Evidence of meeting #78 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 bains.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for coming.
I will state that I have no relationship with Mr. Bains.
4:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
I know that Monsieur Villemure will be happy to hear about that.
My first question is actually on the issue of frustration with the 20% rule. How old is that? How long has that been in place?
4:55 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It was 2008.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Okay.
We've heard that over 200 members, as I believe you've mentioned, have been advised about the rules around this before they leave, but that how many come back and actually check if they're in compliance or not varies.
In 2017, for example, the former Harper government Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Denis Lebel, was appointed CEO of the Quebec Forest Industry Council. Did this member reach out to the conflict of interest or the lobbying commissioners' offices to ensure the appointment was compliant?
That is for both of you.
4:55 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I don't recall the specific file, unfortunately.
However, as I've mentioned, if a public office holder contacts the office, we examine the file, we review all of the information that's provided and we provide guidance and advice based on information that has been obtained either through the reporting public office holder or in the media, on government websites and so on and so forth.
I cannot comment.
This is the normal course of action, usually, when a public office holder does contact the office.
4:55 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I also wasn't there in 2017.
What I think would happen—our process that we would undertake—is that, when we see someone leave, we actually try to reach out. There's a lot of movement, but when we see people go, we try to reach out to give them their obligation, which is simply to not communicate with federal officials. We don't really have a role to play in where they go and work, as long as they understand the rules.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
I think I heard you mention someone who holds official power. Would a CEO be categorized as someone who holds official power?
4:55 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Yes, but I don't know if I'm the one who....
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Okay.
On the issue of exemptions, I wanted to ask a question. The Lobbying Act contains restrictions on former designated public office holders, including a five-year prohibition on lobbying. However, individuals can apply to you for exemption from these restrictions.
Can you please remind the committee of the nature of these restrictions that are set out in the act with respect to the post-employment period and then maybe follow up with what circumstances there are to grant the exemption?
4:55 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There is a form online that anyone who wants to be exempted from the five-year prohibition can use to make a request to the office. There is a non-exhaustive list in the act that would allow for someone.... For example, they were a student and they were in the ministerial office for four months as someone who did administrative duties only. Not all DPOHs are created equal, but this rule applies equally to everyone. That would be something to be looked at as well if the act were to be reviewed, because it could be a sliding scale, depending on your role and your position.
We do look at the role they played and at the network they've created because, really, at the end of the day, that's the purpose of the restriction. It's to not take advantage of the connections—the people you've gotten to know and the network—for the benefit of your new employer or your client. We do look at the role, the function, the network and the length of time they've been there to decide whether or not an exemption can be granted.
In the last year, I think we looked at eight. I did not grant any in the last year. I think I denied six, and two were withdrawn. That will be in my annual report, which all of you should have access to tomorrow.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Could you describe, without naming names, why the exemption would be denied?
5 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It's mainly because of the types of networks and the functions they had. If they were someone who communicated with many departments, who was involved in many departments and had a very close relationship with people of authority, with members of Parliament, then we would not grant the exemption, because they can take advantage of those jobs when they leave office to then communicate.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Bélanger, just to reduce the level of frustration, and without talking about the 20% threshold, can you tell us which three improvements you would like to see made to the act? The Lobbyists' Code of Conduct was recently reviewed, but what about the act?
5 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I always find it dangerous to underscore only three or four items where there could be improvement, because the recommendations we made in 2021 were all part of a whole. If you do something about one aspect, it will have an impact on others.
If I really had to mention exactly three, I would definitely mention the threshold for inclusion in the registry of lobbyists. The information in the registry could also be more detailed and comprehensive.
There's another matter that frustrates me. I know that I really look like someone who is frustrated, but I can assure you that's not the case. I would say that one thing that needs reviewing is the monthly communication reports. To determine whether these need to be disclosed, it's important to know if they've been arranged, and by whom they were planned. In other words, not all impromptu oral conversations need to be entered into the registry. It's somewhat tiresome, because many conversations were not entered into the registry simply because they weren't arranged. I feel that all oral communications should be disclosed.
I would also recommend a broader range of sanctions. At the moment it's either a report to Parliament or a file sent to the RCMP. There's nothing in-between.
5 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Yes, because not all breaches equally serious.
5 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I'm getting back to your comment about the fact that the act needs to be reviewed. It hasn't been since 2012, and so it's time for the government to prioritize it, because there's a lot of lobbying going on and there's no sign of it slowing down.
5 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There's definitely more and more.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Villemure.
Mr. Green, you have two and a half minutes.
Go ahead, please.