Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Welcome to meeting number 84 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), briefing on annual reports and other reports of the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until you are recognized by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur, and these can be extremely harmful to our interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece that's worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters, I invite participants to ensure they speak into the microphone in their headset and that it's plugged in, and to avoid manipulating the earbuds and place them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

Please remember that all comments from members of Parliament should be addressed to the chair.

I would also say, in accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests, that I am aware that for everyone appearing remotely, the connection tests have happened.

Now I'd like to welcome our witnesses for the first hour today.

From the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, I want to welcome Nancy Bélanger, Commissioner of Lobbying, and from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner.

I thank both of you for your patience. We're starting this meeting an hour later than scheduled. I appreciate your taking the time with us this afternoon.

Commissioner Bélanger, you have five minutes for your opening statement, and you will be followed by Madam Maynard.

Go ahead, please.

[Nancy Bélanger, Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the work of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying together with my colleague the Information Commissioner.

The Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying is a micro-organization with a broad mandate set out in the Lobbying Act. The act requires the office to maintain a registry of lobbyists, offer education to increase awareness and understanding of the lobbying regime, and ensure compliance with the act and with the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

Despite the small size of our organization, we have the same extensive reporting requirements as all other federal departments.

We delivered on our mandate with a small number of employees—which averaged 28 staff positions in the last fiscal year—and with a budget of $5.2 million.

The number of registrations and registered lobbyists continues to grow each year, and 2022‑23 was no exception, with as many as 5,300 active registrations and 7,000 active lobbyists at any given time. The same is true for oral and arranged communication reports filed in the Registry of Lobbyists, which once again set a new record at 30,681.

We have enhanced the registry by introducing a search alert feature that notifies users when their selected keywords are added to the registry.

We also continued our efforts to contribute our experience and knowledge, both in Canada and internationally, with approximately 80 presentations to a variety of stakeholders.

On the compliance front, in 2022‑23, I determined that no further action was required in 27 cases. I pursued three investigations and made one referral to the RCMP. As of September 30, we had 36 ongoing compliance files.

Last fiscal year, as you know, we also worked tirelessly to update the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, which was ultimately published in the Canada Gazette in May 2023.

For the first half of the current fiscal year, our efforts have been focused on ensuring that stakeholders understand the updated code, which came into force on July 1. We are prioritizing communications with those who are currently listed in the registry, to support their understanding and compliance with these updated standards.

More broadly, we are developing ways to expand our awareness and understanding of the lobbying regime. We will increase our products and tools while also improving our use of plain language so that we can further promote compliance.

I was pleased that the office was identified in budget 2023 to receive an ongoing increase of $400,000. This funding will allow us to hire four additional indeterminate staff to help alleviate some of the risks associated with depth of capacity. I am hopeful that we will receive these funds through the supplementary (B)s process and proceed to staffing these positions.

In the ongoing absence of a review and of changes to the act, and recognizing that I have just over a year left in my mandate, I will continue to identify and pursue improvements that could enhance the transparency, fairness, clarity and efficiency of the federal lobbying regime. These changes will include updating our interpretation materials with respect to the application and enforcement of the act, improving the registry, and potentially seeking regulatory updates to enhance the effectiveness of lobbying registration.

I would like to conclude by thanking each and every employee of the office. I am grateful for their dedication, professionalism and excellence in delivering on our mandate.

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Bélanger.

Ms. Maynard, you have five minutes to give your presentation.

[Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss the reports published by the Office of the Information Commissioner so far this year.

I was probably among the first to read the final report of this committee's study into access to information as soon as it was made available last June. As I indicated in my statement following the release of your report, I am delighted that many of your recommendations reflect the advice of the many witnesses who appeared before you.

Allow me to thank this committee once again.

Now let me bring you up to speed on some of my office's activities since I last had the opportunity to appear before you.

The most recent reports I published were actually the annual reports on the administration of the access to information and privacy acts, which were tabled on October 3.

In addition to my role of investigating complaints related to access to information requests, my office is also subject to both of these acts.

I take my responsibilities in these areas very seriously, and it is reflected in my office's own ATIP performance, which includes no deemed refusals and an average response time that is lower than the 30-day limit.

Last June, I also tabled my annual report, which detailed the office's activities and the results achieved in 2022‑23. While I am proud of our results, I remain very concerned about the overall state of the access to information system in Canada.

I expressed my concerns in opinion pieces that ran in The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir during Right to Know Week. In these articles, I discussed our 40‑year‑old Access to Information Act's midlife crisis.

I pointed out that successive governments have failed to modernize information management practices, just as they have failed to introduce amendments to the act itself that would ensure that it remains relevant and effective.

I also stated that some government institutions now routinely violate this law on a daily basis and that there is no or little indication that the government intends to act to rectify the situation. I'm hoping to be proven wrong when the government tables its response to your report, which is due, I understand, this week.

Two weeks ago, I also met with provincial and territorial counterparts in Quebec City, where we issued a joint resolution aimed at reinforcing the public's right to access government-held information, including historical records.

It has never been more important for Canadians to have access to official government records if we are to maintain confidence in our democratic institutions. In our modern, digital world, disinformation and misinformation spread very quickly. Timely access to accurate facts and reliable information is more critical than ever.

Recognizing that access to information systems across Canada are frequently unable to provide timely responses to access to information requests, the resolution called upon respective governments to also make use of alternate mechanisms for providing access to records, including through proactive disclosure.

We also urged our respective governments to modernize legislation, policies and information management practices.

A copy of the resolution is available on the Office of the Information Commissioner's website. A link to it has already been provided to the committee.

In closing, as the government seeks to reduce expenditures, I would like to repeat something that is crucial. Leaders must remember that access to information is both a quasi-constitutional right and a legal obligation, and it must be treated as such.

I will conclude my remarks here.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Maynard.

We'll now begin the first round of questions, where speakers from each party will have six minutes.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bélanger and Ms. Maynard, we're always grateful for your presence, which is very important.

Ms. Bélanger, you talked about the increase in the number of lobbyist registrations. Tell me about the extent of this increase.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Last year, I think there were about 5,000 lobbyists, or 6,000 at one point. Now it's up to 7,000. As for communication reports, last year there were 24,000 or 25,000, whereas this year it's around 30,000. I'm referring to oral and arranged communications.

We've really seen an increase every year since the system was introduced. In itself, it's a positive thing that the lobbyists who communicate with you are registering. It's not a bad thing, but it means that the office is busy. It's good.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I think the lobbying industry is doing well in Canada right now.

Explain how lobbyists report their communications with public office holders, which include us and certain public servants. Do they send you a report explaining roughly what exchange of information took place during these communications?

[Nancy Bélanger]

All organizations and consultant lobbyists are required to register when they intend to communicate with a government department on a given topic. I'm referring here to oral and arranged communications, and not those that might take place impromptu in the street, for example. On day 15 of the month following the time they had the conversation, they must enter data into the system to show that they had a conversation with the public office holder in question. They must name the person they spoke with and indicate how the topic for which they originally registered was addressed. That's about all the information we have.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

To your knowledge, has a public office holder's name ever appeared on a lobbyist's communication report without their actually having had any communication? In the lobbying industry, lobbyists have clients and must have a certain number of communications with public office holders. So, I'm wondering if people don't sometimes resort to cut-and-paste. For example, a lobbyist may say that he or she has spoken to such-and-such a person about such-and-such a topic, when in fact that person had merely greeted the lobbyist. The lobbyist still takes the trouble to write a communication report so that his or her boss will send him his cheque.

[Nancy Bélanger]

The purpose of the registry is certainly to be adequate and to contain truthful information. So if it turns out that registered lobbyists are filing entries on conversations that did not take place, that's technically an offence. I hope people try to file truthful entries. I will tell you, though, that many people will submit a report to the registry for a letter they've sent, and that is a case of their misunderstanding the system. Every month, we check about 5% of all communications submitted and, if there's an error, we have the lobbyist correct it.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Bélanger.

Ms. Maynard, I'm going to ask you a question about protecting privacy.

I don't know if you are aware, but Quebec's new Bill 25 is very much inspired by what you do at the Office of the Commissioner.

Are federal institutions subject to Bill 25, are they exempt, or are some and others not?

[Caroline Maynard]

With respect to protecting privacy and personal information, I urge you to speak with Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I know he's in regular contact with provincial commissioners regarding access to personal information and privacy protection.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I will happily speak with him.

You also spoke of the Access to Information Act's midlife crisis. Personally, I'm closer to the late-life crisis.

Can you go over some of the details on that?

[Caroline Maynard]

The Access to Information Act was passed in 1983. We therefore celebrated the act's 40th anniversary this summer, in July. As noted in my office's annual report as well as several subsequent statements, unfortunately there wasn't much to celebrate after 40 years. I must admit that we were very proud as Canadians to be among the first to adopt access to information legislation. More specifically, Canada was the eighth country in the world to do so. Today, over 125 countries have access to information legislation. However, given the current state of our legislation, we are now in 53rd place. The act hasn't been modernized since it was passed, and there are many issues with its enforcement. My office receives a lot of complaints. What we're trying to do is give Canadians key examples of why access to information is important and why the act should be modernized after 40 years.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

You also mentioned that it was difficult for Canadians to gain access to information in a timely manner.

Can this really lead to problems for organizations as well as Canadians on a personal level?

[Caroline Maynard]

Yes, a great many issues can arise. For example, imagine that a journalist, teacher or anyone else wants information about how the government makes decisions. If they receive the information one or two years later, it will no longer be relevant. That's why the act sets deadlines. Unfortunately, the deadlines are not being met.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Maynard and Mr. Gourde.

For reference purposes, I'd like to inform the committee that we invited Mr. Dufresne to testify. He is busy this week, but he is available next week. I believe he'll be testifying on Monday, but nothing has been confirmed yet.

We're going to Ms. Damoff for six minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for being with us today.

Ms. Bélanger, I want to talk a bit about sponsor travel. I have done a lot of work with Results Canada and World Vision. I know you've heard the concerns that these organizations have expressed.

Could you give us a bit of a rationale as to why you decided to do what you've done when it comes to international travel?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I used to work a long time ago in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office. Sponsored travel has been a concern from that perspective for a very long time. When I became the Commissioner of Lobbying, it concerned me that lobbyists, who expected something from those people they lobby, could offer travel worth thousands of dollars and then come back and call you to lobby you for something specific.

The predecessor of the current Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appeared before committee and suggested that all sponsored travel should be subject to an acceptability test. I agreed with him.

From my perspective, on lobbyists, I thought, “I can't make a rule that hospitality and big, lavish dinners are prohibited,” but travelling members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else around the world, possibly with guests.... It certainly creates a sense of obligation that, in my view, is not acceptable.

At the end of the day, if it's that important for members of Parliament to go on these trips, you need the budget for it. I don't think it's fair. It's also levelling the playing field. I have had representations of concerns from those who have offered, but I have also received representations from those who have said, “We have never been able to offer that because we don't have the budget, and this was a good call and a good decision.”

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

As an MP, I've been able to use my member's office budget to visit a uranium mine, for example. I've been to the Six Nations reserve, which is not too far from my community. I also went, just this summer, to Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge in Saskatchewan. These trips have greatly educated me, as a member of Parliament.

I've also done trips with Results and World Vision. They're far from lavish. I'm not talking about the porterhouse steaks and chateaubriand that I know some sponsored travel includes. This was economy travel. This was not staying in lavish hotels at all. These were educational, and they have informed my work as an MP. I feel no obligation to those organizations, but it has informed my decision-making in the things I've done.

How do you get that balance? We don't have a budget to travel internationally.

[Nancy Bélanger]

I would argue that if you feel that it has enhanced your role as a member of Parliament, maybe you should.

I cannot, in good conscience, say that it's okay for lobbyists to bring individuals whom they lobby on travel.

Some of the groups you've mentioned are likely not registered lobbyists. Let's make this very clear: I regulate only lobbyists—those who are registered and paid to lobby members of Parliament.

I do not regulate groups that are not registered to lobby, so there will be some travel that can continue.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

What travel is allowed to continue, then?

[Nancy Bélanger]

It is for groups that are not registered to lobby. I regulate only lobbyists. If they don't meet the threshold to be registered as lobbyists, then they're not subject to the code of conduct for lobbyists.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Moving on, do you think that lobbying is a multi-jurisdictional issue? Should we be looking at any kind of harmonizing with the provinces in terms of lobbying rules?