Evidence of meeting #39 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 investigations.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Lapointe and Ms. Turnbull.
Ms. Gaudreau, welcome to the committee.
You have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I used to be on it, actually, from 2019 to 2021. I remember having conversations about this. We were wondering whether we had the legislation we needed in place to ensure that everyone was working diligently and that there was good governance. What happened? The pandemic came.
I was on this committee when we did a study on the WE Charity scandal. Other things emerged at the same time. I'm thinking in particular of the five-year ban on lobbying for former public office holders. In fact, I noticed that this was part of one of the recommendations.
I don't know if this means anything to you, but there's a new company called Baylis Medical Technologies. It was founded by a former Liberal MP. Not even five years had passed since he left office, and an opportunity suddenly arose. Engineering skills were turned into a business. He has done a lot. He has been very successful.
My point is that it's good to make recommendations, but what are the administrative monetary penalties?
There are plenty of things that we know, see and accumulate. We then say to ourselves that there's a grey area.
Do you think that if people speak out and actually call on public safety forces, the penalties are severe enough? I was a member of this committee during the study on Bill Morneau and his expenses, which totalled $41,000. I tabled a motion for him to resign, and we didn't have time to discuss it, because he left. He knew. He hadn't recused himself.
What are we doing? Things are happening right now, but people don't want to say so. It isn't coming to light. In any case, does it hurt? People have recused themselves. They have said it quickly.
What do you think of these sanctions, which could actually hinder such important steps?
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, As an Individual
This sounds like a conflict of interest law question, as opposed to a Lobbying Act one.
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, As an Individual
I think what we've historically done is that we've said a report comes back to Parliament underneath the code, and a report comes back to the Prime Minister underneath the act. The decision is made by the Prime Minister, and the House makes the decision under the code. Recommendations are made only by your commissioner. There aren't penalties. We've historically been reluctant to give these officers of Parliament—or agents, we can call them—power to do things that are your responsibility, which is disciplining members.
I don't know that you're going to have any sort of consensus on giving a commissioner the power to fine in any real sense in a punitive way. What they have now are $500 administrative monetary penalties, which your Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner can impose, but we all know that's not really much of a disincentive. It's $500. Maybe the question under that regime would be whether that penalty should be greater, but it's really up to all of you to vote in the House about disciplining and censuring one another. I don't know that you want to give that to the commissioner. We haven't historically wanted to.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That's actually one of the things the Privacy Commissioner raised before another committee with regard to everything that's coming up, such as the sale of electric vehicles from China. The Privacy Commissioner said that he didn't have the necessary coercive measures to act effectively, to carry out prevention. In that case, it was a matter of lives, and not just lives behind the wheel. It isn't just about elections. A major study was conducted on this.
There are a number of recommendations. Are you familiar with all the recommendations? Do you know them well? It seems so.
Which one is essential for this reform?
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, As an Individual
I have a quick answer.
I believe there should be a real conversation about the penalties and the idea that the commissioner can do more in response to complaints coming in. I think you saw from her testimony that it's a real sore spot and a real point of criticism that she gets from the outside looking in and asking, “Why aren't you doing anything?” She has to explain over and over again that she doesn't have the power to do much.
I think that if you wanted to enable her and empower that office, you could be thinking more clearly about administrative monetary penalties, or naming and shaming, like Commissioner Motherwell told us about in Ontario, or having a registry of people who have actually violated and kicking them off from lobbying for three, four or six months. Something like that would be progressive and would really help her inspire others to comply, I think.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Ms. Turnbull, would you like to add any comments? I still have 30 seconds.
Lori Turnbull
It's really interesting that the recommendation the lobbying commissioner has made is around the default being to register. I think that's probably the most impactful thing in the report. If I could have one thing, I would say that it would be that one, because I think you do get into subjectivity around, “Is this a substantial part of what I'm doing?” You're asking people to make a judgment about whether they register or not.
One of the reasons I like this recommendation, apart from the clarity around it, is that lobbying is not a bad thing. It's okay to say, “Yes, part of my work is to be a lobbyist, right, and this is what I'm doing.” Just do it. Just register. It's fine. That way, you're not trying to figure out where.... I completely understand what she said when she was here. She said that she goes to lobbying day on the Hill and sees people who haven't registered.
Clearly, there are people who are identifying publicly as lobbyists but are not registering. You have a disconnect that is going to make people doubt the whole system.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Dr. Turnbull.
Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.
We'll move on to the second round of questions.
Mr. Hardy, the floor is yours for five minutes.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
There are many interesting elements to what we're studying. I think there needs to be more transparency in interactions with elected officials and decision-makers. They spend taxpayers' money, the money of Canadians, who work hard to entrust it to the government.
Earlier, you said that there was a major paradigm shift at the international level, even a change in the way countries operate.
When we ask questions here, some people often get the impression that we're attacking one individual. I get the impression that more and more people from the financial sector are going to enter politics, as you said. It's important to have laws that can provide a proper framework for them.
The current scenario involves a prime minister who has many connections in the financial sector and who still has shares and investments around the world that are related to performance.
In this era of international and national change, do you think it's normal that these questions should be asked, not only about the lobbying activities that influence this Prime Minister, but also about ethics?
Isn't it high time we asked these questions?
Lori Turnbull
It's important to think about what you want to get out of the Lobbying Act and whether the regulations are meeting the goals that you have. I don't think it's so much about Prime Minister Carney. To me, this is not about him and whatever his holdings are.
That's not the issue. The issue is the fact that there are people coming into the public service who have been recruited to do this work that they have been recognized as uniquely suited to do, at a time when we need to build these skills very quickly, not over a period of three years where you can hire and scale up and all that. They want to bring them in right now.
If we're doing that, what do we expect of these people? Are we saying that you have to observe a post-employment freeze, a cooling-off period before you go back to your bank? And if so, they're probably not going to want to do it.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
We want transparency. That's clearly what we're asking for.
I'm not talking about the Prime Minister. I'm talking about the current scenario.
We want more transparency, and we want to make sure that our mechanisms are ready.
Earlier, we were wondering whether we could make a change, particularly when a penalty has to be imposed.
Can it be proportional to the problem that has been created, or is it just a $200 penalty, the equivalent of a slap on the wrist?
At a certain point, it has to be adjusted to the reality we're facing. We don't want to catch more fish. Rather, we want to make sure that, if a serious mistake is committed, the powers of the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner enable them to put a stop to it fairly quickly.
Do you agree with me?
Lori Turnbull
In my view, administrative monetary penalties are not an appropriate response to actual wrongdoing. That's somebody who is late filing all the time. So you're going to say, “Come on, stop it. We're going to charge you $500. Knock it off. File on time.”
But if you're talking about somebody who's actually trying to do an end run around the rules, $500 is not going to do anything. Also, if you're talking about someone who's actually meaningfully compliant and made a mistake, then $200 or $500 would not matter either. Like, what—
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
We agree.
We basically want the penalties to be proportional to the error. Someone who's three days late won't get a million-dollar fine. In any case, it will depend on each person's point of view.
Mr. Stedman, one year after its creation, the Major Projects Office has an operating cost of $42 million. However, no projects have been carried out yet.
We were talking about speed earlier. It takes people with a great deal of knowledge to be able to launch projects.
Do you think there has to be more transparency to understand who lobbied the government and how major projects were chosen? How did the office come to choose one project over another or one company over another?
Wouldn't it be important to have greater transparency from the Major Projects Office when it comes to lobbying and ethics issues?
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, As an Individual
If I understand the question correctly, I believe this is one of the recommendations made about whether communicating with government about contracts ought to be something for which we register, as lobbyists. I think the consensus across—
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
I just want to know whether that's the case right now.
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, As an Individual
Right.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
If someone asks for a contract, there isn't any lobbying. There's no registration.
Is that correct?
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, As an Individual
I think the consensus I've heard, which I would agree with, is that it ought to be, unless there is a national security implication, in which case you probably have to have exceptions carved out. But if people are coming to government saying, “Give me that contract”, and it's not subject to a transparent procurement process, then I would take the position that it ought to be registered as lobbying, yes.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Stedman.
Thank you, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Al Soud, you have five minutes. Go ahead, sir.
Liberal
Fares Al Soud Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Mr. Stedman, you mentioned knowing that there are new members on this committee, and I am one of them. It's a privilege to be here, particularly given that we're speaking on a topic that I find so fundamental to our democracy. In many ways, our lobbying regime is the gold standard, but there are always improvements to be made, and that's exactly the point behind the statutory review. I thank you both for taking the time to be with us today.
One thing we hear often is that not all voices in the lobbying space have the same capacity. Larger, well-funded organizations can dedicate significant time and resources to sustained lobbying efforts, while others like physician groups or health care professionals are often balancing this work alongside demanding responsibilities, like patient care.
How do we ensure that groups with less time and fewer resources, like doctors or smaller professional organizations, can still effectively be heard as we conduct our review of the Lobbying Act and potentially look to harmonize rules between consultants and in-house lobbyists in corporations and organizations?
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, As an Individual
One of the things that we've heard in this committee's review so far is that there are ways to do this. We've heard that British Columbia and Quebec are leaders as far as modernizing their lobbying laws is concerned.
You can default register, and then carve out exceptions for small organizations, start-ups or organizations that have a certain amount of money or are a certain size. That's a possibility, so that you don't disincentivize not-for-profits getting involved in advocacy. That's been done. You could ask your Commissioner of Lobbying to provide you with a comparative analysis of what's happening across the country. You have those examples already, so it's not like you're reinventing the wheel. You're just deciding whether you want to catch up with those who are moving quickly.
