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.
4:45 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
His name in the registry will just be added on, because he will be communicating with federal officials. Only if he communicates with cabinet members will there be an “oral and arranged communication” then added on to the registry.
If his name is just added to the registry as someone who communicates with federal officials, until he has an “oral and arranged”, you will only know the departments that he is communicating with.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
As reported in the media, he reached out to your office and received confirmation that he can accept the position without contravening provisions within the Lobbying Act as a former public office holder.
You confirmed with him that's without him contravening his five-year lobbying restriction as set out in subsection 10.11(1).
4:45 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
As I stated in my opening remarks, It's not my role to approve where people go to work. I just have to make sure that they do not communicate with federal officials, because if they do, it's an offence and then I investigate it and send it to the RCMP.
My role is to make sure that, wherever they go to work, they understand the rule that they cannot communicate. However, because Rogers is a corporation, he can communicate up to 20% of his time. I don't understand why that is in the act, but it's there.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
That is actually the lead-in question. I hear a bit of frustration in your voice, or at least I'm perceiving that.
Can you share a bit about why that exemption might actually undermine your ability to effectively rein in this perceived conflict of this perceived lobbying?
4:45 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I am frustrated, and I apologize to the committee if I sound frustrated. This Lobbying Act has to be amended. There are gaps and there are loopholes, and there is a lot of lobbying that can occur without people knowing. Now is the time to start fixing it.
I feel like a broken record when I keep repeating these issues with the act. The issue here is not Mr. Bains. He has said publicly that he will not communicate with federal officials, but the act would allow him to up to 20% of his time. That's one day a week during a month. That's a lot of phone calls. That's a problem.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
While we're on the topic—I know it's a broken record, but it's one that I like hearing—can you please recap some of the other ways you would close the gap on the lobbying loopholes that you've identified?
4:45 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
The obvious one is the “significant part of the duties” threshold for organizations and corporations. There have to be 30 hours a month of lobbying before an organization or a corporation needs to register. That's a lot.
That gap needs to be closed. It should be transparency by default.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Would you agree that, particularly for a former minister, you wouldn't need 30 hours in some instances? A phone call to an old friend in cabinet might be enough to open up doors that otherwise wouldn't be open for the corporation you're now employed by.
4:45 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Absolutely. It doesn't make sense that if you go and work for a charitable organization, you can't pick up the phone at all, but if you go and work for a corporation, you can.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you. I appreciate that, and I acknowledge that your frustration isn't at us per se, but at these gaps that, as a committee, we can hopefully provide recommendations on and see the government finally move on them and close them.
Thank you. I'll concede the rest of my time.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you for that, Mr. Green.
Thank you, Madam Bélanger.
We are going to a second round, starting with five minutes.
You have the floor now, Mr. Gourde.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here. Their testimony is really very interesting.
I'd like to return to the issue of the 20% of working time that can be spent on lobbying. As you pointed out, Ms. Bélanger, It's a rather generous loophole. People manage to get good jobs after they cease to be designated public office holders, and the amount of time they are allowed to work on lobbying on behalf of the organization that has hired them will perhaps never reach as high as the permitted 20%. For example, it might involve working directly on a policy or contract worth $100 million, $150 million, $200 million or $300 million. So it's understandable why an organization would decide to invest in someone and pay them $300,000 or $400,000 a year, given that only three or four years later, they might well be awarded a contract. It's easy to deal with the 20%. Basically, all that's needed is to track what they do.
What I'm disappointed with is the public perception about the loopholes that interferes with your work. These loopholes shouldn't remain in place for too long, and it shouldn't be so easy to circumvent the Lobbying Act. In fact, people don't even need to circumvent the act, because it's built that way. They'll follow it to the letter, but will succeed in achieving their ends, because it's not all that difficult. That makes it hard to hold them to account.
Do you have any advice for us on this?
4:50 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It's not complicated, and all that's required is a review of the act. The act has been enforced since 2008 and a review is required every five years. It has only ever been reviewed once, in 2012, so it's been 11 years now.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
I'd like to go back to something. Everything is based on the jobs that public office holders have after they leave office. They might, for example, be paid to provide advice. Let's say that the act is tightened up and henceforth requires total transparency. Former designated public office holders could say that they gave their advice free of charge to the organization and were not paid, but then receive a cheque 10 or 15 years later if a contract is awarded. So throughout this entire period, they could be giving advice free of charge, because they are independently wealthy. Once again, they are circumventing the act.
So, what's to be done?
4:50 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
The issue of payment is another aspect of the act that needs to be looked at.
In the Yukon, the "directing mind" concept was added. If the individual, whether paid or not, has a level of authority or management capacity, then that individual is covered by the act.
It's another aspect that needs to be looked at, but it would require a revision of the act.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
If these people appear to be hidden away, meaning that their names are not necessarily listed as being part of the organization, that would make the investigation rather special.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
It's going to be hard to plug that loophole. It might be possible to deal with a few gaps, but not all of them.
4:50 p.m.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I totally agree with you that it's impossible to cover all situations. I nevertheless think that we really can do better.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
I have a question for you now, Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, about ethics.
We are MPs, and all kinds of lobbyists try to get in touch with us to invite us to dinner. As MPs, should we always pay for the lobbyist's dinner to make sure we're not receiving any money from them? Let's say the meal cost $75 per person. What should we do in these instances to protect ourselves? It's impossible to hide the fact that every week, there's someone who wants to have a dinner conversation with us.
4:50 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
According to the former commissioner, whose role was equivalent to the current Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as soon as a lobbyist is involved, a gift is unacceptable. You should therefore pay for any entry fee, your meal or anything else when a registered lobbyist is lobbying MPs from the House of Commons. Whether any actual lobbying takes place or not, a precedent has been established and we ask all MPs to pay for their own meals.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
As you said, we don't know whether they are registered lobbyists or not. Sometimes, people just want to meet us to feel things out about certain areas. Basically, we should never agree to have someone pay for a lunch or a dinner because we don't know how our conversation with that person will be used.
4:50 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Exactly; that's the test you're expected to undergo: can you reasonably think that the meal was paid for with a view to influencing you? In circumstances when MPs have had, or expect to have, dealings with an organization or an individual, they should not accept that kind of gift.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Gourde.
Next we'll go to Mr. Bains for five minutes.
Go ahead, please.