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.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you for appearing before the committee again.
In recommendation 21, you want you and your staff to have immunity. I know Mr. Thériault asked the same question. Can you give some explanation of why it is necessary?
Are we going to see that you, as the lobbying commissioner, want immunity so that you cannot be prosecuted if people don't agree with you on something?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
If people don't agree with me, there are processes through the Federal Court and judicial reviews to review my decisions, and I have no problem with that whatsoever.
This immunity is the usual immunity that exists for all agents of Parliament to not be criminally prosecuted or civilly prosecuted for doing my job. It exists for all agents. I think it was simply forgotten and not added in. It's just—I don't know—an unfortunate event. Luckily, I've never been prosecuted or civilly charged. There's a concept in common law that would protect us, in any event.
This is a thing that needs to be fixed, because all other agents of Parliament have it. We just don't.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
In recommendation 19, you want to “Amend the Act to include a mechanism for the Federal Court to enforce orders...issued by [you]”. Does that power also rest with other bodies, like the Ethics Commissioner, or would you be the first one to get that authority?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
It does not exist for the other agents of Parliament. In any event, my colleagues at access to information have order-making powers and there's a process in place.
My issue is if there are contempt proceedings. I can't decide the contempt proceedings of orders I've issued. I'd have to go to provincial courts. This is just a mechanism by which the production order would be tabled in the Federal Court. I've never had to do this. This is an administrative way to say that if somebody doesn't show up or doesn't send me the documents, the contempt proceedings would be at the Federal Court, which I think is the right place for a federal agent of Parliament.
That's all this is. It's very administrative in nature, but it's to save us problems in the future if ever we were to get there.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
In your recommendation11, you want to “Amend the Act so that individuals occupying director general-level positions qualify as designated public office holders.” What's your reasoning behind it? I understand that there are hundreds of people who have that position.
Would that not create a lot of extra work for nothing?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I don't know if it's for nothing. I will never say that work that enhances transparency is work for nothing.
Recommending that directors general be included as designated public office holders actually comes from this committee. It was the number one recommendation back in 2012. Usually the directors general are invited to meetings because they're the ones who are operationally hands-on in the departments. If people meet with them to get some work done, they should have to be transparent about those communications. That was the recommendation of this committee.
The only issue was people were concerned that they would also be subject to the five-year prohibition. That is the consideration that needs to be made about whether or not they should be in that group. I would say probably not because they don't have the same level of network, possibly.
That is the consideration, and that was a recommendation from this committee, to extend transparency to those who are actually working on the policies and operations of different departments.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Do you have any idea of how many director general positions there are?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
There are lots. That's okay. It's not on them. It's when an organization meets with a director general who is now a designated public office holder, they would have to go and indicate that they met with them. That takes three minutes.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I'll tell you one of the issues right now is that people have a hard time figuring out who's a designated public office holder in departments. People don't have that written on their forehead. If we bring down the level one maybe it's going to be easier to identify who they are.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, recommendation 10 that you provided is to amend the act so that all members of the staff, ministers of the Crown and ministers of state, as well as the Leader of the Opposition in both the House and the Senate, qualify as designated public office holders. I agree with that recommendation.
I would put it to you that it's consistent with what you said with respect to the objectives of the act when you appeared before this committee on November 5, 2024, that it would help make Canadians aware of “who's meeting whom and about what, and what leads to the decisions that decision-makers are making.”
Is that fair?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
That is fair.
My problem, and the reason I made that recommendation, is that the act makes reference to an actual section of the act. In the act, under section 128, it says anyone in a minister's officer who's appointed under 128 is a designated public office holder. There's never been an issue. Everyone in a ministerial staff is appointed under section 128.
The government of the day in 2010 added, through regulation, section 128 for those staff members in the office of the Leader of the Opposition of the House but also of the Senate. However, those who work as the government representatives in the Senate are not mentioned anywhere. I think that's a mistake as well.
The problem right now is by referencing section 128 in the regs, it's misleading. I understand that no one in the office of the Leader of the Opposition is appointed under 128.
There needs to be a decision of whether or not they should be added in the act and remove reference to 128 or whether to remove reference to them completely. Right now, people out there believe that individuals in that office are appointed under 128 and therefore they report.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you for that clarification.
I want to go back to the question that I put to you earlier, which was regarding the role of Mark Carney as the economic adviser to the Prime Minister. Normally, such a person would be housed within the Prime Minister's Office. Therefore, normally they would be a designated public office holder under the Lobbying Act. Because Mr. Carney was technically housed in the Liberal Party, even though he was directly accessing the Prime Minister, and directly advising the Prime Minister on matters of government policy, specifically on economic policy, the result of that arrangement was that Mr. Carney was not subject to the Lobbying Act, as you noted.
Given that, what recommendation, if any, would you suggest to prevent something like that from happening going forward? Whether there was a deliberate intent to circumvent the act or not—and I think there likely was—it certainly is less than ideal from the standpoint of transparency, and from the standpoint of knowing who is talking to someone who has significant influence on decisions of the Prime Minister and the government in terms of policy.
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
If the intent is to have everyone in a minister's office be designated as “designated public office holders”, any communications with them, therefore, would require a monthly report or they would be subject to the five-year prohibition when they leave.
My recommendation in relation to removing a reference to a section, so it's anyone working in a minister's office under whatever mechanism—whether it be contract, advisory or otherwise—be designated public office holders, is that it is something this committee can definitely consider.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Again, would that have applied in that particular case?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
If the definition is anyone working in the minister's office—as a staffer, as an adviser—then they would automatically be captured.
Let's not forget that I don't regulate designated public office holders while they're in office. It's only when they leave that they become subject to my regime, but having designated public office holders, the greater the population, the more transparency in relation to communications with them.
Conservative
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bélanger, for joining us. It's always good to have you here. You give us a perspective on the in‑depth analysis that precedes the recommendations. These recommendations may give rise to questions. Of course, we might want to ask you questions to understand a bit of the process that led you to these recommendations.
Before going any further, I would like to clarify things for the people tuning in today. We're currently reviewing the Lobbying Act. There isn't any investigation. There isn't any scandal either. It's quite important to know this. The comments coming from the other side of the room could give the impression that this is the case. However, this impression shouldn't be conveyed to the people tuning in today. On the contrary, we need to reassure them that this legislation needs a review, but that we agree with it.
That said, before asking my questions, I would like to clarify a few points raised earlier.
Have you had trouble receiving information from a minister's office in the course of your duties?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Honestly, I find that all departments, all public office holders and all offices show me a great deal of respect. When I ask for information, I receive it. I encounter issues only when a change of minister takes place. Sometimes, we need to look for the information, but that's rare. There's always a great deal of co‑operation.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
We can simply call this being “in limbo”. It's a bureaucratic issue.
Does this include the Prime Minister's office?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Yes, this includes the Prime Minister's office.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Okay.
I really need to know one thing about potential shortcomings in the Lobbying Act.
Are there any shortcomings in the powers granted to you?
Can you summarize them and make them as easy to understand as possible for the public before I ask my main question?
Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I have broad investigative powers. Unfortunately, not all violations of the act should be treated the same way. Everything is sent to the RCMP. It isn't complicated.
I would like to have the power to require mandatory training for people, to apply penalties or to impose a lobbying ban. My colleagues in the provinces can do this. I'm required to send everything to the RCMP.
I don't—and can't—do anything about delays. People who run late are accepted for the sake of transparency. However, at some point, if a penalty were imposed, they might not run late the next time.
