Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2023

[Nancy Bélanger]

Possibly. I haven't put much thought into that one. I think that any communication with any of you should be transparent and that the level of influence or the level of decision-making power is not something that should necessarily be covered. I think all communications should be covered under the registry. It should be transparency by default.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you, ma'am.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Bélanger.

Ms. Saks, you have five minutes and maybe a little extra after Mr. Barrett's interaction.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Madame Bélanger, for joining us today.

These are important questions and things that we definitely need to think about. The government and I'm sure all my colleagues here are committed to ensuring that lobbying of federal public officer holders upholds the standards that are here. Asking these questions about integrity and also enhancing trust in the regime itself is something I really value, as does everyone here, I'm sure.

Previously the rules surrounding gifts, favours and other benefits were deferred to other federal authorities. Your office has mentioned that this creates challenges in administering and ensuring compliance with that rule. Can you go into what challenges your office has been facing with this arrangement?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Again, since my appointment in 2018, I have received 12 phone calls about receptions and whether lobbyists can offer them or not. They know that even if I say not to offer it, if you can accept it, they can do it.

When people call us and ask if they can offer a $25 breakfast, we will usually say yes, but if they ask if they can give a $50 breakfast, and we say no, whether or not that has any weight is zero, because if they offer you the $50 breakfast and you eat it and nobody comes to tell you that you shouldn't have, it goes unregulated.

It is very difficult to give advice right now when I have to rely on all the other regimes. Again I repeat that it's not just you members; it's all public servants, who are all subject to different codes. There is a code of values from the public service, but each department sometimes has its own code.

There are challenges with respect to certainty, and then how am I supposed to find someone in breach of that rule?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Going in that direction, under this new proposed regime, you're essentially creating a $40 limit and an $80 annual limit for gifts and hospitality. It's a separated limit, from what I understood.

Is they separate, or is it the blanket amount for a public office holder in relation to a lobbyist per year?

[Nancy Bélanger]

It's in relation to the lobbyist. They can only offer public office holders—public servants, members of Parliament, senators, ministers, their staff—$40 per event, per breakfast. We have asked for an $80 limit.

In British Columbia right now, the annual limit is $100. Interestingly, in British Columbia, every time a lobbyist registers, they need to indicate the value of the gift.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I want to talk about that, because there's an incongruency now. It's not the same on everything or what the Ethics Commissioner had, for example. We all received radon detectors and gave them back because they were valued at $185, so we have this incongruency now.

If it's this amount and this amount, it creates a confusing regime, I think, for many folks. Could you comment on the incongruency and the values?

[Nancy Bélanger]

For lobbyists, it's going to be $40. There is no confusion. It's an $80 annual limit. If this committee thinks that I need to raise it to $100, I will consider that, but there needs to be a signal that this is a reasonable amount. In fact, it's more generous than what public servants can offer to individuals whom they host.

We came down with that amount, and I think it is reasonable. Not everyone agrees. Some have said that they should not be able to offer you anything at all, so we came down with an amount that we view as being reasonable.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Okay.

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 45 seconds according to the clock, but with the soccer extra time, you may have a minute and a half.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

We're feeling kind in -40˚ weather. I appreciate it.

I want to move into the 12-month and 24-month cooling-off periods. As my colleague Madame Normandin mentioned, with minority governments, election cycles might look a little bit different.

What is the change from what was previously defined? How did you get to 12 and 24 months, as opposed to...? Normally we think of an election cycle here as four years. It may or may not be. I come from overseas, where elections cycles can be six months. I would like you to weigh in because this is the nature of governments today. We may be going to elections more often.

[Nancy Bélanger]

That's why I'm not discussing.... The new rule will not have the concept of a full election cycle. It's gone. It was just in a guidance document. It was a “should” and it was really only if you had a very important role and significant interactions with the person you helped get elected. We've done away with full election cycles, and you're right that in the past few years they've been every two years.

What we did was to look at regimes. As I said, when we talk about political work, there is really no regime. With respect to political work, the only other cooling-off period I could find was from my colleague in Ontario, where it was one year.

That's unless, of course, there's an ongoing close relationship, and then a different rule applies. We came up with two years and a year in looking at the roles and the different regimes. The roles listed are examples. It really will depend on the importance, the relationship with you, the level of interaction. It will be two years. If it's less important, then it will be one year. If it's not much, it will be nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Bélanger and Ms. Saks.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Bélanger, I understand the issue of lawyer-client confidentiality. I will not ask you to produce something you do not want to produce, but I will nonetheless ask: is the legal opinion public? Is it possible to obtain a copy without requiring it?

[Nancy Bélanger]

That is a good question. I expected someone to ask that.

I am thinking about it. I have not yet made a decision, but I will give you an answer next week. I am very much in favour of transparency, but I also know the great importance of confidentiality. I would not want to create a precedent.

So I will think about it and give you an answer next week.

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

Thank you for your transparency and promptness.

I would like to continue on this topic and on the issue of respecting the Charter.

Among other things, you said that since the Code is not a regulatory instrument, we might want to look directly at the Lobbying Act itself. That is a task for MPs. Is that something you would recommend to the committee?

Do you think MPs should consider reviewing the act, for instance to consider increasing the duration of the ban and to place the burden on us to make sure we are not violating any requirements related to the Charter?

[Nancy Bélanger]

You have no idea how happy I would be to review the Lobbying Act.

The act calls for a review every five years, but nothing has been done since 2012. So it is high time for a review. In 2021, I appeared before the committee and was asked for recommendations. So I made some preliminary recommendations at that time. My thinking has evolved since then and I am ready to make others. You already have a document before you with my preliminary recommendations.

If the Lobbying Act is reviewed, I will certainly be here to assist and support you in your discussions.

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

I have only 10 seconds left, so thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

Next we're going to go to Mr. Cannings for two and half minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you.

There's the accurate information rule in this piece. I think it's been adjusted to prevent information that has not been reasonably vetted from being used for lobbying. I'm just wondering what some examples might be.

I hear from lobbyists all the time. Sometimes I don't believe a word they're saying. I'm just wondering when can I put up my hand and say—

[Nancy Bélanger]

This rule currently exists. We just reframed it or repackaged it a little bit. I have to say that it is probably one of the rules that gave us the greatest challenge in framing it in the right way.

I certainly can't be the keeper of the truth or of the facts, but in a world with a lot of misleading information out there, I wanted to make sure that when lobbyists do lobby you, they have done due diligence in taking reasonable steps to ensure that the information that they give you is not misleading. They will have to ask questions of their clients to make sure that the information is valid.

Of course, I can't breach freedom of expression. It's not to stop people from providing their opinions, but there is a bit of homework for them to do.

That rule really currently exists.

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

Can you expand on what “unreliable” is?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Well, “unreliable” would be information that they are aware is not accurate. I think that's really all I can ask of them, or that I will be able to verify whether or not it is accurate.

I don't have the resources to look at all the reports that you are given to make sure that they're accurate, valid and scientific.