Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2023

[Nancy Bélanger]

In the world, there are about 11 countries that have codes of conduct. Of course, it will depend on their regime. I've read them all to see if I could get inspired, and for the most part they're very much principle-based. Very often the authorities don't necessarily have the power to investigate and regulate.

I would say, for example, that when it comes to political work, codes are actually quite silent, even in this country. Only in Ontario has my colleague suggested there should be a cooling-off period, and it should be for a year.

We are one of the best, and people look up to us, but there are still improvements to be made. I am hoping that this is what this will do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner. That concludes your six minutes.

Thank you, Ms. Bélanger.

Ms. Normandin, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bélanger, thank you for being here.

My first question is related to the one my colleague, Mr. Kurek, asked. You may already have answered it, but I want to be sure I fully understood your answer.

What I understood is that if the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct is violated, a commissioner can conduct an investigation and ultimately table a report in the House.

Could the commissioner possibly do that when someone is supposed to be registered as a lobbyist but is not?

[Nancy Bélanger]

That's a good question.

In the case of a person who is supposed to be in the registry, but is not, I would conduct an investigation. If I have reasonable doubts that the person should have been in the registry, I have to suspend my investigation and report it to the RCMP.

The Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying is on the lookout then. If the file comes back to us, I could make a report to Parliament to explain the situation. But is it worth the effort to investigate someone who was supposed to be in the registry, in accordance with the Code? I do not really have the resources for that.

I would probably advise you that this person was supposed to be in the registry. If the person is not in the registry, that is a violation of the Lobbying Act, and I have to report it to the RCMP.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Perfect.

Once you conclude that the person should have been in the registry and there are grounds to investigate non-compliance with the Code, you conduct an investigation? If I understand correctly, you have the authority to do that in such cases.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Yes, definitely.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I have a question about calculating the 12‑month or 24‑month period.

Parallels have been drawn with the duration of MPs' term in the House of Commons. As we know, their term of office is shorter when there is a minority government.

Should this not have been studied in relation to a sense of obligation, using psychologists' reports, among other things? I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

What led to establishing a term of two months? Was the sense of obligation considered?

[Nancy Bélanger]

If I may correct you first, we are talking about 12 or 24 months, not two months.

We considered the following: the current guideline says 5 years or nothing at all. We looked at how things are done elsewhere around the world. What I can say is that it is the people who are lobbied who have to comply with the regulations. If the person has a sense of obligation, it is up to them to decide whether they should meet that person.

For my part, I decided to establish a rule because there was one in 2015, but I could simply have banned lobbying of anyone who has a sense of obligation toward to the lobbyist. We wanted to provide a rule as a guideline.

I looked at all the bans in place.

Under the Conflict of Interest Act, a minister may not engage in certain activities within two years of leaving their post. For other office holders, the ban is for one year.

After you leave your job as MPs, you may not engage in lobbying for five years. That is the ban you are subject to.

I had to compare restricting political activity for a period of time and depending on its importance with the case of persons who, like you, held a position for at least two or more years.

I did not hire a psychologist. The sense of obligation is really what matters. It is based on facts, the role you played and its importance to you. We would certainly interview you if we were to investigate a lobbyist who had contacted you but wasn't supposed to.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

In that case, the burden is on the official rather than the lobbyist.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Yes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

But the official would not really face any consequences if they did not declare a sense of obligation to the lobbyist, who, on the other hand, would face consequences.

[Nancy Bélanger]

I do not make regulations pertaining to your role, but you may contact Mr. Dion, your resource person on ethical matters.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Ultimately, there would not be any consequences for the lobbyist nonetheless. Is that correct?

[Nancy Bélanger]

There would be a consequence for the lobbyist.

If I conclude from my investigation that the person should not have lobbied you, I report that to Parliament. The only consequence is to the person's reputation as a result of a report to Parliament. There is no penalty though.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

If I understand correctly, you have received legal advice referencing a potential Charter violation relating to the right to political activity.

I wonder though if that should not instead have been analyzed in terms of the right to work.

Political activity comes first. The inability to perform part of one's work comes next. This raises a few questions. I do not think it is people's political activity that is being limited, but rather their right to work, just as a former MP is prevented from being a lobbyist for five years.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Nancy Bélanger]

I completely agree with you.

When I asked for a legal opinion, I did not limit the question to political activity. I asked a number of questions, and a rule preventing someone from working subsequently does indeed have legal implications relating to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What is most problematic is not restricting the right to political activity but rather limiting freedom of expression by preventing a person from communicating with you.

All I can say is that our rule was intended to restrict rights as little as possible in very specific situations. This would probably justifiable since we are trying to prevent any relationship with a sense of obligation. The objective of the rule justifies the restriction of rights and freedoms, which is nonetheless very clearly defined.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I think my speaking time is up but I will have more questions for you.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin and Ms. Bélanger.

Next we go to Mr. Cannings for six minutes, sir.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you for coming before us here today.

I appreciate that you've been producing this new set of guidelines or rules to provide more clarity. The problem is that the more you try to be clear, the harder it is. There are a lot more questions about the clarity on the details.

For instance, there's the new rule regarding gifts. I assume this is replacing the old rule. The old rule mentioned favours and other benefits. This new rule does not. Is that true? If that's the case....

[Nancy Bélanger]

No, the definition of gifts would include favours and benefits. It's still included.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay. It didn't seem to be there. There are no gaps in terms of...?

[Nancy Bélanger]

No. If you look at the definition of gifts, we've given a list of examples. It's quite broad. It's really any advantage.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay.

The same thing goes for the definitions of who's a friend and a close friend.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Yes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Is that when you expect people to pick up the phone and call you? They'll say, “I have somebody whom I met at a party three times in the last year. Is that person a close friend or a friend?”