Evidence of meeting #45 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 transparency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Chang.
Mr. Hardy, the floor is yours for five minutes.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
I would like to come back to the answer you just gave, Mr. Ross.
You just said that we must focus on the administrative burden, which can be more onerous for a small business or volunteers than for a larger business. Why should we even consider the burden if the objective is ultimately the same?
If someone lobbies decision-makers and the objective is the same, that is, to obtain government grants or to change public policy decisions, no matter who they are, they should have to deal with the same administrative structures. Wouldn't you agree?
Director, Policy, Planning and Liaison, Priorities and Planning Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you, Mr. Hardy. That's a very good question.
There are indeed circumstances in which the rules have to be the same for everyone. Even if you look at all the different regimes across the country, there are still exceptions or exclusions in specific circumstances.
In the case of British Columbia, which is often identified as one of the leading jurisdictions in this area, there are exceptions for small organizations that have six or fewer employees. They don't necessarily follow the same rules as an organization that has hundreds or thousands of employees. That's the sort of thing that needs to be taken into consideration. They're doing it full-time versus engaging—
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
I suppose we agree that, if a person does this on a full-time or part-time basis, whether they are paid or not, if the ultimate objective is to change public policy decisions by lobbying, they must be subject to the same rules. Whether I am rich or poor, if I drive down the highway at 200 kilometers per hour, I will be stopped and will suffer the same consequences as everyone else.
We were just talking about the consequences that apply to those who break the law. You mentioned a $250,00 fine and even jail time. Who's going to be responsible for enforcing those rules? Does the Commissioner of Lobbying have the right to tell someone that they made a mistake and that they must suffer the consequences? Does she have the power to do that?
I would invite both of you to answer my question.
Executive Director, Policy, Planning and Performance, Priorities and Planning Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
I believe the commissioner spoke to this. The way it works right now is that if she has reason to believe that a contravention of the act has taken place, she refers the matter to the police. It's usually the RCMP.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
So the commissioner doesn't have the power to do that. Actually, my question was a bit odd, because I already knew the answer.
The question I wanted to ask though is the following: How many times has a lobbyist who has not complied with the act gone to jail or received a fine?
When the RCMP came to testify here the last time, we were told on a number of occasions that it didn't happen ultimately, even in highly publicized and very obvious cases.
Executive Director, Policy, Planning and Performance, Priorities and Planning Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
To my understanding, there have been a couple of charges laid over the last couple of years. I don't have the specific dates. I know that one person was convicted of the charge. I won't say that they necessarily faced jail time. I can't remember exactly how that concluded, but I would still say that the threat of those criminal sanctions does have an important impact in terms of deterrence and encouraging people to be in compliance.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
If the commissioner had more power, do you think she would be able to impose sanctions herself, which would curb people more effectively?
Does the commissioner have enough power?
Executive Director, Policy, Planning and Performance, Priorities and Planning Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
I know the commissioner has put forward the idea of having more measures to help ensure and encourage compliance, including things like administrative monetary penalties and temporary lobbying bans.
I think it is worth looking at different options that could give her more tools in her tool box to help encourage compliance among the lobbyist community. I'm not sure whether there's a big problem right now in terms of non-compliance, and I'm not sure whether the commissioner has said that she is worried about it. She and her office have done a very good job of working with public office holders to ensure that they are in compliance through education, public awareness and providing guidance.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Hardy, we're at five minutes. I'm sorry.
Mr. Gear finished his answer in five minutes.
Ms. Chagger, you have five minutes. Go ahead.
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Ross and Mr. Gear, for being here today and providing these insights.
I'm going to build on some of the lines of questioning we've had and refer to recommendations 17 and 21.
It seems that the Commissioner of Lobbying is seeking certain powers that are normally associated with other agents of Parliament. However, from what I understand, most agents of Parliament deal primarily with the federal government and designated public office holders, whereas the commissioner has a somewhat broader, more public-facing role.
With that in mind, can you elaborate on what those two recommendations would mean in practice and what considerations the committee should be thinking about?
Executive Director, Policy, Planning and Performance, Priorities and Planning Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Unfortunately, you didn't invite any lawyers here today, so we're not able to provide all the details behind the different legal arguments or legal considerations that there may be.
It is noted that other agents of Parliament have immunity right now for different cases and that many agents of Parliament are dealing with government more than the public. We have been looking at this question internally and trying to figure out the exact rationale for why the immunity was not included in the act when it was first brought in in 2008, so it's something that I think we want to look at again and consider.
In terms of the compliance measures, as I just said, I know that the commissioner has indicated that she would like to have more flexibility in the tools to encourage compliance, including administrative monetary penalties. There are a number of legal considerations that need to be put in place as well, or taken into account, when we're looking at these additional tools so that they are not punitive measures and are focused solely on encouraging compliance. That kind of analysis would be done if there was consideration for giving her those additional tools.
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
I appreciate those insights and that information. I look forward to having more people appear for this study so we can provide the insights that you're looking for.
With that, Chair, I move to resume the debate on the motion moved by Leslie Church on April 13.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
I'm going to ask you to stay in your chairs, if you don't mind, and we'll see where this goes. I'm going to get some advice from the clerk.
It is a dilatory motion, so we have to proceed to a vote on the motion that's been moved by Ms. Chagger to resume the April 13 debate on the Privacy Act.
Do we have consensus on that?
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
I don't have the motion in front of me, so I'll use your roll call as time to research.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Madam Clerk, just pull up the motion, because I want all members to be clear on what the motion was about.
It was actually a notice of motion.
Conservative
The Clerk
The motion was moved, debated and adjourned on April 13. It reads:
That, in light of the need to ensure government operations remain modern, secure and effective so that Canadians can benefit from efficient and innovative public services, and recognizing the rapid advancement of digital technologies and their implications for the protection of personal information, that pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the committee undertake a study—
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, the interpreters haven't received the text of the motion. That's what I was told; I'm just the messenger.