Commissioner of Lobbying
Motion to Approve Reappointment Adopted
October 29, 2024
Honourable senators, thank you for allowing me a moment to speak on this matter. I will not take much of your time.
Senator Tannas commented on this motion last Thursday, and I recognize that this chamber has decided not to have officers of Parliament appear at committee for scrutiny upon their reappointment. I believe this is a missed opportunity and limits our ability to provide oversight over these roles, but I understand this is not the perspective of my colleagues.
I would simply like to put on the record a few considerations as they relate to the reappointment of the Commissioner of Lobbying and why this chamber is missing an opportunity to have a meaningful review of her new tenure.
This indeed applies to all appointments or reappointments of agents of Parliament. It is our duty as parliamentarians to exercise scrutiny and to understand their perspectives on decisions that they’ve made related to their important mandates.
In this case, as you know, the Commissioner of Lobbying is an independent agent of Parliament responsible for administering the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct. It is our responsibility, along with the House of Commons, to approve their appointment.
I would ask for a moment to make you aware of some items that I think would benefit from our scrutiny.
The Lobbying Act is years behind its five-year statutory review, which was last completed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in 2012, and it doesn’t appear that the current government has plans to examine it in the near future.
At the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, on April 16, 2024, the commissioner stated that most of the current “regime’s identified deficiencies can only be addressed through legislative amendments.”
Last year, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying consulted with registered lobbyists on updates to the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and updated the document.
The commissioner has garnered a strong reputation of engaging in consultations with various stakeholders; however, there are clearly many issues that could benefit from our review as it relates to the agility and objectives of the code.
Colleagues, I’m far from advocating against robust lobbying rules. Lobbying must be regulated in a transparent manner. But we must also allow for the ability of stakeholder groups that represent various voiceless entities to enter the legislative process. The reality is that Canada has some of the most restrictive rules, and these are at risk of being further entrenched.
My worry is that the existing practices of this officer of Parliament and the lack of legislative review may limit the ability of members of partisan caucuses to receive differing views on policy matters, particularly those contrary to their party’s partisan position. This could narrow the ability of parliamentarians in partisan caucuses to make fully informed judgments.
A Committee of the Whole often does not deliver a meaningful understanding for parliamentarians that a more succinct committee hearing may, and this is why I requested that this be up for consideration for future appointments or reappointments.
Thank you, honourable colleagues, for your consideration of my position.
Honourable senators, I’ll be brief as well. I just want to reiterate on behalf of my group, the Canadian Senators Group, that we have some concerns about the way in which we have handled the reappointment of these folks.
The law requires us to approve these appointments and extensions. In the past, we have held Committee of the Whole hearings as part of the approval process.
I think in this particular case, the performance of these departments and the intentions of these officers returning to this position deserve some scrutiny. A Committee of the Whole, or perhaps even simply a referral to a committee, would have been helpful to our deliberations and would have allowed those senators who have a real interest or expertise to attend those committee meetings. In a relatively short period of time, I think we could have had some valuable reflection.
Officers of Parliament are servants of Parliament. They are appointed with the consent of both chambers, and they are accountable to both chambers, not to the government. In fact, their purpose is to assist parliamentarians in their duty to hold the government to account.
If we don’t meaningfully engage with these officers, then we aren’t just contracting out a key part of our duty to hold the government to account, but we are also in fact divesting ourselves of it completely. We wanted to register our concern here today, and as we move to the motion, we ask that it be passed, if it is, on division. Thank you.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
(Motion agreed to, on division.)
