Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 17th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call this meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting No. 59 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of June 23, 2022, and therefore, members can attend in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Please note that we may have to suspend for a few minutes, as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, November 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of the third edition of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I am informing the committee that all witnesses appearing virtually have completed the required connection test in advance of this meeting.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses today. From the Government Relations Institute of Canada, we have Megan Buttle, who is the president. Welcome, Ms. Buttle.

From Lobbyisme Québec, we have Jean-François Routhier, Commissioner of Lobbying.

From the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, we have Shannin Metatawabin, chief executive officer. From the Public Affairs Association of Canada, we have Mr. Kyle Larkin, who is the treasurer. He is attending in person.

We're going to start with our opening comments.

Ms. Buttle, you have up to five minutes for your opening statement to the committee. Please go ahead.

[Megan Buttle, President, Government Relations Institute of Canada]

That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting the Government Relations Institute of Canada, or GRIC, to discuss the draft third edition of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

Let me begin by introducing GRIC and our mandate. GRIC is a national not-for-profit organization that represents both in-house and consultant professionals from across the country. Our members advocate on behalf of charities, non-profits, national and provincial member-based associations, unions and the industry writ large.

We are, of course, acutely interested in the draft third edition of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

GRIC has been an active and constructive stakeholder in the multi-stage consultation initiated by the Commissioner of Lobbying on her proposed changes to the code. Although we acknowledge that there have been several improvements from previous drafts, there remain two areas of critical concern for our members.

The first relates to rule 4 and the suggested updates under “hospitality”. The proposed annual limit of $80 poses a significant challenge for our members, particularly with regard to the logistical and administrative challenges involved in tracking the combined value of hospitality to a specific individual over the course of a calendar year.

While we appreciate the commissioner's testimony, wherein it was suggested that doing so involved simply dividing the total budget by the number of those expected to attend a particular event, in our view that's an oversimplification of what has been proposed.

To meet the proposed annual hospitality limit of $80 per official by tracking MPs, senators and other public office holders who have previously attended receptions and received hospitality would be nearly impossible and would impose an undue burden on some members.

As all of you know, receptions or meetings and briefings are, for many, based well outside of Ottawa. They provide a chance to meet with several decision-makers at once rather than hosting individual one-on-one meetings. Presently, the code functions well under the requirement that lobbyists should be limited to providing reasonable hospitality.

As this committee is already aware, public office holders are already subject to the Conflict of Interest Act, which requires them to disclose gifts totalling more than $200 in value over a 12-month period. In addition, both the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Act prohibit gifts of any value that could reasonably be seen to have been offered to influence the public office holder or to create a sense of obligation.

The second concern for our members, and one that the committee has already heard a great deal about, relates to rule 9 and the limits on political activities, which our members see as a direct violation of section 2 and section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

GRIC believes that if limitations must be imposed, doing so should be done through thorough debate in Parliament, not through a non-statutory instrument such as the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. Our members strongly oppose this section and believe it's a dramatic overreach.

More practically, while we accept that a cooling-off period may be necessary for those within senior, high-profile and strategic roles, unpaid volunteers who support campaigns in lower and less prominent roles should not be subject to cooling-off periods that would potentially impact their livelihood.

By their very nature, lobbyists or those who may be lobbyists in the future are engaged in the political process and often want to take part in the election of their representatives. All of you rely on volunteers to help you during your campaigns, campaigns that neither you nor the volunteers know whether or not you will win, let alone whether you will be elected to government, become a parliamentary secretary or have the honour of being named to cabinet.

Our fear is that this measure will severely limit volunteer engagement and create an additional regulation in an area where no identified systemic problem or issue has been presented to date.

To close, as the Commissioner of Lobbying herself stated, Canada has one of the world's strongest set of lobbying rules. They are balanced, reasonable and transparent. However, we are concerned that the overly prescriptive nature that the commissioner is proposing in certain areas may add complexity and confusion and may limit the ability of ethical and professional lobbyists to engage and inform elected officials on important public policy issues.

We urge the committee to consider our feedback, and we ask that the commissioner consider revising these two sections of her recommendations to continue forward.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions as they relate to our concerns with, and positions on, these proposed lobbying changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Buttle, for being very efficient with your opening statement. That was less than five minutes. I appreciate that, and the committee does as well, because it will give us more time to ask questions.

Mr. Routhier, I will now invite you to make your opening statement. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Jean-François Routhier, Commissioner of Lobbying, Lobbyisme Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to share the views of Lobbyisme Québec on the oversight of lobbying activities, and more specifically on the ethical rules that apply to the practice of lobbying. I humbly hope that by sharing our expertise and our research into lobbying best practices I will be able to contribute to your study.

In Quebec, the Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Act was enacted by the National Assembly in 2002. It applies to lobbying of parliamentary, government and municipal public office holders; this makes it a unique scheme with the broadest scope in Canada. The first commissioner then adopted the Code of Conduct for Lobbyists, in 2004. The code derives from the civil law and provides the general rules of ethics and conduct with which lobbyists must comply in their practice.

My presentation today is part of the well established culture of collaboration among Canadian officials responsible for regulating lobbying. That is also the spirit in which Lobbyisme Québec participated in the consultation conducted by the federal commissioner concerning the code of conduct she is proposing.

Lobbyisme Québec is very active, and has been very active in recent years, in researching and implementing best practices in lobbying oversight. In 2019, Lobbyisme Québec tabled a report in the National Assembly that proposed a reform of the Quebec legislation based on principles inspired by national and international best practices. In fact, the report attracted interest from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which in turn published a complete study of the Quebec lobbying oversight scheme in March 2022 and made recommendations for incorporating international best practices into that scheme.

On the subject of the rules of ethics and conduct in Canada and Quebec and elsewhere in the world, the legislation that provides for oversight of lobbying generally recognizes the legitimacy of lobbying when it is conducted transparently and in a sound and ethical manner. Those schemes are sometimes supplemented by ethics and conduct guidelines, as is the case in Quebec and in the federal government.

In our view, transparency and ethics are responsibilities that are shared between the persons who perform or benefit from lobbying activities and public institutions or office holders. It is therefore important to strike the right balance in apportioning those responsibilities. From that perspective, the laws and codes that govern lobbying should not, in our opinion, be used to make up for flaws in other transparency, ethics or integrity schemes, including those that apply to public office holders.

In addition, we believe that the laws that govern lobbying activities have for too long focused on the individuals who perform those activities rather than on the companies, consulting firms or clients by or for whom those activities are performed. We think that the apportionment of responsibilities is still incomplete.

Even though the federal and Quebec schemes are intended to ensure transparency in a large proportion of influence communications and have a number of factors in common, they unfortunately also share flaws that limit the scope of that transparency. The most notable example is the concept of "significant part", by virtue of which a firm's lobbying activities need not be disclosed until the point when the time spent on the conduct of those activities makes up a significant part of the job or function of the individual who performs them.

The federal and Quebec schemes also differ on certain points, in particular as regards the two cases reported by the federal commissioner and raised by her when she appeared before the committee: political participation and hospitality. The treatment of those matters differs significantly between our two jurisdictions.

However, we understand very well the federal commissioner's concerns, in that, absent a statutory revision, and considering her own situation, she chose to propose amendments to her code of conduct. The purpose of those amendments is to enable her to clarify the objectives of transparency and ethics enshrined in her act and put those objectives into practice better.

Thank you for your attention and I am entirely at your disposal to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Routhier.

The witnesses today are not using all of their speaking time. That's good, since committee members will be able to ask more questions.

Next I have Mr. Metatawabin.

Sir, you have up to five minutes for your opening statement. Go ahead, please.

[Shannin Metatawabin, Chief Executive Officer, National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association]

Good morning, everybody.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

My name is Shannin Metatawabin. I am the CEO for the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, or NACCA, and I am a member of the Peetabeck First Nation of the Mushkegowuk tribal territory.

Thank you for the invitation to testify as part of your committee's study on the third edition of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is hosted on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

NACCA represents a national network of 58 indigenous-led lending institutions. Our members make business loans to first nations, Métis and Inuit entrepreneurs. We advocate for our member institutions and on behalf of indigenous business development in general.

As far as I know, I'm the sole indigenous representative invited to speak on the revised code of conduct. This is unsurprising, in a way. Though a number are growing, only a handful of indigenous organizations can be found on the registry of lobbyists. Indeed, indigenous advocacy is in some ways unique, following from the special relationships our people have with the Crown. Paragraph 4(d) of the Lobbying Act exempts members of first nation band councils or self-governing indigenous governments. Many national and regional indigenous organizations might argue that they too are exempt.

For our part, NACCA made the decision to join the registry in 2018 at the urging of our government relations consultant, Isabel Metcalfe. Our registration ensured that the advocacy work would be transparent and guided by the same standards that apply to all organizations.

I will save my few comments on the revised code for the end, using most of my time to explain why we embraced the lobbyist registry and to highlight some of the benefits it has brought to NACCA.

First, we are not rights holders and an entity exempted from the act. Rather, we are a national indigenous organization that operates in a competitive business environment. Ensuring we have a clear record of interactions with public office holders is simply good business practice. The principles set out in the code—ones like integrity, honesty, openness and professionalism—are also front and centre of our own organizational values.

Second, NACCA is, without question, an advocacy organization. We do manage programs. Our indigenous women's entrepreneurship program, for example, offers microloans and business training to indigenous women. However, at our founding in 1997—we just celebrated 25 years—advocacy was our original reason for being, and it remains our focus now. Our cause is the full participation of indigenous people in Canada's economy, and it still cries out for public attention.

Due to barriers not of their own making, aspiring indigenous business owners still lack capital and support to participate in the Canadian economy. We have every reason to remind federal office holders of this. We take pride in the registry's list of meetings, which provides a record of our effort to do so.

Now I'll speak to some of the benefits we have realized since 2018.

The first is that the record itself is freely available to our members, other business organizations and public office holders. Second, our upholding of the code of conduct has helped increase faith in us as a credible, trustworthy organization. Our presence on the registry sends a clear signal. We belong to a growing, new generation of indigenous business leaders who are confident to play by the same rules as other business organizations.

Finally, and most importantly, being a registered organization has opened doors for NACCA at the highest levels. We are a known quantity and have gained access to dialogue and decision-making tables that we could not have dreamed of before.

Your committee invited me here to comment on the proposed draft code of conduct for lobbyists. On this, I would make only three points.

First, the new code puts forward what appears to be reasonable and well-grounded amendments.

Second, some have questioned the hospitality limits as too strict. For our part, we appreciate clear, modest spending limits. They help level the playing field for organizations like ours, which do not have deep pockets.

I would like to compare it to the treaty-making process. My treaty was assigned four-dollar treaty payments that have remained in place for more than a hundred years. It's not reasonable to assume that the value of money maintains the same level of spending. Doing this in legislation is probably a bad idea.

My third and final suggestion would be to canvass the views of other registered indigenous organizations. Our own perspective is shaped by our work as a national advocate for indigenous business development. Other indigenous organizations could well have a different take, and are coming on board in increasing numbers.

To close, I thank you for the invitation to attend this meeting. I welcome any questions you may have.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Our next witness, for up to five minutes, is Mr. Kyle Larkin.

Go ahead, please.

[Kyle Larkin, Treasurer, Public Affairs Association of Canada]

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for braving the snow this morning to be here in person.

My name is Kyle Larkin.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee for inviting us to testify today.

I'm the treasurer of the Public Affairs Association of Canada, also known as PAAC. As you may know, PAAC is a national not-for-profit organization that represents hundreds of public affairs professionals across the country. Our members come from both the private and the public sectors, in areas such as industrial and financial companies, Crown corporations, consulting firms, small businesses, ministries and municipalities, PR organizations, trade associations, educational institutions, and law and accounting firms.

I'm pleased to be here today with my colleague Megan, from the Government Relations Institute of Canada, whom we have worked closely with in engaging on this consultation for the renewed Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

I would like to begin my remarks today by stating that while some of the changes to the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct are welcome, others are truly a solution in search of a problem.

As you've already heard from other witnesses, the commissioner has proposed an annual limit of $80 for hospitality, which includes parliamentary receptions.

As you know, receptions in Ottawa and events across Canada are a unique opportunity for elected officials to meet with Canadians who are working in a variety of different industries. Lobbyists have the pleasure of working with these individuals on a regular basis. Craig from Barrie, Sue from Hamilton and Christina from Vancouver have all attended parliamentary receptions hosted by associations over the past year. None of them or the thousands of other business leaders who visit Parliament annually are registered lobbyists.

The current rules already disallow lobbying at receptions. Receptions are instead a unique opportunity for an association, charity or industry to raise its awareness among parliamentarians. There are tens of thousands of associations, charities and companies in Canada, and for some, the only way to connect with elected officials is through a reception or event. These events also allow parliamentarians to meet Canadians from across the country who are on the ground and building businesses, creating economic development and supporting their own communities.

To ensure that these important democratic functions are able to continue, we are proposing that the term “reasonable” continue to be applied to receptions, as is the case in the current code of conduct.

The second area that PAAC finds issue with in the proposed Lobbyists' Code of Conduct relates to the new section on political work.

As you have also heard from other witnesses, the new cooling-off period limitations pose challenges for the democratic participation that is allowed for all Canadians, no matter their profession. PAAC does believe that a cooling-off period should continue to apply to those who hold senior roles on campaigns, as this could potentially create a sense of obligation for public office holders. However, to hold this same standard for door knocking, canvassing, distributing campaign literature and other minor campaign activities infringes on Canadians' ability to participate in our democracy.

Furthermore, there are no examples of non-compliance as it relates to political activities that we know about. Lobbyists, many of whom have worked on Parliament Hill, are naturally passionate about Canadian politics. Many have also been involved in campaigns one way or another since a young age and continue to participate due to their belief in specific candidates or a passion for a certain political party. In no way are lobbyists participating in elections to create favour, and if they did create a sense of obligation, they would already be precluded from lobbying that individual.

Last, as you all know, volunteers are the backbone of local political campaigns. As lobbyists are naturally risk-averse and have a strong history of complying with the act and the code of conduct, many would cease to involve themselves during elections. While this might not have a tremendous impact on campaigns, it does create a system that excludes certain professionals from participating in our democracy.

Finally, I would like to thank all of you for taking the time to study the renewed Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. It's important that we get this right in order to ensure that transparency and accountability among lobbyists continues, while also mitigating unintended consequences on important democratic functions.

Thank you again. I'd be happy to take any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Larkin.

A couple of brownie points go to you for invoking Barrie in your opening statement, and Hamilton too—you threw one out to The Hammer.

We are going to start our questioning by committee members. Our first round will go to Mr. Kurek, who is online.

Mr. Kurek, you have six minutes, please.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for joining in the conversation here today.

Just to start, off the top, I think everyone around this table agrees on the need for a robust regime to ensure that there's accountability, so that ultimately Canadians can trust the system, both in lobbying and the way that lobbying happens as well as in federal decision-making.

I have just a few questions for some of the witnesses. I hope to get through to everybody. If not, maybe I'll have a round later in our meeting.

Ms. Buttle from the Government Relations Institute of Canada, you mentioned that there were some things that were improved in the updated code. Would you mind referencing a few of the improvements?

We've heard a fair amount about the challenges related to hospitality and the cooling-off period. I'm just wondering if you could highlight some of the things that you see as improvements.

[Megan Buttle]

Sure. Thank you. That was a good point.

There were many things that we saw improved. One that the membership really appreciated was the update to the preamble. There was an acknowledgement of transparent ethical lobbying and that it is a legitimate part of the public policy process to help inform federal public officials. We found that this part was really critical to involve and update.

We also found that the move from the four-year threshold within the political work to the cooling-off period of two years for senior and highly and strategically valued participants and volunteers in campaigns makes a lot more sense, particularly given the minority government situation.

Originally the four-year threshold was tied to fixed election dates. In today's situation, we all know that a fixed election date is often not the cycle we're operating in. We thought that reducing the cooling-off period to two years was more attuned to the actual situation with elections and what that rule was supposed to address.

However, we still have concerns around political work generally being added in through a non-statutory instrument like this.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I appreciate that.

Specifically on hospitality, you mentioned that your organization had highlighted some concerns. Could you suggest to the committee what your proposed solution would be?

We've heard a number of different things from different witnesses, but ultimately members of this committee are going to be tasked with trying to figure out what's best and defining that balance between accountability and transparency to ensure that Canadians can trust the system.

What would you recommend as a reasonable limit or process to ensure that there's never the perception that a politician can be bought off by somebody trying to influence them?

[Megan Buttle]

We do believe—and the membership was fully consulted—that moving back to or maintaining the “reasonable hospitality” wording, as opposed to a dollar limit, is more appropriate. It allows for a more common-sense application.

We cannot imagine lavish food or lavish drinks, if you can recall many Parliament Hill receptions. “Reasonable limit” is typically the best approach that can be applied by all.

The intention of receptions and hospitality is not to create that favour or sense of obligation. As I think was heard through many common remarks, a sense of obligation is already captured through many other elements of the code and the Conflict of Interest Act.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

If I could just push back here a little bit, I don't disagree, but we've seen that the word “friend” especially has a wide variety of interpretations. We've seen that very publicly in recent examples and over the last number of years.

I'm wondering if you could provide a definition as to what “reasonable” should actually be.

[Megan Buttle]

I'll leave that to the commissioner. I'd hesitate to create a definition around “reasonable”. I think it really implies that common-sense view. There's also the opportunity for anyone who has a level of confusion to reach out to the office. They do provide clarity and guidance on very specific circumstances. If there are questions or people are uncertain, the office is there to be a resource for individuals to reach out to and get that level of clarity on very specific circumstances.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much.

I apologize, but time is a precious resource here.

Mr. Metatawabin, thank you for coming. I really appreciate hearing about the organization and the good work that you do.

You mentioned the concerns around elections and ensuring that the right balance is struck to encourage engagement from the members you represent—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Excuse me, Mr. Kurek. Mr. Villemure, I expect, is having a challenge with interpretation.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It's the sound quality that is causing a problem for the interpreter.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It was brought to my attention as well. I was going to let the round finish. I have stopped your time, Mr. Kurek.

There is something wrong with your microphone. It sounds muffled. We can hear what you're saying, but it's not clear for interpretation. Can you take your microphone and put it down a little bit further? That might help for the minute you have left. If not, then we may have to try to fix the problem, and the clerk has already identified that.

Go ahead.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Chair. Hopefully, this is a little bit better.

Mr. Metatawabin, I'm hoping you can expand on what you would suggest that balance should be to both encourage democratic engagement, but not ever—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Sorry, Damien; it's actually not better. It seems to be a little bit worse. Do you have another headset around, or is that the only one?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

This is the one they told us we needed to use. We were told the other ones weren't acceptable anymore.

I will cede the remainder of my time to Mr. Barrett. I'm sorry to put you on the spot there, Michael, but there was about a minute left, to my understanding. I will endeavour to get this resolved.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Damien, do you have that on your iPad? Is it connected to your iPad, or what's it connected to?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

It's connected to my iPad.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That might be the problem, according to the technicians.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett, or Mr. Dalton.