, at the end of the meeting, maybe you could give us an idea on what the game plan is on your side in terms of publishing the code in the Canada Gazette. What timeline are you looking at? What are the reasonable expectations of the committee as to providing some input as a result of this meeting, or for other stakeholders who have shown some interest in this issue?
We are going to move to the next round with Mr. Kurek. You have five minutes.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner, for all your testimony today.
Especially when it comes to some of the headline-driving subjects like conflict of interest, one of the challenges that many Canadians have is that it seems as if no number of rules seems to stop it, whether it's the Prime Minister or other cabinet ministers being found to have not been complying with the act as those who would endeavour to circumvent them.
Specifically when it comes to the Lobbying Act, one of the very troubling aspects of the testimony I've heard today is the number of interactions. You talked about there being very few people who reach out and ask for advice.
How can we make sure that this is a subject of conversation that dominates headlines not only when the rules are broken but that we can create a climate in which there is more transparency, more accountability, and ultimately better trust built into our institutions around the act of lobbying?
9:55 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Thank you. I can only comment from the perspective of the Lobbying Act.
One of the greatest aspects of the Lobbying Act is the registry. There is a lot on that registry. It is transparent, but not everybody needs to go on that registry; therefore, there is definitely a gap. It is a concern of mine that there is a lot of communication happening that's not covered by the Lobbying Act, so it needs to be fixed.
With respect to the code, I am really hoping that this will set a new bar on the gold standard that we expect people to abide by. The clarity will give me the teeth to be able to investigate and report on it. I am hoping that it will have a positive impact on the trust that Canadians can have with respect to ethical lobbying and transparent, ethical lobbying.
I would note that it would appear from the media that many of you have been lobbied about this code. None of it has found its way onto the registry, so I don't know who has spoken to you about this. I'm suspecting that they are the same people who provided submissions, but that's a problem. I'm not sure what I'll do about that problem, but it is a problem right now. Hopefully, the code will help.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
The comment was made earlier about a difference between somebody who speaks with a backbencher or an official. Perhaps an official reaches out for clarification about something that was said in a previous meeting. There's a big difference between that and somebody who is asking the government for a billion-dollar contract.
This is encouragement rather than a question, and it's to try to find a pathway to ensure that we can develop a culture of transparency, as has been talked about, in the entire system, and make sure that the text messages or phone calls that seem to help determine who gets contracts are certainly dealt with.
In terms of the issue of political activity, all of us around this table are very familiar with political activity in door knocking, phone calls, putting up campaign signs and whatnot.
Can you outline, for the sake of those who are watching, your experience in terms of coming to the position you did in your proposed roles when you're trying to find that right balance? There's a pretty big difference between somebody who knocks on a few doors a couple of times during a campaign and somebody who would do so to influence a public office holder.
Can you outline a bit as to how you came to the conclusions that you did?
9:55 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Based on the questions we received over the years looking at the different roles that people play during campaigns and.... Of course, we only give a list of examples, because I'm not the expert, and people have different titles. We came to the conclusion, again with the charter backdrop, that with respect to people who are knocking on doors, they should be allowed to knock on doors. However, if they're not knocking on doors with you, the elected official, on a daily basis, a different relationship is created with the person who's doing it.
A former MP told me once, “I don't even know who knocks on doors for me.” I get that. Therefore, that would likely not cause a sense of obligation. This rule is to send a signal for people to call us if they're not sure. There is a difference, and I hope we have identified that difference on the list of different types of activities.
The second category would be people who have frequent interactions with the person who is seeking to be elected. If that doesn't happen, then there really is no cooling-off period.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Kurek. Thank you, Ms. Bélanger, as well.
We will go to Mr. Fergus. I understand there is an agreement among the parties that this will be the final round of questioning, and then I may have some comments after that, Ms. Bélanger.
Mr. Fergus, you have five minutes.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much.
Please don't interpret this as being a lack of interest. I think we could have you here for several hours.
My second question is with regard to the charter. As you know, there are fundamental rights to participation in section 3 of the charter. You've looked and you think you've found a way that has a minimal impact upon this, yet I come from the belief that if we are going to limit Canadians' charter rights, then we should do so through legislation. I am a little concerned about codifying this without having that larger public debate, with all due respect to the extensive consultations you organized.
This really comes down to the soft part as to what is a significant influence and what isn't, and I think we need to be very careful about limiting people's charter rights. We have this idea that lobbyists are these evil folks. I think they are just people who are trying to help organizations. Some do a lot of great work for NGOs and for people who don't normally have a chance to have a voice, to try to get the attention of MPs, legislators and public office holders, who are all over the place.
Rather than having this change through guidelines, or codified through guidelines, do you think it would be a better move to have it done through legislation—that is, actual changes to the Lobbying Act—so that Parliament could have an opportunity to discuss this?
10 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Certainly I do, if you tell me the Lobbying Act will be changed in the next few weeks, but that is not going to happen, and I need to find a way to regulate what's going on now.
Currently there is already a rule in place, and it has been there since 2015. I'm now trying to l'encadrer in a way that meets charter obligations. When you think about it, I could have one rule that simply says not to lobby anyone who has a sense of obligation towards you, and leave it at that.
I will get lots of complaints in my office, which I will not be able to get through, because I only have 28 people. This code is to try to explain how we are trying to limit when and how, based on considerations. People should call us, and if they call us, we will be able to give them proper advice.
Let's not forget that you have your own obligations if you feel like someone is.... I don't know. If a campaign manager helps you to get elected and they come and lobby you after the election, is that appropriate? We're saying that it shouldn't be happening if we want to enhance public confidence in the decision-making process. That is why we've limited it. If this committee believes it should be five years—
10 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Let's say there is a sort of sign chair, a person who is responsible for putting up signs or coordinating volunteers to put up or repair signs that are damaged during an election. It could be a volunteer coordinator—
10 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There will be no prohibition for that person. Of course not. We've created a list of those who we thought would be doing more important and high-profile work for you and another list of people who interact with you on a daily basis. For everyone else, there is no prohibition. If people are cleaning up the signs, they will be able to lobby you the next day.
There is a nuance, and we try to provide examples of where that nuance will happen. It will be a case-by-case basis.
10:05 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I hear you. It is a serious issue, and I have known from the moment I was appointed that this was a serious issue, based on the guidance document.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
It would seem to me that the most important aspect of it is the transparency aspect.
10:05 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Absolutely.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
That is what we should ensure—that people know what is going on and who is speaking to whom. That would be, to me, the primary aspect of it. Everything else is a variation.
As you said, it's a process of evaluation, which makes it really tricky to do. Some people would qualify to fall into that strategic role and some people wouldn't, so that is where that unfairness or arbitrariness comes in that makes me feel uncomfortable.
10:05 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It makes you feel uncomfortable. I can tell you that if someone calls my office and says, “This is the role I played” and I'm not sure where they fit, I will call you. I am not shy. I will call you and say, “What did they do for you, and do you think it's the right thing?” I much prefer preventing to having their name on the registry as lobbying you and then having on the first page of the news that they've lobbied you when they helped you and they acted in an important role for you.
It is tricky. We are hoping that we can have conversations with lobbyists and with you and say, “Look, what do you think?”, and then we will determine the cooling-off period on that front.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I have just one comment to you, Mr. Chair.
You mentioned it. I think the statement you made before we entered into this round is important. I would enjoy having that conversation before the new regulations are posted. I think this is a question that has come up from all parties, and all the rounds of questions we've had have been with respect to exploring this a little further. It's very important.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Yes. I think I'm going to leave a little time at the end so we can discuss that with the lobbying commissioner, Mr. Fergus, just in terms of those timelines and any potential future input as well.
Thank you.
Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes or a bit more, if you wish.
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If the answer takes longer, I will ask for a bit more time.
We talked about prevention and rapid intervention. I would like your thoughts on that. I suppose the people who consult you are not the most problematic cases, but rather the ones who are most compliant with the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.
At the other end of the spectrum, the problem cases are the ones reported in the media. I am thinking of Frank Baylis, the WE charity, McKinsey, Aga Khan and company, in short, the big, juicy cases.
When you have to conduct an investigation, do you rely entirely on newspapers or do you have other sources?
If so, do you have sufficient resources to identify the problems before they are reported in the media? Do you have the resources to conduct preventative work, to catch things before the fact as much as possible? Are investigations only conducted after the damage has been done, when it is too late, the contracts have been awarded, the media are aware and the matter is before the courts and so on?
10:05 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There are several parts to your question.
10:05 a.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Let me start with the first one. No, I do not have enough resources. I have enough for 33 employees, and we usually have 28. We have an important mandate, we work hard and we are all tired.
I made a request for additional funding in order to add seven employees, primarily to fulfill my mandate to raise awareness in order to prevent problems rather than correct them.
As to the information used in our investigations, I do not rely on what is published in the newspapers. Those are allegations and I don't talk to journalists. That said, media reports often lead us to open a file.
Our most important witnesses are you, public office holders, the people lobbyists talk to. If you have not received a letter from me, perhaps you will some day. I would then ask you for a written record of your discussions with certain persons and I would interview you.
The witnesses we rely on are public office holders, public servants, senators, ministers and their staff, and their records documenting the discussions that have taken place. That includes their agendas, since they show with whom they met and when the meeting took place. That is what lobbying is: communication with public office holders.