Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 17th, 2023

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

Thank you, ma'am.

Go ahead, Mr. Metatawabin.

[Shannin Metatawabin]

From what I've learned from what I've been participating in, and having been taught by Isabel Metcalfe on transparency and ethical processes, this is really what the code instills, I think. All of them hold their reputation really closely and follow to the t what they need to do. They stay away from the things they don't need to do. I think it's working, in that sense.

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

Monsieur Routhier, go ahead.

[Jean-François Routhier]

Fundamentally, I think that responsibility for compliance with ethical rules lies first and foremost with public office holders. Governments, parliaments, must adopt rules that are consistent and complementary so that everyone knows what they are and is able to obey them. The lobbying oversight system should not fill the gaps in other oversight schemes that apply to the integrity or ethics of public office holders.

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

It sounds like maintaining the reputation of the lobbyist and the integrity of their profession is so important that they maintain that risk aversion and see so few contraventions of the rules that apply to them, which is certainly in stark contrast to the example that Mr. Dalton raised with respect to all the findings under the ethics code and the ethics act.

Thanks very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

We will now go to our final intervention of the morning. That will be Ms. Hepfner online.

You have five minutes, Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Through you, Chair, I would like to begin by directing my questions to Mr. Metatawabin.

I have to tell you that I really appreciate that you took the time to participate here today. I found your intervention and your opening statement extremely interesting. It gave us more insight than I think we've heard from some other witnesses today.

I got from you that the lobbying code as it is in Canada actually levels the playing field among lobbyists, and that to change it in the way that has been proposed would not level the playing field. It would actually do the opposite, when, as I understood from the lobbying commissioner, the intent with these amendments was to level the playing field. What I got from you was that it would have the opposite effect.

Can you confirm and reflect on that for me?

[Shannin Metatawabin]

I think the intent is to give equitable access to all groups. If you take a look at the lobby registry, you'll get a good indication of where the world is going or where the needs in the community are. I think the National Association of Friendship Centres was number four in December for lobbying, because they were challenged a lot after the pandemic in the urban centres for indigenous people with housing and other services.

Making too many changes creates too much complexity. By having us participate and having some basic rules to operate under, it's working well. When you start to get into amounts, it's going to complicate things. I think that if we remain reasonable when things seem to be working relatively well and lobbyists are playing within the rules, not modifying that code as much would probably make more sense.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I also got the impression that you were speaking of lobbying as a right that you have to exercise. I'm wondering if you feel that these changes would remove some of your rights in that way. Can you reflect on that?

[Shannin Metatawabin]

I don't think I'll touch the exemption that our nations hold on a nation-to-nation basis to be able to have discussions and opportunities to engage with the Crown. I am speaking as a CEO of a national association that is an advocacy organization, and we're just creating these new mechanisms of engaging the government to make sure that everybody knows what we're doing and how we're helping the community. There's a public good happening from our work. We want to make sure that everybody knows about it.

The rules to get us there, with the cooling-off period that might eliminate some students who are working for a politician and might be trying to get a job.... That's not what the intent is. Let's clarify that we're not talking about them. We're talking about people in high-influence positions more than we are about all these nitty-gritty details, these minute details that might be eliminating certain people who shouldn't be eliminated. Let's think about that more than getting into the finite details.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

My colleague MP Green mentioned in our last meeting that there seems to be a vilification of lobbying as a profession: that it seems to have a connotation that's less than favourable. What do you think about that? Do you agree? Is that a problem?

[Shannin Metatawabin]

I think it probably comes from the history, right? It was mostly subject to a small group of corporations and people of influence. Take a look at society in general. People of colour have been separated from the system—from the finance, the education and the health system. Now that we're being included more in the system, you're going to start to see us being more involved. There's a larger group of us, so you're really seeing that it's going to be a funnel, with a larger group of people trying to fit into a certain number of meetings that political people can have. Having equitable rules for everybody is a good thing, but let's not over-complicate it.

Thank you.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

Really quickly, Mr. Larkin, tell us why people would volunteer for a political campaign.

[Kyle Larkin]

You probably know the answer to that question more than I do, but I would say that individuals—it could be young Canadians, seniors or any Canadians—are volunteering on political campaigns because they want to be participating democratically and they're passionate about individual candidates or individual parties that they personally believe in.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.

That concludes our questioning by the committee members.

I do have a couple of questions that I'm going to go around on with the witnesses. They're going to be very direct.

On the process by which the commissioner engaged with stakeholders during this entire process of updating the lobbying code of conduct, do you believe, in your opinion, that it was fair and reasonable?

I'll start in the room with Mr. Larkin.

[Kyle Larkin]

Thank you.

I do believe it was fair. Three rounds of consultations in any manner is fair.

I would say that we have made strides in certain areas. The first proposed code of conduct that came in, in the first instance, proposed a $30 limit on hospitality. That also included tax, service fees, labour, the room charge, etc. It simply would have made receptions impossible. We've moved from that to $40, just for covering food and beverage. It's still a challenge. It still would make events nearly impossible, especially if you include any cultural elements, be it kosher food, indigenous food or halal food—no matter what it is. Also, food differences across Canada—a red pepper cost is different in Ottawa from what it is in Nunavut—are also not necessarily accounted for.

The consultation in general was well done. I would say that there is still more room to grow.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Larkin.

I'll move next to Mr. Metatawabin, please. Go ahead.

[Shannin Metatawabin]

I think consultation should be expanded a little more. I think we are the only indigenous organization that was consulted with. I'd like to see the National Association of Friendship Centres engaged on their interpretation. They've been doing a lot of lobbying. There are other indigenous groups that are also within the space.

On the last comments that were just shared, I think I share them as well. The amounts for hospitality need to be considered more.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Mr. Routhier, do you have any comments, sir?

[Jean-François Routhier]

I think the process followed by Ms. Bélanger is a transparent process, in which there were several rounds of consultations. I believe that if comments are made to her regarding the possibility of improving the process further, she will certainly be very receptive.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Routhier.

Ms. Buttle, do you have any comments on that?

[Megan Buttle]

I believe it was fair that there have been some positive changes, but I do believe that certain sections are not reasonable when practically applied, nor do we see the notable issues that require these revisions as a whole.

Generally, the consultation process has been fair and open.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I do have one more question. We're going to reverse it and start with Ms. Buttle.

Is there any new information that you provided to the committee today that was not provided to the commissioner when she did her consultations?

[Megan Buttle]

No. We provided the same consistent information in this testimony in prior submissions.