Evidence of meeting #44 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 threshold.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
As for the complexity of the registration process, it takes about 20 to 25 minutes, from what I understand. Does this seem reasonable to you or not?
partner, Gowling WLG, As an Individual
It takes longer than that, because you often need to gather information, and it can take a little while to figure out exactly what information you really need to add and save.
Director, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
It's complex, too. Even though FAQs have been set up, trying to understand whether or not a particular activity qualifies is not simple.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
That completes the first round of questions. We'll begin the second round with Mr. Hardy, who has the floor for five minutes.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses for being with us today.
I have been listening carefully to the discussion for some time now. I have always said that democracy is the power of an informed people. Therefore, it is important that people be aware of what is happening. I am thinking about transparency. Everyone regularly talks about the importance of being transparent.
Do you think that if we make things more formal and ask people to be very transparent about the efforts they're making, it will hinder the democratic process and cause people to reach out to their representative less often?
I just want to make a quick aside. If one of my constituents comes to see me to discuss a problem, they don't view the conversation as official or as part of the eight hours per month; they're just talking to me about an issue, and their life goes on. I'm made aware of it, and I continue to work on their behalf.
When you get to the point of dedicating eight hours a month to official communications—and doing so over a long period—why wouldn't that become something that needs to be monitored? It then becomes a bit like a second job.
Director, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
We were talking about registration by default, which would mean it would be zero hours. That's what I can understand. Everyone should register unless you have a—
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
I asked the Quebec commissioner. I asked him if increasing the paperwork would slow down the activities. He told me it was super simple: you just have to say who you met, specify the topic of the meeting and that's it.
Ultimately, what we want to know is who was contacted.
Lobbying is a good thing. However, we don't know everything in our roles as members of Parliament; we have to learn. We want to avoid making the process complex, but we want to make it more transparent. If we say that it's too complicated and that the threshold should be 32 hours, I think we're missing the point as well, aren't we?
Legal Counsel, Gowling WLG, As an Individual
I can answer. When there's an administrative burden and too many unnecessary rules, transparency no longer adds value and it actually harms engagement.
Conservative
Legal Counsel, Gowling WLG, As an Individual
I'll tell you that the process is not so simple in Quebec. I constantly provide support there, and it's much more than five minutes.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
There are associations to represent different types of businesses and all that. I feel like there must be some effective structure in place for us to be able to follow the process.
Moreover, we can't hide it: People are losing trust in our institutions because they feel that, in many ways, decision-makers sometimes give themselves an advantage. We've had examples of that here all week long.
At some point, you have to overcorrect to ensure that people who lobby do so with full transparency and that we are aware of their activities. Under the current Lobbying Act, simply requesting a contract from the government is not even considered lobbying. Right there, there is a hole as big as the moon in this act. We should also avoid making the process even more complex by saying that the threshold is 32 hours.
If people engage in lobbying and meet with public office holders, why not have something very simple that accounts for it? They would need to record that they met with a certain MP, that they spoke to them about a certain topic, and so on. It does not need to be a 100-page document. However, I think that, one way or another, people should register and say what they've done.
Legal Counsel, Gowling WLG, As an Individual
I agree about the registry and I agree that transparency is important.
However, as mentioned earlier, the Lobbying Act should also be reviewed. Now, it covers communications with public office holders or designated holders, and the list of communications regulated under the act is enumerated. Even though they are listed, I assure you that for people in the industry and those in the non-profit sector who actually prepare these reports, it's not that simple. People say that they talked about this or that thing, but it was more about information and they were not trying to change the law.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
I can understand that, but I don't think these people are going to look for billions of dollars.
In your report, you say that trust, by default, should be the foundation. We trust people by default. Is that what you said in your report?
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
I'm wondering. At some point in life, we write our own story. Today, we have a prime minister who, before his current position, was at the head of the company that engaged in the most tax avoidance in the country. In a way, people may say they don't have much trust and that we put measures in place to regain some of that public trust.
Don't you think that if we try to minimize that and refuse certain parameters, it will have some effect on that trust? I understand that some people might find it a bit more complex, but we also want to avoid large-scale lobbying activities taking place and billions of dollars being lost.
Legal Counsel, Gowling WLG, As an Individual
I don't want to downplay the importance of transparency. That said, at a certain point, overregulation no longer serves any purpose.
I'd also like to emphasize that, in its application, the Lobbying Act intersects with several other acts, such as those on conflicts of interest, for example. It should be aligned with the conflict of interest laws. That should also be considered.
Conservative
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Do I not even have a little bit of time left, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
No, you have no speaking time left. You'll be able to continue on your next turn.
Mr. Al Soud, you have five minutes. Go ahead, sir.
Liberal
Fares Al Soud Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you all for taking the time to be with us today.
Mr. Shore and Madame Sabourin, I have in front of me your brief, which you submitted ahead of today's meeting. I'd like to take a moment to thank you both, because it touches on quite a few valuable pieces here and certainly highlights your knowledge on this topic. In that brief, you mention the importance of avoiding a regime in which the compliance burden ends up deterring legitimate engagement. It's taken up much of today's conversation.
I want to latch on to something you said earlier, Mr. Shore, which I think is an important note, on the value of lobbying within our democracy. Your point was that many associate it with something sinister, as you said. As I was out on a walk the other day, I stepped into my local Java U—which, I will add, has much better coffee than what we have here on the Hill—and in that short time they highlighted a parking challenge they have. Now, that's municipal jurisdiction, but I'm quite happy that they felt comfortable speaking with me and engaging with me. They didn't feel as though it was going to lead to this pile of paperwork after the fact. I'd like to offer you the opportunity to expand on the importance of this legitimate engagement and perhaps on what most don't recognize as important and legitimate engagement, as well as how you believe the overly onerous compliance might challenge this.
partner, Gowling WLG, As an Individual
I love that, Mr. Al Soud. I appreciate your asking that question.
We live in a blessed country. I think we live in a country in which we can pretty well expect that our public office holders, members of Parliament and senators are there because they want to advance this country. They want to do good, and they want to help families grow and do well. In that context, among those whom I've had the privilege of working with, seeing and dealing with daily, I see their interest in the public. They want to pull in that information so that they're better understood. How wonderful it is when the public also feels that there's a comfort level without an obligation that suddenly requires that they do something.
As for the point that was made earlier about sophisticated lobbyists, of course there are those advocating positions, and they understand that. However, when we suddenly move from that realm into one that basically pulls in a whole new audience and a whole new public, I worry about that. That's where I see people wanting to be quiet because they don't want to break the law and they don't want to get in trouble. The public office holder doesn't want to get in trouble either. They suddenly have an obligation.
Frankly, if I may say so, I never come across a position, to Mr. Hardy's point,
where we say that something is hidden.
We're not hiding. I don't see people hiding information. They're perfectly happy to register. Legitimately, when they go before government—because they know there's an obligation and there's something serious to address—they will register. They will ask for advice. They will seek the assistance of Madame Sabourin or others to address that.
I think what we need and want to do—and that's why I made that reference earlier—is inculcate the context of moral behaviour with integrity that engages people. If there's a question about an individual who had worked in a corporation previous to coming to public office—and I applaud the people who come to public office from corporations; they shouldn't always feel that they're suspect—well, they can stand up in the House of Commons, they can be asked the question and then they can answer it. That is the public engagement that I would expect, rather than necessarily relying on a lobbying commissioner to address a particular detail.
The other thing is that I don't really want to see.... We don't have telephone directories as we once did. What's the value of a telephone directory that's bigger and has every communication that goes through, rather than one that is less big and has the communications that are important for us to study and understand? I think that's where there's more than the limit we need.
Liberal
Fares Al Soud Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Shore.
Ms. Santini, Mississauga is one of the fastest-growing cities in our country, and Mississauga Centre, perhaps, especially. During my first committee appearance on this study—it might have been my first question—I recall asking about the importance of ensuring that our system recognizes the inherent value of small businesses.
In the time that I have left, roughly one minute, I'd like to offer you the opportunity to speak to us about the important role that small businesses play in Canada, as well as to help this committee understand why it's so important that any lobbying regime does not become overly onerous for small businesses.
Director, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Absolutely. Small business owners, as a reference, already have a 54-hour work week. They employ 64% of Canadians in the private sector. They contribute enormously to GDP and the feel of our communities—and yes, you can walk into your Java U, and they might raise something that has to do with a federal issue. Do you want to then be in the position to have to turn around and say, “Hey, great. Thanks for telling me. Now I need to tell you, you should probably call the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying to see if you need to register this intervention.”
Imagine how that member, that constituent, is suddenly going to feel. It's like, “Wait a minute, I'm paying my taxes. Yes, I'm asking about something on behalf of my business, but might I now have to go through a whole bunch of red tape?” The next time you walk in, he might have an issue, but he might not necessarily want to write in on it or mention it. Is that helping democracy? Is that helping the public dialogue? Is that helping you, in your position and in your work, to represent your constituents?