Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 10th, 2011

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It's lovely to be back, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Shepherd, Mr. Bergen.

I'm going to follow my colleague Mr. Proulx's line of questioning as well. Mr. Ullyatt was fired for his part in the leaking of the confidential draft finance report, whereas the lobbyists who received the report and, in some cases, according to the testimony, used the report or parts thereof for the benefit of their clients, may not face any repercussions. Do you think this is fair?

[Karen Shepherd]

Again, as I've said, I'm repeating myself, but I am looking into the matter, and those are issues that I will be seriously looking at.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Very good.

Do you believe, Madam Shepherd, that you have enough resources to conduct in a timely manner the investigations that you undertake in the course of your work?

[Karen Shepherd]

I'm quite pleased with the team I have right now. One of the things over the last couple of years was building capacity and refining processes, and I have an excellent team in terms of the director of investigations and investigators. This is one of the files that I see as a priority, so we will be working on it as timely as we can....

I mean, part of the problem that we sometimes run into is that when we're requesting information we need to get information back in a timely fashion from those as well, so if we're waiting for information to come in.... I mean, sometimes the length is what takes time, even in these fact-finding investigation...it's how available the witnesses are or how fast people respond to our written requests for information.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

One of my colleagues--I believe it was Mr. Lukiwski--talked about testimony in other committees. I'd like to touch on that.

You stated in another committee that the crown seems to have a very “high threshold” when it comes to laying charges under the lobbyists act and, as a result, prosecutions have not been commenced in 10 of the 11 cases referred to the RCMP since 2005. One case is still with the RCMP for consideration and, according to your testimony, no lobbyist has ever been convicted under the act.

Would you, with your expert opinion, conclude that this means that possibly the enforcement provisions of the act are inadequate? Or do you believe the enforcement provisions of the act are fine, notwithstanding the testimony you gave to the fact of there being no prosecutions?

[Karen Shepherd]

Actually, at my December 14 appearance, because the act is under review I indicated one of the things I think would be beneficial. Right now, if I find reasonable grounds to believe something, I'm obliged to send it to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But it might be beneficial to have administrative monetary penalties that I could post, with hopefully then the ability to actually post the names, because I think that would be a fairly effective deterrent.

In terms of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, there are no sanctions in terms of fines or jail terms, but there is a report to Parliament. When you think that the lobbyist's name and reputation are important, a report to Parliament might negatively impact the lobbyist's ability to gain clients or employment. As you may know, we were in court with one lobbyist who was fighting to have the reports taken out of Parliament because, he was claiming, it was affecting his business. So I think that's an effective deterrent.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Do you think that's the only deterrent? Because as you've just stated in regard to breaches of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, you don't have any fines and you don't have any prison sentences or incarceration sentences. The only thing that is within your authority and duty is to file a report with Parliament in which you may name the lobbyist who has, in your opinion, breached the code of conduct.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that notwithstanding this one case in the court, a lot of lobbyists would see the authority and powers of the lobbyist commissioner to enforce the code of conduct as a paper tiger?

[Karen Shepherd]

If I understand correctly, the suggestion is whether penalties for the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct might be beneficial as well?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes.

[Karen Shepherd]

I think that's something I would like to examine. It becomes a question as to the purpose of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, which is to ensure that communications are being done ethically and at the highest standards. My concern was whether we're looking at their being corrective or punitive, and that would be something I'd like to consider further.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

My time is up, according to the chair, and I have to believe him.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, did you want to finish where you were at?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I think I'll cede some of my time to my colleague, Mr. Young, who has a question or two. If there's time left over, I will certainly--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Certainly.

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Shepherd, for coming here today.

I worked as a lobbyist in Ontario for a number of years when I left the provincial parliament. Occasionally I had to make some actions for a client who might have a federal issue, although it was very rare, and when I saw the new act in 2006, I was pleasantly surprised, in fact, at how tough the Lobbying Act was. I had to help train some people who were calling themselves lobbyists, and who wanted to lobby in Ottawa, on what they should actually be doing.

The best example for me is that anyone who has met with a designated public office holder and does not report that by the fifteenth of the next month could be subject to a fine of up to $200,000 and six months in jail, which I think is very tough, and appropriately tough.

Compared to the acts in the provinces and in fact similar acts in other jurisdictions--perhaps the United States, the U.K., or France--how does our Lobbying Act compare in being tough and dealing with the actions of lobbyists?

[Karen Shepherd]

Some of the provinces have the ability, although they haven't done so yet, to issue monetary penalties, but in terms of the requirement to file monthly reports, we are the only ones that are doing that at the federal level in terms of designated public office holders. There are a lot of requirements in terms of filing. We have taken out of the legislation communicating “in an attempt to influence”, which captures a lot more people than some of my provincial colleagues, for example, where that is still in the legislation.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

With regard to actually being required by law to report an oral communication--

[Karen Shepherd]

“Oral and arranged”, yes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

--that is to me the highest standard. So lobbyists actually.... If you run into somebody in a restaurant or something, you don't have to report that, which is reasonable, but if you have a telephone conversation or if you meet with a designated public office holder, you have to report even the conversation. How does that compare to other jurisdictions?

[Karen Shepherd]

In Canada, we're the only ones who actually have that.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

And are you familiar with other jurisdictions?

[Karen Shepherd]

In the United States, I think they name, but they don't have that same level of reporting oral and arranged communications on a monthly basis.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, did you have anything else?