Information & Ethics committee  Specifically, we have five recommendations. The first recommendation is that the commissioner's duty to educate public office holders should be more comprehensive. Several times it's become clear that various departments are unclear about their obligations under the Lobbying Act or about important details or definitions within the act.

Information & Ethics committee  Before the act came into effect, we had a senior staff person from the commissioner's office come in and meet with GRIC. We had an information session for all our members. This would have been in 2008 or 2009. In the example given to help us understand which types of meetings we need to report, the example was which types of meetings we don't need to report.

Information & Ethics committee  We think there needs to be a consultation process on what exactly “arranged communications” means. Is it the definition we were given when the act came into effect? Was it the definition that apparently and reportedly has been provided to other parties? When we've seen them try to break it down, they get into how there's a request made, there's a time interval between the request and the acceptance, and that's what constitutes “arranged”.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, absolutely. If you pick up four business cards from four people in your office, then four names should be on the report at the end of the month. Right now, it's only the CEO's name. We've had cases.... A CEO of a fairly prominent Canadian company passed away, and because of bureaucratic delays the impression on the public record was that he continued to take meetings with public office holders six months after he had gone to the great beyond.

Information & Ethics committee  No. Right now it takes about five minutes to fill in the report on a meeting. To go to the point that was made earlier, the lobbying commission really has listened to concerns about the burden, and they've really improved and streamlined the reporting process. If it were a matter of ticking off....

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, I think there are cases where the name of the individual or their title could have the effect of divulging sensitive information. We give the example in our submission of two vice-presidents from two companies who both have responsibility for mergers and acquisitions and who go in and meet the competition commissioner at the same time.

Information & Ethics committee  It could be left to the commissioner's discretion, depending on the circumstance.

Information & Ethics committee  Not very. Most lobbyists follow the rules closely enough that there's only a handful of cases the commissioner has had to investigate in the first place. There was a case on the rules governing political activities of lobbyists. The commissioner's interpretation came into effect in 2009.

Information & Ethics committee  The act calls for a cooling off period. Whatever it is—five years—and whatever line or whatever the number is, we'll tell people they should follow it. PAAC has a very specific recommendation that it would be reduced, I believe. We have a more general recommendation that this committee go back and look at what the objectives were in setting a cooling off period and whether five years is the exact amount of time that needs to be in place to meet them.

Information & Ethics committee  We support the current approach, which is to apply the act to people who are professionals communicating with the government as part of their jobs. Imagine if everyone, paid or not, either as a private citizen, academic, union member, or a seniors group had to register as a lobbyist before they could call their MP to talk about changes to the tax code, copyright, collective bargaining, or whatever.

Information & Ethics committee  I think there are three ways to look at whether you should be reporting a meeting. You can look at it in isolation. As a stand-alone concept, having both sides reporting the same meeting would make it easier to see if somebody didn't report it. That would be a plus. Second, though, to come back to the circle you're trying to draw around all the recommendations on the table, if you put that recommendation alongside all of the others, such as “all oral communication should be reported; you don't have to be paid to register; it doesn't matter who initiates the communication”, you get the sense that you're looking at a major bureaucratic nightmare: MPs and lobbyists making records of and reporting every conversation they have about government with everyone they meet, anywhere, no matter what the context.

Information & Ethics committee  It wouldn't just capture all companies that have cause to call their MP once a year; it would capture anyone who contacts government in a professional capacity—charities, local health authorities, the president of the university in your hometown, labour organizations—anyone who contacted you, even if they conduct a registerable activity.

Information & Ethics committee  Possibly. You have to go to the list of registerable activities. Are they talking about legislation or policy? If they're coming in to talk about government financing of a United Way campaign, absolutely. If you're talking about the awarding of a financial benefit of any sort, then you need to register, unless—currently—you do it less than 20% of your time.

Information & Ethics committee  I think we've already seen cases where the lobby commissioner and the ethics commissioner come to different conclusions based on the same set of facts. We want to avoid triplicating that process, where you have the same set of facts under investigation by three separate bodies.

Information & Ethics committee  First, I would just like to endorse Mr. Jordan's comments from Tuesday that as a lobbyist, having your name placed in front of Parliament as someone who has violated the rules has a financial consequence. It affects your career prospects. Coming back to the specific question of administrative monetary penalties, anytime you have an officer of Parliament or a tribunal of any sort with essentially unfettered quasi-judicial powers, especially powers with a Criminal Code underpinning, you want to make sure that there's a clear commitment to due process.