Evidence of meeting #31 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was communication.
A video is available from Parliament.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
If that individual isn't the one who's communicating, it's allowed. Lobbying is communication. If there's no communication, that's not lobbying.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
However, do we agree that there may be a flaw in a system that allows a person who has all the contacts and all the possible knowledge to send their employees to do communications, when it is very clear that they speak on behalf of someone else?
That may need to be looked at so that the government can act if a person is lobbying on behalf of someone else.
Do you agree with that?
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Once again, thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Bélanger.
Your comments are fascinating. I think your expertise is really very relevant.
There's one thing that comes up often related to our work since I've been on this very interesting committee. It's the issue of access to information. It ties in with one of your recommendations, recommendation 12, which we can only agree is a good thing. In that recommendation, you say that we should “expand the disclosure requirements for monthly communication reports to include all communications about registrable matters with designated public office holders”.
However, you'll recall that, in my first intervention, I talked about the process that led you to make these recommendations. I have a question about that.
First of all, you have 35 employees. Is that correct?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Yes, that's right.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I have my doubts whether the recommendation is feasible and applicable. Imagine that it is implemented and that you have to apply it. With regard to access to information and disclosure, at some point, are we going to have to police whether the act has been complied with and, on top of that, check whether all the documents have been transmitted and the 'I's have been dotted and the 'T's crossed?
Should we wonder whether the recommendation is feasible?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
The obligation to report is on organizations and corporations, not on my office. We can go and check the information.
There are already more than 9,000 lobbyists and many more to come. We rely heavily on good faith. Most people comply with the requirements of the current regime. We don't have a lot of investigations in relation to the number of lobbyists out there.
I was deputy commissioner at the Office of the Information Commissioner. To me, access to information and transparency are values that should not be messed with.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I'm from Quebec, and I was one of the first to loudly insist that the information should first be public.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
That's it.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
When it isn't, it really has to be justified.
However, I'm only talking about feasibility. I'm not talking about access to information.
Would it be feasible to do the necessary checks with 35 employees? That's all I'm asking.
Is that feasible? Can we challenge the feasibility of the recommendation? Would that require more resources in the future?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Yes, eventually we may need more resources.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
My problem right now is that, in a few years, I won't have any money left to cover the cost of all the licences, among other things. That means I will never be able to increase the number of employees to more than 35.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
However, that doesn't mean we can't go and check the information. That's easy. If I ask you whether you met with such and such a person, you'll answer yes or no.
Liberal
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I'm not the one who makes the information public. The lobbyists themselves are the ones who make it public.
Liberal
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Yes, once they make it public, that's fine. If they haven't, we'll check. That's fine.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I am wondering specifically about checking whether they did or not.
I'm not asking you if they're going to do it. In terms of feasibility, I'm technologically savvy, so I can tell you that it's doable. What I doubt is the feasibility of checking to see if they've made it public, given the fact that you only have 35 employees. There are more than just two lobbyists. There are more than that.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
That is true.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I will go back to the question about the official opposition. You mentioned that most lobbyists assume that staff in the office of the Leader of the Opposition are public office holders. However, that doesn't mean that all lobbyists assume that. Some of them may not know that.
