Proceedings of the Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 14 - Evidence, May 13, 2003
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 13, 2003
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, to which was referred Bill C-15, to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, met this day at 8:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have before us the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Industry, Mr. Bruce Bergen, from Industry Canada, and Mr. Robert Benson from the Office of the Ethics Counsellor.
The Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Industry: Thank you for the opportunity to speak for a few minutes about Bill C-15, which is an effort to improve the functioning of a I believe has functioned very well these last seven or eight years. I want to thank Senator Rompkey for his kindness in sponsoring this bill in the Senate.
Senator Rompkey: I would not have done it for anybody else.
Mr. Rock: I want to thank all the members of the committee for their extraordinary attention to this bill, which I believe is an important improvement on an issue of crucial public policy.
Before turning to your questions, I should like to take a few moments to talk in general about the bill and some of the amendments that have been proposed.
[Translation]
I am pleased to see the general satisfaction on both sides of the House with this bill.
First, this satisfaction was evident during debate at second reading and during your committee's hearings. I realize that you wish to raise certain points, but they do not appear to be fundamental changes.
Second, I would like to point out that this bill was not prepared quickly, without consultation. Bill C-15 is the result of a series of studies undertaken by my colleagues in the other House.
[English]
Third, before I go into too many specifics, many of the concerns raised before your committee seem to be more of process than of substance. They relate to how specific words will be defined and how change is implemented at a very detailed and operational level.
In my respectful view, the current success of the system should give us all confidence that these issues will be resolved as the bill is implemented in practice, largely through the guidance of the officials who know the system so well. If it appears that more is required, then more will be done.
Let me turn to the question of possible amendments. There is one point that has been raised where I am persuaded an amendment would be in order. This pertains to the amendment made in the House at third reading with respect to 7(3)(h.3). The amendment would require in-house lobbyists to report on previous employment in the Government of Canada. This was not a government amendment, Madam Chair. It was made at a very late stage of the process. I understand the member of Parliament who proposed the amendment agrees with the concern raised by some of your colleagues about a lack of consistency between the expectations placed on in-house lobbyists and consultant lobbyists.
The member has written to the chair to encourage your amendment to this provision and to bring consistency into place so that Bill C-15 applies equally to all lobbyists. You would thereby be correcting an anomaly, and I would support that amendment. At the same time, the government is eager, if we can, to get this bill in force by the summertime. If it is the will of the committee to recommend, and of the Senate to enact that amendment, we would be grateful if it could be returned to the House as soon as possible so that I can make arrangements with the House leader to get the bill through the House with that amendment, which I believe would be broadly welcomed by the members of the House of Commons as overcoming an anomaly.
Let me speak briefly to other substantive issues that have been raised.
[Translation]
One concerns the detailed definition of the word ``communication'' in the bill.
We have clearly stated that simple requests for information have been excluded, including information that an average citizen may reasonably request. Otherwise, this exception does not apply.
Experience leads us to believe that lobbyists will tend to be transparent in that respect and they will choose to register even if their request for information is only remotely linked to lobbying.
I am not convinced that a detailed definition would help us in achieving our goals and balancing the principles underlying this bill.
In fact, I would be more concerned about too detailed a definition that could potentially create more loopholes simply because of the way it is worded.
There is also the issue of the legal status of the lobbyists' code of ethics. I believe that the concern is that the code is not a regulation and that therefore it cannot be enforced. In fact it can be enforced because section 10.3(1) of the current act states that lobbyists must comply with the code. This remains in Bill C-15.
The fact that specific provisions of the official regulations made under the Statutory Instruments Act do not apply to the code does not diminish in any way our ability to enforce this code.
[English]
For those reasons, Madam Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that the other discussions of amendments are not justified. However, I would be happy to support the correction of the anomaly from the amendment in the House.
I welcome any questions that honourable senators might have.
Senator Joyal: I am pleased to hear that you accept the amendment with respect to in-house lobbyists. I do not understand how this was overlooked in the first place in the House, when the intention was to ensure that the obligation was the same on the three categories of lobbyists. I am happy to hear that from you.
[Translation]
Mr. Rock: That is why we have the Senate.
[English]
Senator Joyal: We will carve those words in stone over the archway leading to this place.
I appreciate the comments that you made on two other issues, and I would like to bring to your attention some of the concerns that we have had around this table. I think they are important because, as I understand the government's intentions, this bill is part of a ``package.'' There is a bill in the other place dealing with electoral financing, Bill C-24, which would limit substantially corporate financing to various parties and to various riding associations. In fact, as you know, if the bill stands as it is proposed, there will be a limit of $1,000 per year, in total, which is very minimal.
My preoccupation is that the money that the private sector was spending quite rightfully to support various parties and political activities across the country will not disappear in the air overnight. That money will try to find a channel. If I were a lobbyist, I would see that as an opportunity to get more customers. If we were to total what all parties in Canada get on a yearly basis, it would be $16 million or $17 million.
In our study of Bill C-15, which proposes to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, make it more effective — and I think Bill C-15 achieves some of that — we have to ask ourselves if what we are doing on the one hand will have an impact on the other hand.
I am concerned that the five-year review might be changing the rules of the system and that the lobbyists' activities may be affected. It is only fair to express this concern to you because you have a long-standing experience raising money and I think that it is important.
Mr. Rock: You are referring of course to time and not amount.
Senator Joyal: Absolutely. However, I am certain that you understand the dynamics that we are changing in this amendment.
Would you be ready to ask your department to ensure that, if Bill C-24 passes as it stands and there is a significant reduction of the capacity of the private sector to support political activities, there would be due attention paid to the effect that would have on the lobbyists' activities in general? The bill would significantly affect the efficiency of the main proposed legislation with which we are dealing.
I am not sure that I have heard anybody speak to this issue. The minister has direct responsibility for the monitoring of Bill C-24 and the objective of the proposed legislation. I would like to draw your attention, and the attention of the government, to this fact because I have not yet heard any reaction to the result that would occur should Bill C-24 be adopted as it is currently written.
Mr. Rock: Senator Joyal, you make a fair point. I would be prepared to ask the department to monitor the functioning of this statute should Bill C-24 be passed and enacted. We would be happy to include tracking and monitoring of the changes in the nature of lobbying activity and report that at the time of the review.
Senator Joyal: My second question is in respect of the definition of ``information'' as it is currently written in the amendments of the bill.
The witnesses informed us, and our own review would suggest, that there are different ways to address the definition of ``information.'' Witnesses have said that instructions given by the registrar could provide that definition. There is, of course, the possibility that the Governor in Council could adopt a regulation to define ``information.'' There is also an amendment, which could include a definition.
I have told some witnesses that American legislation limits and circumscribes, in a more precise way, the meaning of ``exception to the bill.'' I have examined recent Quebec legislation, which was adopted last year that defines the scope of the exception.
I would like to read from the Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Act so that it is on the record. I will quote section 6 of the act:
[Translation]
Any communication for the sole purpose of inquiring as to the nature or scope of the legal rights or obligation of the client and enterprise or a group does not constitute a lobbying activity and as such is excluded from the application of this Act.
[English]
I will read the quote in English as well to ensure that we have the correct legal translation. The exception is formulated as follows:
Any communication for the sole purpose of inquiring as to the nature or scope of the legal rights or obligation of the client and enterprise or a group does not constitute a lobbying activity and as such is excluded from the application of this Act.
If I may quote you, Minister Rock:
[Translation]
``Information that an average citizen may request.''
Mr. Rock: The average citizen.
[English]
Senator Joyal: In this way you are defining the ``reasonable test'' in legal terms. There are two ways to approach it: I was about to say, ``to skin a cat'' but we are dealing with the animal cruelty bill and that would not have been politically correct. There is either the reasonable test applied to the individual or the definition of the ``nature of the information.'' There are two criteria from which to choose.
My opinion is that it would be better define the ``nature of the information'' than to use the ``reasonable test.'' The reasonable test could change from one citizen to the other and from one period of time to another, whereas the definition of the nature of the information is more objective. I would like to know the approach that you propose to adopt, either through a Governor in Council regulation, as section 10 of the original act proposes, or through instructions by the registrar. Which one would you prefer in terms of streamlining the definition of ``information,'' which is still a loophole?
Mr. Rock: On the question of legislating, as opposed to taking some other step, consideration was given to a legislative definition. However, the concern was that if we were to codify a definition, it might well create more problems than it would be intended to solve by opening up the possibility of loopholes of looseness of definition and of differing interpretations.
We concluded that it would be better for the statute to create a framework of principle and leave the details either to interpretation bulletins or regulations.
As you know, section 10 of the act provides for the authority to act in that fashion. I do not know that any conclusion has yet been reached about whether it should be an objective or subjective perspective in the bulletin that would be issued or the regulation that would be made.
I think we are looking at experience being collected through the Quebec legislation to determine whether it contains anything instructive. Even though it is relatively young, we may learn something from the way in which that statute functions. We continue in consultation to find the best way to capture the spirit of the legislation. We continue to try to strike that balance between the flexibility that you need in the real world and the firmness of guidance that you want to provide to participants in the process. We have not come to a conclusion, apart from our view that it is better not to legislate a definition but rather to leave it to a more flexible means.
Senator Joyal: My next question concerns the status of the code of conduct. I understand that when the bill was originally adopted, the code was not declared a statutory instrument. However, the Quebec law defines the code of conduct at par with the provisions of the Quebec act.
In other words, the penalties that apply to the act apply equally to the code, whereas the present system provides that authority to only the commissioner. The commissioner is responsible for the investigation to determine whether a breach of the act has occurred and to report it through the minister to the House of Commons.
This is a maximum penalty; there is not gradation of penalty. With the Quebec code on a legal par with the act, the penalty is graduated, which means there is a better capacity to adapt the penalty to the situation.
In the revisions of the next five years that situation should be monitored. Officers have told us there have been three charges under the act and all of them have been dropped. In fact, the act may have a deterrent effect but it does not seem to be as effective as one would expect it to be.
Streamlining the nature of the code with the nature of the provisions of the act and a more graduated penalty system could give the ethics commissioner a better capacity to implement the provisions of the bill and meet the transparency intention of the bill.
I suggest that you monitor how the Quebec code is implemented in that regard, because the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct in the act has exactly the same nature as the other provisions of the act that compels the lobbyist to register and so on. It is an important legal element if we want to have a system that is credible and efficient.
Mr. Rock: The senator is urging us to monitor the performance of the Quebec legislation and our legislation because we have taken a slightly different course.
When I first reviewed the transcripts of the proceedings of this committee in preparation for being here today, I had thought that one of the senator's main points was that we have not made the code legally enforceable because it is not legislated. My planned response was that clause 9 subsection 10.3 of the bill requires lobbyists to comply with the code. In that indirect way, they are legally required to respect it.
This morning I understand the senator to be urging us to look at how the Quebec act works in operation because of the different approach that it has taken. We will learn from that experience and the experience with our own legislation. We will have a future opportunity to fine tune or improve our legislation. You have identified an area that we should monitor carefully, and we will do that.
Senator Di Nino: First, I would like to applaud the minister for suggesting that we consider an amendment to deal with the amendment by Mr. Bryden in the other place. An unintended oversight created an imbalance that will be rectified.
My colleague Senator Joyal referred to the consequences of the passage of Bill C-24, and the potential ability of those who have more cash on hand to use it to get their point across.
Witnesses during hearings both here and in the other place have raised the recommendation that the cost of a lobbying campaign should be included in the disclosures by the counsellors that are allowed by this act.
Certainly, when Senator Joyal was speaking it came to mind that that is one of the areas in which folks would be able to use their money. There is some value in looking at disclosure of the cost of a lobbying campaign.
I understand that your department has not agreed to that. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Rock: While we were preparing Bill C-15 we looked at that possibility. It was among the suggested changes that were considered. Indeed, the standing committee that had studied the operation of the lobbyist registration statute suggested that it be studied. They had not recommended that we do it, but that we look at it carefully.
There were a number of considerations that led us not to include such a provision in the bill. The fundamental purpose of the statute is to render the whole process of lobbying transparent. It would officially acknowledge that lobbying is permissible and proper in a democratic society and permanent public office-holders may receive deputations or submissions from interested persons, but that it is done in the full view of the public.
With the registration, the code and the office of the Ethics Counsellor, soon to be commissioner, we thought that the purpose of transparency had been achieved. There is always a balance between requiring disclosure and respecting confidentiality.
On which side of the line do you find the amount billed by the lobbyist to the client? We came to the conclusion that it is on the side of confidentiality.
If the public knows a lobbyist was engaged, that the lobbyist had a stated purpose and that the lobbyist approached the office-holder for that purpose, then the public policy purpose has been satisfied.
Does it enhance the public policy purpose for the public to know the amount charged by the lobbyist? The fee might depend on the lobbyists' experience or upon the time spent. We thought it would more likely distort than enhance the kind of transparency we are trying to achieve if we got into that level of detail.
We were impressed by the strong submissions made by the lobbyist community that there is an element of confidentiality that should be respected. It is not a solicitor-client relationship, although some of the lobbyists are lawyers. I do not believe that they are acting in their professional capacity as lawyers. However, there is an element of confidentiality.
We will continue to look at that situation. If Bill C- 24 is enacted and it has an effect to on the volume or nature of the business, we can revisit this question in light of those changed circumstances.
We came to our conclusion, which is evident for reasons I stated, but opinions may differ and we will continue to monitor particularly it, particularly noting any change of circumstances in the years ahead.
Senator Di Nino: I will accept that comment as acknowledging that there may be a problem, and we should be looking at it in the spirit of transparency. It is important that we monitor that and see if revision to the legislation is needed in the five-year period.
Witnesses have suggested a change to the legislation to allow the public to have the right to lodge complaints. Could you comment on that as well?
Mr. Rock: That was discussed as we put Bill C-15 into draft form for tabling in the House. As you know, the public now has access through the Web site to all the registration information. They can also communicate with the Ethics Counsellor. There is nothing to prevent a member of the public from bringing something to the attention of the Ethics Counsellor.
We thought that creating a formal statutory process of complaint would add a layer of complexity that is not necessary. There is nothing to prevent a member of the public from bringing something to the attention of the Ethics Counsellor who can then act on that information by launching an investigation or take such action as may be appropriate.
Senator Di Nino: I am not sure it serves the purpose as stated by those who would like to see it better defined. The public is excluded in the process and we should monitor that as well. Those of us who have an interest in this will do be looking at it over the coming years.
Mr. Benson, have you any comments on either of the issues that I have raised?
Mr. Robert F. Benson, Office of the Ethics Counsellor, Industry Canada: The Lobbyists' Code of Conduct provides the ability for anyone to lodge a complaint if they feel that there has been an alleged breach of that code of conduct. Since that code was put into effect, the office has had 15 complaints from various entities from within and outside of the government. Activity by the public in relation to the code of conduct is there.
Senator Di Nino: What about the issue of disclosure of costs of lobbying campaigns?
Mr. Benson: Again, in relation to disclosure of costs, as the minister has pointed out, that has been reviewed by committee. It is something that the stakeholders have commented upon, as the minister indicated.
The disclosures that the lobbyists must file as to who they are working for, which departments they will lobby and which subject matters they will deal with will amount to the effective, open and transparent disclosure that addresses the nature of transparency for the lobby industry.
Senator Di Nino: Are you saying, then, that the Office Ethics Councillor agrees with the position taken by the government on this issue?
Mr. Benson: Yes.
Senator Stratton: We are dealing with the ethics package, campaign financing, and the lobbyist package, which I think are all directly or indirectly tied together.
I always marvel at the creativity of the human being; if you put something in law, mankind will find a way around it, as I am sure you will agree.
I am not talking about the ethics package, however, with respect to the lobbyists bill, and the one on campaign financing, I have a concern that as soon as the legislation is enacted people will find ways to circumvent it.
I know there is a five-year review, and I appreciate that you will monitor this over time. However, I think it would be appropriate if you could ask your department to give an update rather more frequently than that.
If you do not do it, the media will do it, in some form or fashion. They will bring to the public's attention what is transpiring. I would like to see a commitment from your department. I ask you to consider that, because if we are enacting legislation for transparency in three areas, then I think it is appropriate that Parliament in particular, and the public more broadly, know what is going on.
If an issue comes up, which I am almost certain it will, perhaps you could look at it and let us know, in a formal or informal way, what is transpiring and that you are indeed monitoring the situation.
If, as parliamentarians, we are seen to be on top of it, to be informing the public that this is taking place, then we are ahead of the game rather than following along in the reaction of the public to the event. The public will say, ``Well, you enacted these bills, and given the creativity of human beings, what did you do?
I would like to see us ahead of the game. Would you agree with that? Would you commit to do that?
Mr. Rock: As I understand it, Madam Chairman, and as I have already agreed with Senator Joyal, we will monitor the performance of this statute, if it is enacted by Parliament, on a continuous basis, particularly having regard to Bill C-24 and the changes that may be made. As I understand, I am being asked to make that examination ongoing.
Senator Stratton: Yes.
Mr. Rock: I assume that is what we will do.
Senator Stratton: I just want to ensure that we are seen as being ahead of the game, rather than following the public's opinion. The only way we will re-establish or raise the level of trust is by doing that, and I ask you to commit to that.
Mr. Rock: I can assure you that our monitoring will be continuous. I am available to you and to the standing committee of the House should you wish to hear from us, and we will make sure that the information we glean from the continuous monitoring goes into the review process.
I fully agree that we have to be responsive to changes. If campaign finance reform has a real impact on the nature of lobbying, on in its incidence and cost and volume, then we should be aware of that, we should be able to measure it, and we should be able to respond in a flexible way.
Mr. Bruce Bergen, Senior Counsel, Industry Canada Legal Services, Industry Canada: The Lobbyists' Registration Act contains a provision with respect to an annual report, and the registrar is required, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, to submit a report with respect to the administration of the act.
Senator Stratton: For all the good work that you are trying to do with respect to this issue, it counts for naught if an issue comes up and the public perception is that we are not being transparent and open. We need to get out ahead of the issue, on an ongoing basis. Thank you.
The Chairman: It is very important to be able to see the transparency. On the other hand, I really have no idea how you can possibly track down people who are actually doing lobbying but who do not register.
How do you know who is out there? How can you possibly know who they are? All you can do is apply penalties and hope you catch these people.
Senator Robertson: Further to the transparency issue I find that the legislation is rather vague. My hope is that legislation like this will give more confidence to the public, because we have a responsibility to ensure that our work is done with the greatest transparency so the public can increase its respect.
I would like to see the officials identified rather than the department itself, because the department is big and vague. Again, tied in with the new legislation, if it comes to pass, it would be very helpful to know who is being lobbied.
I want to ask you, does this only apply in Canada, or does it apply to our residents outside of Canada?
Mr. Rock: It is intended to capture activities in Canada.
Senator Robertson: It applies to residents in Canada only?
Mr. Rock: Yes. As to identifying the individual in the department who is being lobbied, I suppose our starting point is to tell the public that lobbying is occurring in relation to a department and that further inquiries can be made.
I do not know if Mr. Benson has a comment on identifying the individuals being lobbied, but he may have something he wishes to add on that.
Senator Robertson: I do not particularly want the name, but the office of the individual.
Mr. Benson: The underlying principle in the act we are concerned about is the transparency, coupled with redefining the definition of ``lobbying'' in the act. The words ``contact someone in an attempt to influence'' have been removed and as a result it is much broader. We have opened it up. It is basically not comparable in other legislative regimes out there in the lobbying community.
To address the aspect of transparency, when it gets to identifying an individual public servant or bureaucrat or what level they are at, it would get to the matter of transparency being identified, but with the redefinition of ``lobbying'' where it is now essentially in the context of any communication that you have in relation to that activity is now registerable. It has broadened out the aspect of transparency as to who has to register.
Senator Robertson: I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure I am satisfied with your answer. I would like you to think about this some more if you would. It is a serious concern of the general public. It is one of the issues where the public comes to us and asks, ``Who is lobbying whom and why''? All you have to do is read the papers.
The Chairman: One of the recommendations of Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to the House of Commons deals with this issue, and perhaps later I will read some of that into the record.
Mr. Bergen: My sole comment is that one of the things the Office of the Registrar General of Canada identified was that this could become quite an administrative burden. For instance, if a lobbyist met with public servants ``X'' and ``Y'' and went to a meeting and there was another public servant there, or perhaps a fourth public servant, would that mean the lobbyist would have to change his or her registration? If there were another meeting the following week, would it have to be amended again?
Senator Robertson: I think you could be busier and have more administrative work to do should the public find out that the lobbyist was dealing at a very high level, and nothing was being said about it. Surely, with the administrative processes that are available to us today, it should not be that difficult if we are using all of the technology properly.
The Chairman: This same issue came up in the House of Commons committee. The possible perverse effect of ``naming names'' was echoed by Linda Gervais:
I believe that if we had to reveal the names of the people receiving our calls, they might not be so open and might hesitate to call us back because they would have certain concerns. We want an open process. I think the results of such a thing would be the opposite of what we are looking for. I think it would be an incentive for some people to not call us back, to not provide us with information and to not be open...It is human nature.
I understand the evidence before the committee was quite mixed. The recommendation, following on from this evidence, was:
The committee does not recommend that the act be amended in order to create a requirement that the names of individuals who have been lobbied be disclosed in the lobbyist registry.
Mr. Rock: Madam Chairman, I take it the point made by Senator Robertson is not so much the names but the position of the office-holder.
Let me say that, while the act does not now require the office be identified, sufficient information is given that if there were reasons for inquiries to be made, whether in the House of Commons or elsewhere, further information could be provided.
As Mr. Bergen pointed out, it might become very difficult to keep track of who actually turns up at the meeting or who is it you are speaking to. However, at the very least, it is on the public record that a lobbyist approached a department on a certain subject. Then, if someone wants to ask me in the House or in public for further particulars, that information can be made available to them.
I suggest what we have done here is draw a line; we could have gone farther. Is it justified? Are we achieving something in the public interest that is worthy of the investment by attracting that additional level of administrative complexity or burden?
We decided that the fundamental fact of lobbying, purpose and department was important, and we are open to inquiry beyond that point. We have given the public information on the basis of which there may be further inquiry. We have disclosed the basics; and then, either in the public parliamentary process or in the media, the grounds are there if further inquiries are to be made.
The Chairman: I would just point out that the position narrows naming the person down to perhaps three people within a department. It is almost exactly the same thing, naming the position as naming the people themselves.
Senator Oliver: Surely transparency means disclosure; and Senator Robertson's proposal's is the highest-ranking person. If it happens to be a deputy minister or ADM or director, whoever is the highest-ranking person should be known.
Senator Di Nino: Madam Chairman, could you inform us as to when we could see a copy of the proposed amendment?
The Chairman: Where should put our amendment into the bill? I hope that we will sit down and write an amendment very shortly. I will certainly circulate it to everyone as soon as I get a copy of it.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Benson, Mr. Bergen, do you have comments with respect to that?
Mr. Bergen: I think the amendment that we are discussing here is, in essence, the duplication of what is now paragraph 7(3)(h.3) which is in what will be amended section 7 of the Lobbyist Registration Act; and, essentially, an insertion of that provision in what will be section 5 of the Lobbyist Registration Act.
I think we are looking at adding that same provision as an addition to clause 5 of the bill; following in all likelihood clause 5, subsection 5 as an additional paragraph.
Perhaps we should discuss this off-line with the drafters to ensure that is the correct place, although I would think that is where we would want to put it.
Senator Di Nino: From my reading, Madam Chairman, that would probably be appropriate. However, we will leave it to the experts.
The Chairman: I would hope that, because the department would agree to this kind of an amendment, perhaps you could word it correctly for us and return it to us as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bergen: Yes, I could speak with the departmental legislative drafters.
Senator Rompkey: The amendment is being worked on in-house and we are hoping to have our in-house draft by the end of the day.
The Chairman: It would probably help us if we had your ideas, as well those of our Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Mark Audcent.
Mr. Bergen: I would be more than willing to work with him.
Senator Rompkey: Our Senate people are overworked and underpaid.
The Chairman: There is only one of him, too.
Mr. Bergen: There is only one inference from that comment, Senator Rompkey.
Senator Stratton: I hope that if we do clause-by-clause tomorrow after we hear from the Ethics Counsellor, that amendment would be presented so that we could adopt it at that meeting. That would put the bill in a neat package for us to take the chamber.
The Chairman: Yes. Our meeting is at noon tomorrow, so time is of the essence to prepare this amendment.
Senator Joyal: Minister Rock, following the question put to you by Senator Robertson I would like to draw to your attention to one of the provisions of the Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Act that partly answers her point. I will read from chapter II, section 9, subsection 8) of that act:
9. A consultant lobbyist is registered on the filing of a return setting out the following information:
8) the name of any parliamentary, government or municipal institution in which any public office holder is employed or serves, with whom the consultant lobbyist has communicated or expects to communicate, as well as the ministerial, deputy-ministerial, managerial, professional or other nature of the functions of the public office holder;
In other words, it is not just the name but it is the name of the parliamentary institution or, of course, the ministerial, deputy-ministerial, managerial or professional, et cetera functions. It does not single out one individual but it is a service within the parliament.
It deserves some reflection following the question of Senator Robertson. Section 9, subsection 9) speaks to the amount of the money spent:
9) the range, among the following, within which the amount or value of any financial or other compensation received or to be received in return for the lobbyist activities falls: less than $10,000, from $10,000 to $50,000, from $50,000 to $100,000 and $100,000 or more.
In other words, they do not ask for a specific figure but rather a range of the amount. That seems to be fair in terms of public disclosure.
Mr. Rock I understand your argument when you say that we are applying sufficient information on-line so if an individual wants more, he could request additional information through the Access to Information Act.
Those two paragraphs in section 9 of the act speak to this issue. The act is very long, as you mentioned, and we do not know how it will be implemented. Subsections 8) and 9) seem to equal the proposal of Senator Robertson.
In the context of greater transparency, it is worth keeping in mind how that has created a burden by loading additional work on the public servants who deal with the registrar.
As Senator Milne said, section 16 of the House of Commons Report did not recommend the names of individuals or the services, or the level within the services of the lobbying activities. It is important to keep that distinction in mind.
Mr. Rock: It has often been observed that one of the advantages of a federation is that different governments, which sometimes share jurisdiction in similar areas, are able to learn from each other and the experiences that they develop in the approaches that they take.
A number of senators have identified this about the Quebec legislation, in more than one way, in which a different course has been taken. The purposes are the same, from a public policy point of view, and so it will be instructive to watch and learn from the experience with the Quebec legislation in respect of the two or three points that have been raised by senators. Let us watch and see.
We will constantly monitor the federal statute so we will be in a better position to decide whether we can improve the relevant national act by adopting some of these measures.
The Chairman: I thank you. Before you leave, Minister Rock, I would like to point out that the legislation provides for a comprehensive review after five years by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament. I strongly urge that both Houses review it.
Mr. Rock: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and all honourable senators for the careful attention to this proposed legislation and for the improvements that you have brought to it through your work.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, in the absence of the steering committee meeting, we will hear from Mr. Wilson at tomorrow's meeting, after which we will proceed at noon with clause-by-clause. Are we agreed?
Senator Stratton: Will we deal with the amendment?
The Chairman: The amendment will be before us as soon as possible. Are we agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.