INST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE, DES SCIENCES ET DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 5, 2001

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

We have witnesses here today, but before we hear the witnesses, we have a motion from Tuesday's meeting.

Just so you know, Monsieur Brien, the motion that was presented by Mr. Duceppe is not necessarily in the proper format. However, it's clear in Montpetit-Marleau that a committee may move to reduce a vote by an amount equal to that certified in the estimates for program activity to which the committee is opposed. Therefore, the substance is procedurally correct to a certain extent. The motion doesn't contain the exact amount, however, and Montpetit-Marleau suggests it should, so the clerk has revised it. It appears to me you've done your homework—or Mr. Duceppe's homework, I should say. I'm opposed to you doing his homework, but I do believe you should be providing advice. So we have the revised motion that we could consider right now, and that's probably what we should do.

I'll just read you the motion as the clerk has revised it so that it's procedurally correct. It is that the money of vote 1 allocated to the duties of the ethics counsellor under the heading Industry for fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, be reduced by $1.965 million.

Monsieur Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): On a point of order, Madam Chair. I would like to know how this committee operates. The point in time at which we discuss our present motions seems to change. Is it always before we hear witnesses? Last time, we did it after hearing the witnesses.

So, on what do you base your decision, at various times, to have the vote on motions at the beginning of a meeting, whereas the next time it will be after hearing the witnesses? I know you have some discretion, and the number of Liberal members around the table might be a factor, but I would like to know if there are any other criteria at play.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Brien, I try to do motions when we have a quorum. The last time we didn't have a quorum when we started, so I had to delay it until after we had heard from the witnesses. As soon as we have a quorum, I try to do the motions. I'm trying to be as consistent as I can. I do apologize. The clerk did tell me that it was quite clear from Mr. Strahl a few weeks ago that after two sweeps, we should deal with the motion. I'm trying to deal with it as quickly and as promptly as I should.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: So, if I understand correctly, if we have a quorum at the beginning of the meeting, the vote always takes place at the outset.

[English]

The Chair: If it works.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Very well. I just wanted to find out what the rule is.

[English]

The Chair: If we don't have a quorum, I'll turn to the witnesses. We'll wait until the witnesses are finished before we move to motions, even if we have a quorum in the middle of that. That seems to be the most orderly thing to do.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee proceeds to the statutory review of the Lobbyists Registration Act.

We'll now turn to our witnesses. We have with us today, from the Government Relations Institute of Canada, Mr. Tony Stikeman, the president, and from GPC International, Mr. John Scott, vice-president and general counsel. I believe both have opening statements, which we will hear, and then we'll turn to questions.

We'll start with Mr. Stikeman, unless you've agreed on a different order.

Mr. Tony Stikeman (President, Government Relations Institute of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

• 0910

With me today from the Government Relations Institute of Canada is Carole Presseault, who is on the board of GRIC and in her day job she is the manager of health policy at the Canadian Nurses Association. Also with me is Ian Faris, who is the director of government affairs at the AT&T Canada Corporation.

In my day job I'm president of a government relations consulting firm known as Tactix Government Consulting.

John Scott is also vice-president and general counsel of GPC International, and he will be presenting his own statement at the conclusion of our remarks. John is also part of our panel, as a very active member of our association and of our industry.

I should talk a little bit about GRIC before we get into the substance of the issues. We have provided members of the committee with a submission, which I hope you all have. Very briefly, the Government Relations Institute of Canada, or GRIC, as we affectionately know it, was established back in 1995. It now numbers approximately 100 members. We are very proud of the fact that our representation is well balanced among consultant lobbyists, in-house corporate lobbyists, and in-house organization lobbyists. It's for that reason that the three members representing GRIC today are representatives of each of those three groups.

We have a code of conduct, which we brought into being in 1995, that mirrors but does not replicate the lobbyists' code of conduct that was brought in by the ethics counsellor under the act. We have quite an active membership and quite a series of programs.

I think the most important point I'd like to make before I move on is that all of our members are very supportive of the act, particularly as it was amended in 1995. We believe that the transparency, the openness, and the legitimizing of the corporate culture allow for a registered but very open and free access to public office holders, and that has been well demonstrated by the way the act has been managed and by the way our members, we believe, have gone about their business.

We support the act's principles, as I know this committee does. There are four very important principles, and we believe they help to really legitimize the activities that go on here in Ottawa on a daily basis.

We would like to turn our attention very briefly to the three issues the minister raised in his letter to the committee asking for guidance on possible changes. We believe that of these issues, we can deal very quickly with two of them.

The first one deals with the potential for changing the registration requirements of the in-house corporate lobbyists to more closely mirror the filing requirements of the in-house organization lobbyists. You'll forgive me if we get a bit tongue-tied when defining the different subsectors of our profession. Fundamentally, the in-house corporate lobbyists now must register if they and they alone spend more than 20% of their job doing registerable activities. Conversely, in-house organization lobbyists need only register if the sum total of lobbying time for the entire association is equal to 20% of an individual. At that point everybody in the organization must register.

Frankly, we're of the belief that these are unnecessary administrative requirements placed on the in-house organization lobbyists. Nevertheless, being unfamiliar with what Parliament had in mind when it brought in the act in 1985 and subsequently amended it in 1995, and not being sure what additional intentions were being laid on the in-house organization lobbyists, we have chosen not to question that particular additional administrative requirement. Having said that, we don't particularly like it.

We would like very much to see the in-house corporate lobbyist requirement—i.e., every individual if he or she spends more than 20% of their time—remain as is.

Members of the committee, we'd just as soon leave the filing requirements for the two in-house types of lobbyists unchanged. That's our bottom-line position.

• 0915

I'd be happy to answer questions with my two colleagues who represent the two sides of the in-house profession.

The second administrative matter deals with whether consultant lobbyists, such as myself and John Scott, be required to register and update our registrations semi-annually or annually. Right now, as you may know, we are obliged to register within ten days of beginning a piece of registrable work, and we must deregister within a month of having completed that assignment.

We are of the belief that sometimes we are perhaps not as diligent as we should be at deregistering. It would be a useful prompt to be reminded by the registration folks once a year as to whether or not we should be, in fact, deregistering or amending and updating our registrations. The consultant lobbyists would be quite agreeable to doing that on an annual basis.

I have a small asterisk at the bottom of this point. Right now the in-house corporate lobbyists have to update their registrations once a year. We would like to be in that same category. It turns out that the in-house organization lobbyists must update their filings every six months.

I'm told that this is really an unnecessary administrative task. So little changes in the course of six months that the public interest is hardly served by such additional transparency. Therefore, our recommendation would be that all three types of lobbyists be required to update their registrations once a year. That would be our second recommendation.

The third one, which the minister has raised, deals with the issue of enforcement. Not being a lawyer, it is unclear to me where the problem may lie in terms of lack of enforcement of this act. However, the ethics counsellor, acting on the best possible advice, has raised the issue in no uncertain terms that enforcement may be an issue. If he is concerned, we are concerned. We would very much like to work within an act that is seen by the public—by public office holders—as reliable and one where compliance is complete, because we wish to ensure that the public interest is served. We want to make sure that there is a high level of trust and confidence in our activities and in our professionals and in our members. We want to work within an act that is seen to be doing its job.

We would therefore like to offer the capabilities of our members to work with this committee and to work with the ethics counsellor to better understand what the actual concerns are that he has with the apparent lack of enforcement. We make that offer in the most open possible spirit, Madam Chairperson, because this is a matter that we consider to be serious. As I repeat, if he's concerned, we're concerned.

That ends the formal part of our statement. I'd be happy, if there are any questions, to either take them or share them with any of my colleagues at the table here.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Stikeman.

We'll now turn to Mr. Scott.

Mr. John Scott (Vice-President and General Counsel, GPC International): Madam Chair, just a point of clarification. I'm here assisting GRIC with their presentation, but I would like to make my presentation as a separate presentation on behalf of GPC International. We submitted a completely separate brief. In my presentation there are other issues, which GRIC has no specific position on. So in discussing with Mr. Stikeman, we had determined that GRIC would make their presentation, and then we could turn to me, if that would be agreeable to you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Well, GRIC just made their presentation, so I'm turning to you. Maybe I'm not following you here, Mr. Scott.

Mr. John Scott: I have nothing to add to the GRIC presentation.

The Chair: No, but I'm asking for your presentation. When we usually have a round table with witnesses, they both make their presentation, and then we move to questions together. Some questions may be similar and some questions may be very different. Maybe the clerk didn't explain that to you when he organized the meeting.

Mr. John Scott: No.

The Chair: Is that okay?

Mr. John Scott: Yes, that's fine. We can do that. However, I don't think it's fair to my colleagues to get into some of the issues that we've raised—for example, fee disclosure, tax deductibility, contingency fees, and so on. GRIC, as an organization, has not taken any specific position on that.

The Chair: Okay.

If members are in agreement, we could ask questions of Mr. Stikeman and his group now.

A voice: We can probably handle it.

The Chair: We can handle it.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): We can differentiate between the two.

• 0920

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): We can figure this out.

The Chair: Mr. Scott, it's probably best if you make your presentation. We will lose some members as the committee goes on, so it's best if you have the opportunity to have most members hear your presentation.

Mr. John Scott: That's fine. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

GPC International is Canada's leading public affairs and communications consulting organization, with more than 200 staff in Canada. We have offices across the country. In addition, we have offices in the United States and throughout Europe and in Mexico.

Mr. Stikeman just talked about the support of the act, and I echo those comments with respect to GPC International's position. In fact, we've openly supported the act in the past. We've participated fully in providing advice and support for amendments as well as the enactment of the lobbyists code of conduct.

GPC was a founding member of GRIC, with the intention that the profession as a whole should take an active role in providing informed advice and input to Parliament and the public on the lobbying profession, and also take the lead to establish guidelines on best and expected practices for members of the lobbying profession. We too endorse the four principles that Mr. Stikeman outlined, as did the minister in his letter to the committee.

If I can just talk about some general comments on the act from our own experience, from GPC's perspective we feel clearly that the Lobbyists Registration Act has successfully embraced its guiding principles, balancing the need for free and open access to government with the need for the public to also know who is attempting to influence whom.

Second, as the act stands now, it reads well, and the statement of what constitutes registerable activities is clear and easily understood.

Third, with respect to the electronic registration procedure and the timely feedback and responsiveness on matters from the registrar's office, it's always been positive with respect to GPC's working within the four corners of the act.

So I think it's fair enough to say from our perspective that based on our experience there's no need for any comprehensive changes to the legislation. But there are a number of specific issues we would like to bring to the committee's attention and provide some commentary on.

First, with respect to the failure to deregister, Mr. Stikeman mentioned the 30-day period. We have a practical concern about that, in that the sanction that applies with respect to failure to deregister is the same as failure to register or misrepresenting facts. In reality, the failure to deregister is not causing the public interest any harm at all.

As Mr. Stikeman mentioned, unfortunately it does occur that this 30-day period is exceeded. We would strongly support that the 30-day period be removed or be dealt with with respect to the annual updating of filing, so that it does not constitute a criminal offence, as it currently does now, to not deregister within the 30-day period.

The second item I'd like to turn to is fee disclosure. GPC sees no public benefit associated with the disclosure of fees, and is strongly opposed to any suggestions that consultants and lobbyists should be obliged to disclose fees. Those who would promote the merits of this suggestion sometimes refer to disclosure requirements in the United States as a meaningful precedent. However, based on discussions with our American colleagues and a review of how disclosure works in practice in the United States, we believe that fee disclosure does not add transparency to their system.

On a personal basis, I had an opportunity to speak with an assistant in Senator Feingold's office on one of my trips to Washington, and I believe I have a fair understanding of what the situation is with fee disclosure in the United States.

There are issues of timeliness—or lack thereof—of disclosure in the United States. The application of disclosure to pure lobbying activity is another issue relating to what constitutes lobbying activity for the purposes of disclosure. What is really occurring in the United States is that public information can be easily misrepresentative and may not disclose enough about major lobbyists, while alternatively overly generous disclosure may be used by some consultants as a profile marketing tool and a marketing tool only.

Fundamentally, I feel—and GPC feels—it is a system of information for the sake of information only, without any grounding in the benefits to the public at large.

In addition, in Canada the services of lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants vary from firm to firm and from individual to individual. Some chiefly provide representational services. Others place emphasis on providing their clients with information only. And still others offer a full-service continuum in terms of monitoring, analysis, and a number of other things that range from a complete continuum of activity, only a small portion of which is lobbying—actually making contact with public officials.

• 0925

The public policy and government relations consulting industry also operates on a very competitive market, much like any other service industry in Canada today. Clients engage the firm of their choice after careful consideration of a range of criteria. Price is one of the factors involved, but only one. And I suggest to you, Madam Chair, and to the committee that this issue of fee disclosure leads to a slippery slope if the lobbying profession is subjected to legislated disclosure requirements when other professions are not.

For example, as referred to in our letter and brief filed with the committee, we have substantive concern that requiring fee disclosure is contrary to the government's own recognized principle of information protection under section 20 of the Access to Information Act. That provision prohibits government from disclosing information that could reasonably be expected to result in a material financial loss to or prejudice to or interference with the competitive position of the contractual or other negotiations of a third party.

I therefore ask the question: would the committee want to overturn, under indirect legislation under the Lobbyists Registration Act, a fundamental principle of privacy under the Access to Information Act? And I point out in closing that this is a situation between two third-party individuals contracting with respect to fees. When it comes to doing work for the government or whatever, there is disclosure. But I urge the committee to consider this very carefully.

The third item I'd like to turn to, if I may, Madam Chair, is contingency fees. Within the current Lobbyists Registration Act, paragraph 5(2)(g) states that we will declare whether we are receiving contingency fees when we make a filing. We question the relevance of the current disclosure requirements that are set out in the act.

Contingency fee arrangements are not prohibited under the Lobbyists Registration Act, and there are compliance requirements under separate specific legislative restrictions. We feel that those restrictions should be dealt with within the four corners of their particular legislation. For example, in my letter I refer the committee to the Treasury Board Secretariat's contracting policy, enacted in 1994, which specifically addresses the issue of contingency fees and forbids all parties contracting with government from paying, and lobbyists from accepting, any such fees.

Compliance declarations by contracting parties under that policy are fully appropriate and adequate and without the need for redundant statements under the Lobbyists Registration Act. Where contingency fees are not prohibited, lobbyists should not be obliged to disclose contingency fee arrangements freely and legally negotiated with clients. In fact, the concept of value billing for clients in the professional service industry is becoming recognized, and even demanded, as the best and proper way for professionals to provide services.

For example, in this month's edition of the Canadian Bar Association's bimonthly magazine, National, it contains a timely article supporting value billing. And I hasten to add that it should be noted that almost every provincial law association in Canada has endorsed contingency fees as an acceptable and indeed positive way to provide legal services. I urge you to consider that there should be no different standard for the lobbying profession.

At most, under the Lobbyists Registration Act I would expect that perhaps there should be a requirement to declare under the act that the consultant lobbyist is not in contravention of any prohibitions against contingency fees. Leave it to us to determine whether we fit under the different types of legislation and state clearly—and it's a statement of fact that has a criminal impact on it—that we are not in contravention, as opposed to declaring that we are being paid by contingency for issues that are unrelated and legal.

I have two items to finish up with, Madam Chair, one being tax deductibility of lobbying fees. We understand there may be a recommendation made to the committee to consider the elimination of the tax deductibility of lobbying fees. In essence, this is an indirect way to suggest that lobbying fees are not a legitimate business expense like legal, accounting, or management consulting services. If we all truly endorsed the four guiding principles of the act, especially the principle that lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity, then this initiative is patently not an appropriate suggestion.

• 0930

In addition, if deductibility were removed it would make the costs of having professional public policy counsel involved, giving reasoned representation to government on the many complex issues... it would all be compromised. And that, I suggest, would not be in the best interests of parliamentarians or of the public service and would be an undeniable step backward in a process that has evolved positively in the last 15 years.

The final comment I wish to make addresses a matter outside the legislative purview of the act but is a matter of practical importance to the lobbying profession—namely, the ability of the profession to represent different interests in a transparent manner without compromising the advice that may be given to and the action for clients with opposing interests.

Although it is not a legislative concern of the committee, we feel it is important for the committee to take note of our concerns about the current lobbyist guidelines on conflict of interest and how they might be improved. These guidelines, which expand rules 4 and I believe 7 and 8 in the lobbyists code of conduct, which forms part of the legislation dealing with confidential information, are the same as the guidelines endorsed by the Canadian Bar Association in 1993. They were provided to the lobbyist profession in 1999 with respect to setting out what criteria would apply for conflict of interest for lobbyists. These guidelines, which come from the Canadian Bar Association, are entirely appropriate where litigation and court-related issues of evidence are involved.

The concern that we at GPC have is that those guidelines, established by and for lawyers—and I can't be too critical, because I'm one of those—focus on excluding the conflicted person from any contact with colleagues who may be working on a conflicted issue. For example, the guidelines that we currently should be following, if we're dealing with the matter of this thing, are guidelines 11 and 12, which state that the screened lawyers' office—read “consultants”—should be located away from the offices of those working on a conflicted file, and the screened lawyer—read “consultant”—should work with associates and support personnel different from those lawyers—read “consultants”. In the lobbying profession it is not a matter of isolating the person, but of isolating the work that is being done.

The Canadian Bar Association guidelines are not practical or relevant in that context. Accordingly, at GPC we've established our own conflict protocol, which we feel fully meets the lobbyist code but which applies more workable restraints within a lobbying type of profession. More importantly, the GPC protocol has been endorsed by our clients, who have the most at stake, as protecting their interests. They say that it protects their interests entirely while retaining the excellence and integrity of the service provided to them.

I have brought copies of that protocol along with me today, Madam Chair, which I would be pleased to share with the committee to give an indication of the sorts of things that we, as a member of GRIC and within the profession, feel are most appropriate for the work we do.

Those are the only comments I have to make, Madam Chair. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.

We're now going to questions and we're going to start with Monsieur Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The general conclusion I can draw from your two presentations is that, obviously, they suggest few changes that would result in further constraining lobbying activities and, in your view, things are working pretty well at the present time. This is quite understandable: you represent people who may have no interest in being subjected to more requirements.

So, here is my first question: people have suggested that we need more information in order to assess the type of lobbying that is taking place, at any rate more information than just knowing which department is being lobbied.

For example, it would be good to know if there are meetings with senior officials such as deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, etc. I am not talking about calls you might make to a department in order to get information, but about meetings with high level officials in the public service. That type of information could be considerably more detailed than it is at present.

Would you be agreeable to do this or would your reaction be that such a volume of information would be too much, too costly and irrelevant?

[English]

Mr. Tony Stikeman: If I might begin by answering your question, Mr. Brien, the point you raise is one that has been raised on a couple of other occasions. We're not at all concerned, frankly, about the additional cost of registering additional information, although that is an administrative difficulty. But the cost is not a factor.

• 0935

The real issue that we would want to go back to is the basic principles in the act. The act says—and I will paraphrase—that lobbying is open, it is transparent, and I don't believe it uses the word “beneficial”, but I believe it says everything but that. We think the amount of information that is currently contained in the lobby registry itself is as sufficient and complete as any reasonable observer of the public policy process would wish to have.

For example, I can't imagine any situation that would arise where a registered lobbyist was under any kind of cloud as to what in fact they were trying to go about when they were meeting with officials at any level in government. If the issue here is one of dealing with the issue, the client issue or the public policy issue, that's there for the whole world to see, and we are as transparently open as one could possibly be.

To go back to your point, the only thing that's missing is who precisely we are speaking to in the government. To ask us to produce all that information goes to the heart of which people in which files are being asked to provide some public policy reaction or input, as opposed to the issue itself.

Our sense of the act is that it goes to the heart of dealing with the issue, dealing with what the lobbyists are all about. Let's not focus on what the individual public servants are doing in terms of various levels of activity on the file.

So the issue isn't one of cost, but one of dealing with the situation, the project, and the file that is engaging our clients and us as consultant lobbyists—and for that matter, in-house organization and corporate lobbyists as well.

The Chair: Mr. Scott, did you wish to respond as well?

Mr. John Scott: I would just add that the whole focus of the Lobbyists Registration Act is serving the public interest. So I question whether providing that level or extra detail adds benefit in terms of the public interest being served.

To echo one final comment that Mr. Stikeman mentioned, currently we do disclose. For example, if I were going to be making a presentation for the Department of Finance, then everyone would be aware of that. The media can pick up the phone and contact the department and say “Mr. Scott is contacting you on a particular issue. May we have some more details?”

There are access to information criteria that then kick in, in terms of what should or should not be disclosed, depending on what the issue is. It's the same with members of Parliament and with committees. If Mr. Lynch or someone from the Department of Finance was appearing here, you could say “I understand Mr. Scott contacted your department. Can you enlighten us more in terms of what the issues are?” But getting into filing every single name of every single person that we might meet with in government is a problem administratively and I think is adequately covered under the current situation.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Let me just point out, Madam Chair, that I am not talking about all the people you would meet with. I talked about high level public officials. There is a difference.

Let us talk now about the failure to register. I suppose the people you represent follow the rules and that this would be less of a problem within your membership. The failure to register is a crime. However, there is a statutory limitation so that if offenders are found out after two years, they can no longer be charged. It has happened that people could not be charged and punished because the deadline for prosecution had passed.

Do you not think that we need to strengthen the ability to punish those who fail to register and engage in lobbying?

[English]

Mr. Tony Stikeman: If I could pick up on that question, that goes to the point we were trying to make in our earlier submission. I don't know that the level of punishment needs to be changed. Perhaps it does; perhaps it should be stronger. I'm not prepared to comment on that. My main point and that of GRIC members is yes, we would like to ensure that there is full enforcement of the act. If this is happening, people should not be allowed to not register and get away with it if they're engaging in legitimate registerable activities. If there's a two-year hiatus until an individual is found, then that's highly unfortunate.

• 0940

To go back to an earlier point, we would very much like to see this committee respond positively to the ethic counsellor's concerns about lack of enforcement. We would be fully prepared as an association to dialogue with the committee, with the ethics counsellor, and anybody else to try to ensure that if there are problems with enforcement, those problems are identified and remedied quickly.

The Chair: Mr. Scott:

Mr. John Scott: Exactly the same, we comply and we want to make sure that everyone complies. So whatever can be done to ensure that people do... If it means extending a two-year period, that's fine, adding on with respect to enforcement, for example. There might be issues adding definitions in the section within the act that might make it easier for the ethics counsellor to refer matters, whatever it may take.

We're well prepared to sit down and assist in trying to find out what the issues and problems are and suggestions on how it could be better.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Brien.

[English]

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you.

Mr. Scott, you're a lobbyist?

Mr. John Scott: My main role is general counsel, senior legal officer, for GPC International, but from time to time I do some consulting work, probably less than 5% of the total time that I'm with GPC.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Stikeman, among your group, are you a lobbyist?

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Yes, I am.

Mr. Reg Alcock: What percentage of the meetings you would have would be with, shall we say, public servants versus ministers, or ministerial staff versus members of Parliament?

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Speaking personally, I would say it's probably 75% public servants and 25% staff of members of Parliament and cabinet ministers, and actual members of Parliament and ministers would happen even more infrequently. But I would defer to my colleagues, Madame Presseault and Mr. Faris, who may have a different balance.

Ms. Carole Presseault (Health Policy Manager, Canadian Nurses Association; Government Relations Institute of Canada): That means I have to do the math quicker than he does.

Probably 70% or 75% we would spend with departmental officials, and I would probably say 25% with staff of members of Parliament, ministers' offices, and ministers.

The Chair: Mr. Faris, would you like to respond?

Mr. Ian M. Faris (Director, Government Affairs, AT&T Canada; Government Relations Institute of Canada): Yes. I would say my percentage is probably about 50-50.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Scott, would that be similar for your organization?

Mr. John Scott: In our organization, I suppose that would be fair. On a personal basis, it would be primarily with public service officials and not necessarily with members of Parliament.

Mr. Reg Alcock: When you bill for these meetings, do you bill per meeting?

Mr. John Scott: I'd turn it over to the others to comment. Our billing structure varies with the clients in terms of whether it's a fixed retainer or hourly. It runs the gamut. In some cases it's on a fixed retainer arrangement. It wouldn't be by meeting, but by the amount of work we're doing with respect to a particular issue.

I defer to my other colleague.

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Speaking as a consultant lobbyist, our contractual arrangements with clients are either on a fixed monthly basis, in which case you'd put in the hours, or on a project basis over a fixed period of time. It's not done per call, per meeting, or per letter.

Mr. Reg Alcock: In either case, and to both of you, do you report your activities in your monthly billings?

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Yes, we do.

Mr. John Scott: Yes, we do. Some clients don't require it, but others do. So again, it's a mixed situation, because we're a very large organization.

Mr. Reg Alcock: So you can keep track of the meetings for billing purposes, but not for disclosure purposes. Can you explain the contradiction in that, Mr. Scott?

Mr. John Scott: I don't think there's any contradiction in that, because, again, the legislative requirement deals with the greater public interest that's being served.

In terms of providing that sort of minutia and detail, and whatever, on every situation, I think that would create quite an administrative nightmare with respect to a legislative requirement. I think I can say that.

Ms. Carole Presseault: I'll just step in here, because we shouldn't forgo also the requirements that would impose on association lobbyists, who come from the sector I represent. I would also be tempted to say that it could be a deterrent to filing in the first place if people were required. There are 360-some association lobbyists out there, some of them very small, and I would see it as being a big burden on their capacity to be reporting on their activities.

• 0945

Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes. I guess not everyone has a daybook and so on. I could see it as being a huge burden.

Mr. Scott, did I understand you to say that you do not meet the Canadian Bar Association guidelines?

Mr. John Scott: We do meet the bar... well... Yes, we do, except that the Canadian Bar Association guidelines being promulgated require that the associates can't work in the office next to each other. Now, how do you deal with that in a small lobbying business that may have five or six people?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Like GPC.

Mr. John Scott: No, GPC is a much larger organization, but this is within each office. For example, our office in Ottawa might be fifty or sixty people, and in Calgary it might be five or six.

What we have done—and I'll leave this with you, Madam Chair—is to set up with the focus on individuals. In fact, we comply with all the other criteria. There are declarations signed by the consultants that they will not disclose the information to others. It's a very clear protocol that we have our consultants comply with.

With respect to the last issue, that you cannot work with the person sitting in the next office, because at some point, in the legal situation... This was intended for where firms merged. A lawyer came in, having worked on the opposite side of something, and then all of a sudden his newly merged firm is doing something else. Effectively, they focused on the “bad” person who came into the bad apple with information. In a court situation, it's used as a weapon in defence to exclude firms from representation. That doesn't apply in our lobbying environment.

So we do comply, but we set out certain criteria that I think are more than adequate with respect to what's required under the act.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Alcock.

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Is there a cost for registration under the lobbying act?

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Not if you file electronically. There is a cost if you file by paper. It's actually quite large. It's about $150 a filing. So there's a strong incentive to file electronically for free.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It goes without saying, or maybe it doesn't, that if you deregister and then have to file again, there would be an additional charge, unless of course you e-filed. Or would there be an additional cost?

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Almost everybody files electronically. I believe it's 98% or something.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So it's not issue.

Mr. Brien was mentioning at what level you would lobby, and Mr. Alcock got the percentages between ministers and MPs as compared with public servants. What level of administration or level of public servant would you usually meet with?

Mr. Tony Stikeman: I can give you some general experiences, but I certainly don't want you to take my comments as being generic to the industry at large.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You all came fairly close, and that's pretty generic.

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Or pretty rough justice, or whatever.

In my own situation, I would be dealing with officials anywhere from the level of chief or director right up, typically, through assistant deputy minister, and occasionally, but rarely, deputy minister. That would be my own personal experience.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That would be pretty much the same as anyone else.

How many meetings would you have, roughly, in relation to a specific issue or project? How many meetings would you have on any one specific instance?

Mr. Tony Stikeman: I wouldn't know how to answer that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Does it usually take five visits? Does it only take one visit, and the message gets across? Is it ten visits? You're saying you're not able to answer it, but by rights you're billing, as Mr. Alcock mentioned, so you probably have some idea how much time and how many visits it takes. That would just be good business.

Ms. Carole Presseault: I guess I'll jump in here and say that our work is maybe a little bit different, as I understand it, from the work of consultant lobbyists, as organization or association lobbyists.

As to public policy, it's hard to find the start point and the end point of public policy.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But I'm asking about the meetings. How many meetings would you take, roughly? You all have some kind of billing process in place. I don't expect you to know every single one, but you must have some idea of how many meetings you have to have. I mean, I know how many meetings I have to have when I go to see my accountant or someone else. I have a rough idea of how much time it's going to take to look after things. You must have some idea.

• 0950

Mr. Ian Faris: Perhaps I can interject here. From the corporate perspective, I think it also depends on the issue. If it's a legislative issue, it could take quite a few, certainly more than ten or twenty. There would be meetings with committee members, members of Parliament, political staff, and departmental officials from the department involved. If it's a procurement issue, which I work on from a corporate perspective, it could be very few, one or two. So it runs the whole gamut, certainly.

Mr. John Scott: Exactly. If you're dealing with a helicopter procurement issue, it's different from dealing with a particular item that might be reflecting a company's operation in a particular riding or something. So I think that has to be taken into account.

On the issue of lobbying, I earlier mentioned the word “continuum”. I think all of my colleagues involved would say that leading to a meeting is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of all the other work that will be done beforehand in terms of monitoring and analysing what's gone on before with regard to policy developments, providing strategic advice, and assisting in the design of how it's going to happen.

In our case at GPC, for example, we urge our clients to be the spokespersons, because they are the people who live and breathe the issues they might be dealing with. So it may not be us who are having the meetings at all.

I think it's very difficult, then, for us to answer the total question you're asking on how many meetings are involved. It depends on the issue.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It may not be you who's having the meetings, no, but I'm talking specifically about who or which group is in charge of the file, and how many meetings they would have. There are phone meetings and those types of things. I think people want to have some idea of what exactly it entails.

There seems to be a concern that it would be too hard to track these, and yet the general comment seems to be that a lot of contact would be about twenty visits. Is that a reasonable...

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Perhaps I can jump in here for a second. I didn't mean to be evasive with my earlier comment, and I apologize, but I was thinking of the wide range of activities that we as professionals become engaged in and how one finds an average. In our consultant business, at my own company, we have clients that have been with us now for five or six years. I have one particular client I've had the pleasure of working for continuously since 1988. One has such a long-term relationship with the client that the issues one is dealing with and the number of meetings one has with public officials can sometimes go from five meetings in a week to five a year.

Equally, there are some very intense projects with particular date limits, and one has to try to muster the resources as quickly as possible, in which case you might have a number of intense meetings and then it will just disappear, and you might not have one for five years. As I say, it's really quite difficult to give you a precise answer.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But I wasn't so much questioning on the meetings with the clients as I was the meetings with the public officials.

Mr. Tony Stikeman: That's what I was referring to.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You're talking about the public servants?

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Yes, I am.

Mr. Ian Faris: I think there are different types of meetings. I might call a legislative assistant in a minister's office to find out the status of a particular bill, whether it's before a committee or at whatever reading. It might be something as simple as that or it might be something else. For instance, in my situation, the trade negotiations on GATS, trade in services, it means constant contact with the department, daily or almost twice daily.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Would you keep track of that contact? Would you make a note of it, for instance?

Mr. Ian Faris: I wouldn't keep track of the number of phone calls. I'd keep track of the issue but not of the actual contacts. I wouldn't write it down every time.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Jennings, please.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you.

I'm pleased that you're interested in dialoguing on the issue of the penal sanctions there and whether or not the delay should be extended from the actual two years right now.

You were asked the question, and I'd like to know, are you in favour of that being extended up to possibly three or five years?

Mr. Tony Stikeman: As an association, we've not addressed that issue, so I'm really not in a position to give you a complete answer on that. But it's a very good question. We can certainly take that back to our membership.

Our sense at this point, however, is that two years is not a particular problem, although I stand to be corrected on that. The larger issue—

• 0955

Ms. Marlene Jennings: May I interrupt? It's the counsellor himself who said there is a problem, because there have been cases where it has not been possible to institute penal proceedings against someone who is a lobbyist and has violated the legislation, because the delay was two years. So the ethics counsellor himself has said it's an issue. Therefore, it's an issue this committee has to look at and make recommendations on. So I would appreciate it if your association does look at it and bring back a recommendation, if you're able to come to one, to this committee. You could do that in writing.

I would ask the same of you, Mr. Scott, if your group has not taken a position on that.

Mr. John Scott: I could speak immediately on behalf of GPC International, because that's the company I'm with. As I said earlier, we would welcome anything that would ensure enforcement under the act. If the ethics counsellor is recommending three years, four years, five years and the committee feels that's appropriate, then we would support that.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Great.

One of the issues you dealt with, Mr. Scott—I don't believe, Mr. Stikeman, you did on behalf of the Government Relations Institute of Canada—was that of

[Translation]

the failure to register.

[English]

As it now stands in the legislation, the penalty is the same whether one has not registered or has neglected to deregister, because one is no longer either a lobbyist or is no longer representing a certain client.

I find the point quite interesting, because I, on the face of it, don't see what public interest there would be in someone's not having deregistered within 30 days. My concern would be that if we go to an annual, rather than a six-month, declaration, then even a lobbyist of good faith could remain as registered for a client for up to a year, while in fact they're not representing that client. That could cause some confusion, because as it now stands, one of the arguments being given is that the legislation works so well and there is a 98% compliance. We don't need to know who you're meeting amongst government officials, ministers, or MPs, because the person being met with by the lobbyist simply has to go into the data bank to determine who you're actually registered as representing.

So there is that problem. I'd like to know how you see that being dealt with? If we say that it shouldn't be the same sanction for not deregistering, if we say that it can be taken care of with the biannual or annual statement, then I, as an MP or a minister or a department official, receiving a call from you or one of your associates saying you want to meet with me, can go into the databank, where I find you're registered as representing a certain client. You no longer represent that client, but I think you do. You may be representing a client who has totally opposite interests now on that particular file or policy.

I would like you to work your way around that. If you don't have any thoughts on it right now, maybe you could come back to the committee on it.

Mr. John Scott: I would hope that anyone phoning your office would indicate what the reason is for the meeting and what the issue might be, so that it would make it easier for you, rather than checking the registry.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: They generally do, but not always.

Mr. John Scott: I would hope so, but I understand your concern. In the situations where it doesn't happen, you need to know, you'd like to know, and you look in a registry that is not up to date. I think I would have to submit something back to the committee on that, give it some pause.

The issue that was of concern—and I believe it's GRIC's concern also—is that of the sanction, which is completely inequitable in respect of the information that's provided. There was, I believe, a suggestion at one time that the ethics counsellor would have the opportunity to remove names from the list. I don't want to create an administrative situation, but it may not be on an annual basis, it may be that some reminders are sent out as to whether or not the issue is current, something like that.

Perhaps I should pause and reflect on that and report back to the committee on it.

• 1000

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Let me just go on record as saying that I don't think the sanction, if a sanction exists, for deregistering should be the same as for not registering or for registering a false or misleading statement. I think the two are not at all of the same nature. But I do foresee a problem with granting the ethics counsellor the authority to simply deregister. How is the ethics counsellor to know, unless this 30 days is removed and he simply bases himself on the registering report, whether it's six months or a year, and then does a comparison? Presumably, when you do your next report, if you're no longer representing a client, then you yourself remove that client's name from the list, even if you forgot to do it when you ceased to represent them.

Mr. Tony Stikeman: I would just make a point here, and Madame Presseault is going to make another one. As a consultant lobbyist representing several of them in this city, we do try to deregister as promptly as we can, but the fact of the matter is, in the rush of events, sometimes you don't. There are also those odd instances where a client has a rush of activities, will drop off for a while and then come back, and administratively it's a lot simpler just to stay on the books. That's one of the reasons it happens.

We would take umbrage with a change to the act that would permit the ethics counsellor to unilaterally deregister certain registrations. I hope that's not being contemplated. I think that would lead to a number of misunderstandings and considerable confusion.

So our approach would be that to require a higher level of accountability on deregistrations, we could be given an annual prompt to the memory. I believe you would then find there would be even more precision within our registrations.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Jennings.

Before I see if anyone has further questions, I want to ask a question here. I hear your ratio is 75:25, and I'm a bit confused here. I think all members of all parties, at this committee anyhow—I can't speak for the other committees—take their role very seriously. The last time I checked it was members of Parliament that set public policy. So why do you spend so much time with public servants? Mr. Stikeman.

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Do I have to answer that? It happens that the nature of a great many of our client issues—I'm speaking as a consultant lobbyist—deal with “how to” issues within the government. A lot of them concern a precise, often narrow regulatory point. A lot of them deal with issues of public policy where officials are already working behind the scenes, reflecting on various options. And then, of course, there are other issues dealing with, for example, government procurement or licences, certificates, permits, things of that nature. Because of the types of issues consultant lobbyists become engaged in, those issues are handled usually, in the first instance, by individuals in the public service. It's not necessarily our choice. It's what the clients' interests seem to lead to.

That's our situation. Perhaps Mr. Faris, Madame Presseault, or Mr. Scott would have a different perspective on that.

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. John Scott: It's not in any way to diminish the role of members of Parliament, Madam Chair. So many of the people we are involved with, whether they're coming from public service, the legal or political sphere, or anything, have a good grounding in the policy issues and matters that are going forward. We try to advise our clients as best we can from our experience, but if we understand more about what the situation is now and where it has come from, it is easier and better, and we find information coming from the public service officials is of good value to us.

On the public policy side of it, we recognize fully the role of members of Parliament, and I guess it's just balancing that equation, determining what is best to advise our clients on.

• 1005

The Chair: I can understand comments on procurement and licensing. Obviously we don't get involved in that directly as members of Parliament, but when it comes to public policy, I'm almost wondering if we should know who you've met with. Or maybe you shouldn't meet with civil servants or public servants, you should only meet with members of Parliament.

Public policy is supposed to come from the direction of members of Parliament, of the government of the day, of private members' legislation from either side, so I'm a bit concerned here that public policy may be lobbyist-driven, which is what I'm hearing here today. I'm not sure that maybe there isn't some merit in some of the suggestions, as Mr. Alcock said, that your daybook should be registered. I'd like to know who you're meeting with.

As I'm sitting here and listening more and more to the witnesses, I'm starting to think that maybe the lobbyists who contact members of Parliament are doing us more lip service than anything and have already done all their groundwork or their back work and we don't know who they've met with or what they've...

I look at some of the issues that come to my office, and maybe members of this committee feel the same way... The WTO made its decision on the Patent Act a long time ago. That's going to come to our committee in the next couple of weeks, and bang, we'll be hearing from everybody. Why take so long? Why sit back and wait so long? We're all reasonably intelligent people at this committee; we all can read and we all can see documents. I sometimes find that the approach taken is quite offensive to our intelligence, to be perfectly frank. And now that I hear you spend most of your time with civil servants versus members of Parliament, I'm not sure how I feel. Maybe you could respond.

Ms. Carole Presseault: Madam Chair, I come from an organization that has a very broad-based membership; we have 115,000 members spread across Canada. And although we do report that grassroots advocacy is the means by which we do our lobbying, when I talk about 75-25, I'm talking about the work the staff at the national office do. I don't talk about the 352 people we have out there meeting with, we hope, all of you or some of you on a regular basis in order to inform you about the issues that are important to Canadians, such as health care, which is our area of expertise and our area of knowledge.

I also know that an activity such as appearing before committees is not a registerable activity under the act. It's a public forum, so there are a lot of discussions, a lot of interaction, what I would call public policy development that happens with members of Parliament in public forums. If we invite members of Parliament to our events and our activities, I, for the purpose of the act, don't consider that lobbying.

But the question was really who do we meet with on a regular basis. I hesitated before answering, because in the last year it has not been very easy for us to be meeting with members of Parliament in Ottawa, when there's a provincial election. That's why in fact we have worked with our membership in terms of trying to get at MPs when they're at home, because the reality is there is as much time being spent there as spent in Ottawa.

So it's not that easy for me to understand, I would argue, the role of MPs in the development of public policy. Our reality is not a reality of procurement. Our reality in fact, I would probably venture, is that we're now spending perhaps 25% of our time with provincial officials because a lot of the decisions made about health care are made in federal-provincial territorial forums.

That becomes even more challenging for organizations that are national. So it's not that obvious in terms of time. I'd also like to add on the point that the actual meeting time is insignificant for us. If you were to ask us how much activity we actually do in gathering information, understanding the issues, reading, doing websites, getting information from various sources... Understanding the process is a big, big part of the work we do. I may leave it at that.

Mr. Ian Faris: I think, Madam Chair, by way of example, in my narrow corporate interest, some of the files we're working on are things such as the national broadband task force that was struck by Industry Canada. That work, which is policy work, is driven by the department, very much so. In implementing the government's desire, in this instance, to give broadband to every home, it's very much an Industry Canada and industry perspective. There's not much of a role for members of Parliament at this point.

The Chair: Hold on, Mr. Faris.

Mr. Ian Faris: At this point.

The Chair: I would totally disagree with you on that. I totally disagree. I give you the example in my own riding. I have a group of individuals who have come to me with a suggestion for rural Canada that I haven't heard from any of these wonderful people out there who are part of this task force. That could take years to develop something when there's a solution staring us right in the face.

I would have to disagree with you completely on that, and actually I find that statement quite offensive. You suggest that because this task force has been set up and off it goes, an MP should sit back and say we'll just wait for their results. I don't think we should stop the technology or development process from happening. When people in different ridings across Canada have ideas and suggestions, their forum or their place to go is to their member of Parliament. Just because there's a task force doesn't mean that the things don't happen and policy doesn't develop.

• 1010

For example, yesterday there was a task force set up, a new commission on health. That doesn't mean things aren't going to happen in health for the next two or three years or that members of Parliament aren't going to have private members' bills or there won't be other public documents or public government bills that come forward because there are issues that are happening. I have to disagree with you on that. I really think there seems to be a real confusion, and I'm not sure if the Lobbyists Registration Act is contributing to it or not, on what the role of a member of Parliament is. What I've heard today has caused me to have some grave concerns.

Mr. Ian Faris: If I could just add to that, I have spoken to staff in offices of members of Parliament. I have not spoken to any members of Parliament on this particular issue. It's fairly new to us, since it was just struck a month ago. But there are a number of projects that have been brought up, and I think I know the project you're talking about. Is it the WEDnet you're talking about?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Ian Faris: There are a number of projects that have come up through MPs' offices, and I think there's a very valid role for MPs in the process. I'm sorry if I put the role of MPs behind the department's role. But the venue we were presented with in this particular instance is very much a departmental-driven one. I agree that members of Parliament have valid input and that we should be talking to them, and we are talking to them. A lot of the work I do is in the regulatory policy area, where we'd dearly love to have comment and assistance from members of Parliament, but it's within a quasi-judicial body and there's just not as much room as we would like.

Mr. Tony Stikeman: If I could just be permitted one final comment, because you raise a fundamentally interesting and important question, I would just make the point that to say lobbyists would crave the attention of members of Parliament on issues is probably a slight overstatement but not a great overstatement. It's very helpful to us in our activities to have the support and the input of members of Parliament from all parties as we try to get our heads around a given situation. There's no attempt—I really wish to emphasize this—to undermine or avoid members of Parliament. As I said earlier, it's really just that the issues tend to lead into the public service more by way of the nature of the files rather than our trying to shape the way the process works in Ottawa.

The second and final point I would make is that as a consultant lobbyist, and I believe this is the case for many of my colleagues, when our clients wish to make representations on something—which, as Mr. Scott said earlier, is where the rubber actually hits the road—they invariably prefer, and we invariably support these efforts, to preach their gospel directly to members of Parliament in addition to public servants. So if we are in the 75-25 category, I would venture that certainly in my experience our clients would be much closer to 50-50 and perhaps even beyond. They would be much higher on the MPs' side if they had their druthers.

The Chair: I don't mean to monopolize the conversation. I know Madam Jennings has another question.

Monsieur Brien, did you have another question?

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I would like to come back to the point you made regarding the role of members of Parliament and the fact that in the preparation or development of certain policies, lobbyists do not seem to be taking that role into account whatsoever. I would like to come back to the case you mentioned, Mr. Faris, that of broadband networks.

I chair the Quebec Liberal Caucus. One of our concerns is the economic development of regions. It is so clear that the absence of a telecommunications infrastructure—and I believe that my colleague, Mr. Brien, will agree with me on this—is a hurdle, an obstacle to economic development in our regions. It is like having to climb over the Great Wall of China.

But if there is a task force delving into this issue, it is largely thanks to the sustained efforts of backbenchers such as Mr. Brien and myself, such as Mr. Serré and several others I could name, over the course of the last two or perhaps even the last three mandates. It is thanks to them if, at long last, the committee has been able to make recommendations and seize the government of the importance of this issue.

• 1015

I must say that I feel really insulted by what I have heard, namely that since there is a task force, parliamentarians are not really needed and their role is not really there. I believe it would be very worthwhile for you to take a second look at the idea you have of the role of parliamentarians, the role you grant them. It just so happens that oftentimes the policies you are working on changing are the result, the fruit of work carried out by members of Parliament over the course of several years.

I admit that this work is not recognized by the media. It is very rare that the media mention the fact that Mr. Brien, every time he attends one of our meetings, talks about regional economic development, that I talk about it, that others around the table have been talking about it for years, that we talk about it in our caucuses. Mention is never made of the fact that we go to our ridings to give information to organizations, to companies, etc. We try to understand their concerns so as to be able to relay them to the government.

I therefore would strongly suggest that you revise your idea of the role parliamentarians play, because we play a role

[English]

as we say in English, unsung. But a lot of times the priority that the government has decided is a priority is not because of departmental officials; if anything, many times departmental officials don't want to see change, for whatever reason, and it's driven by the parliamentarians. So I really invite you to rethink it, all of you.

Mr. Ian Faris: Thank you for those comments.

My interest or my company's interest in this task force—I don't want to get too much into the issue—is on a different working group. I concur with all of your comments about the economic development of Quebec in particular, but all regions of Canada.

We are on a task force... My CEO is on the task force of barriers and deployment models. What we've worked on is the barriers, what are the barriers. A lot of the barriers to the economic development and the deployment of broadband are in a legislative or in a regulatory realm. Again, I'm not saying that you don't have a role; you certainly do have a role. But that's where we've been focusing, trying to find those barriers.

We agree that a lot of economic development needs to happen, but we're prevented for various reasons—foreign ownership restrictions under the Telecommunications Act and contribution issues under the CRTC regulations. So I fully agree, and we'll take that in the spirit in which it was delivered.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Scott, do you wish to respond at this stage?

Mr. John Scott: Yes, if I may.

There may be, and I apologize for this, a misunderstanding in terms of what lobbyists are doing. I mentioned earlier the fact that when there's an issue that comes up with a client, the first thing that has to be done is to understand what the issue is and to make inquiries and determine where it's coming from and what is the existing policy that's in place that the department is implementing, and meeting with people to discern where it is and are there weaknesses and that type of thing, and develop a plan of action.

At the same time, that plan of action will involve who are the members of Parliament who have the most interest in this, whether it's a particular issue relating to broadband in rural areas or an agricultural issue, and try to determine who those people will be.

Then what happens in most cases is they work in parallel in terms of a change that might be coming forward with existing policy in terms of something the client may be interested in. That involves marrying the synergy of parliamentarians with the department, who may be resistant to change. We may want to see that change and make sure they're aware that we're going to be advocating that strongly for the parliamentarians to take a position in a particular way and they can expect it and not be surprised by it.

The other side of it is when policy comes in that parliamentarians do introduce and it has impacts on our clients because it's a change that you've initiated or properly have initiated. Then we have to respond to that and we have to meet with the parliamentarians and find out more about that and what are the ramifications on existing regulations, existing laws, existing areas that the department officials are administering. Again, we have to work together with the two of them on that.

I again apologize if there's a misunderstanding of any sense that we're sort of not... I said earlier that we do not treat lightly, in any way, shape, or form, the significance of parliamentarians; it is primary. But they do work in tandem, and that's part of what we do.

I hope that helps a little bit in trying to explain what we're doing.

The Chair: Okay.

• 1020

[Translation]

Mrs. Carole Presseault: I would like to echo Mr. Scott's comments.

Clearly, for certain files and certain issues that we dealt with over the course of the last year, we had several meetings with Ms. Jennings. In fact, we tabled several letters with the committee on health inviting it to take a closer look at the issue of the day, that of the privatization of health care. We and the national nurses union jointly sent several letters to the committee.

Over the course of the last five years, I would say that this is what has accounted for most of our communications with members of Parliament. It was not so much the issues themselves, but rather a means to interest MPs and senators in these issues that are important in our view. We believe that the health care file is a priority in the eyes of Canadians.

Therefore, when you talk about the role you have to play to seize the government of the importance of these challenges, you are absolutely right. I wish to underscore that.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I think I'll make a couple of comments before I ask my question to make sure I can get the comments in.

One of the concerns I have, and I think other members of Parliament have, is that there is lobbying as such going on with public servants that ultimately ends up having an effect on public policy, yet there's no record of that lobbying. It's not seen as the type of lobbying that's out there. I think it's becoming more apparent.

Quite frankly, Mr. Scott, I think you confirmed that with your statement. I'll be looking at the blues when they come out to get the exact words, but you did comment that you want to get them to change their opinion of how things... You made the statement that you are lobbying the public servants to change the way they think. Quite frankly, I don't think that's your job. I don't think you should be lobbying public servants. I think that is the crucial factor here, that this is a problem. And you have said yes, it happens. That's why there is concern over what's happening and concern over maybe there have to be notes made of meetings and conversations that are taking place between public servants.

From my perspective, I think what we need is for the lobbyists or the firms to be making the notation and the public servants to be making the notation. That won't be too much information to match up and see if the two match at the end of the year. I think that's actually what we need to see right now, because obviously it's been happening.

How many lobbyists would you have registered at any one time, Mr. Scott?

Mr. John Scott: I don't know the answer to that, but I would expect among the total of 150 people... I'd have to check. I would suspect about 60 or 70, but I don't know.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, and you're a fair-sized company?

Mr. John Scott: We're the largest in Canada.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, and you only have 50 or 60 registered at any one time.

Ms. Carole Presseault: Well, for in-house organization lobbyists, our definition is a bit different from the others' definition of who lobbies. It's the sum total equivalent of 20% of a full-time employee. Basically, we go on the safe side and we register anybody who may have been in contact or will be in contact with a public office. So we have a staff of about 50, and about 12 people, I believe, right now are registered.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, so not huge numbers.

Mr. Faris?

Mr. Ian Faris: We have two people in our company. In our government affairs group there are two people, so we're both registered. The criterion is if you spend more than 20% of your time in registerable activities. We also have a regulatory group, which deals with the regulator, the CRTC, and they're exempt.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

My other question is for Mr. Faris. In your comments on this broadband task force you indicated that you're working with industry. Were you talking about the department? I got the impression that you were working with the Department of Industry to get this message out there, this work done. I'm curious—

Mr. Ian Faris: If I could just interrupt, my CEO is a member of one of the working groups. He is a member of the task force and a member of the working group on barriers in employment.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just to save me having to go and check out exactly what your company does, does your client sell any of the services you're dealing with on that broadband task force?

Mr. Ian Faris: I work for the company.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So you're working with Industry Canada to do a task force on this issue and your client sells that service?

Mr. Ian Faris: Yes.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

• 1025

The Chair: I have one other question for Mr. Scott.

Earlier you talked about contingency fees. Where are contingency fees not prohibited for lobbyists? I didn't think that was clear in your presentation.

Mr. John Scott: Anything that would be not related to procurement or grant of funds from the Government of Canada. So take any issue.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Policy.

Mr. John Scott: Policy change of any nature—that's permitted. It's where a client will be getting some benefit from the government with respect to procurement or a grant of funds, contribution of funds. Otherwise, on a straight policy issue there may be no money that's related to it; it's a matter of a policy issue and it should go forward.

The Chair: Let's go back to this broadband issue. The broadband task force is going to make recommendations. Those recommendations are going to then affect the ability of people to do business and have contracts, etc. Isn't it all related? I'm a little bit confused here. I mean, we've separated now that you can't charge contingency fees on specific contracting, yet we can charge contingency fees on policy that will indirectly or directly create contracting, either with the government or not.

Mr. Ian Faris: Sorry to interrupt. I have a clarification on that.

We are not selling to the Government of Canada in this broadband process. We're selling to individuals and businesses. We're not selling to the government, so we're not receiving any funding from the government for either participation in this task force or after in the services.

The Chair: With all due respect, Mr. Faris, you don't know the results of the task force. You don't know that. For example, in our report it's Monsieur Brien's recommendation where we talk about rural and under-serviced areas and the importance of bringing infrastructure there. We don't know if the government's going to fund that. We don't know if the government's going to sponsor broadband service in those areas. So you don't know yet. The company you work for may not actually be in benefit of a contract for that.

Mr. Ian Faris: I'm talking about the present situation right now, which is industry-funded.

The Chair: I'm talking about there are certain things you can't do directly, but there are other things that you shouldn't be able to do indirectly that you can't do directly. That's what I'm looking at.

I'm trying to look at this from the broader spectrum. What does the public think? Why does the public not think there's transparency? Why does the public not understand the process? What are the difficulties with the way the government is doing business today? How do we ensure that the process is transparent and clear?

I'm not sure the process is transparent and clear. I'm not sure that the way the Lobbyists Registration Act operates today is the best it could be. I'm not sure that members of Parliament know who you're lobbying.

I'm really having great difficulty with this today. I've sat back and listened to witnesses for a few weeks now, and I'm really quite concerned that there are things taking place that members of Parliament don't know or don't understand with public servants about policy. We set policy—that's our role, government's role and members of Parliament. The legislative role is policy. That's what it is. That's what we do.

So there seems to be some confusion here. Sure, certainly public servants are there to assist, but they're to follow certain directions. They're supposed to come up with different solutions or recommendations, but in the end we set policy. Speaking as a lawyer, I would hope they would put forward a number of positions and not just one over the other. I'm starting to worry that if lobbyists are influencing public policy from public servants before it gets to the table, it's going to be one side versus all sides. I like to see all sides. I like to have all sides in front of me when I make a decision. That's just the way I am.

I think that most people around this table have had some really good discussions about what's needed in rural infrastructure. I've been following the broadband task force, and I know what's coming out of my riding. I'm amazed that the people in my riding who are putting things forward are quite creative. Yet I haven't heard it from any of the big companies. All I hear about are the challenges of ownership and this and that. None of that really matters when I hear what I hear in my riding.

I think there are some solutions out there for rural Canada that the big companies just haven't bothered, with all due respect—and I don't want to go off into the whole broadband issue—to come forward with because it's not in their interests. So I think there are public policy issues that we have—

Mr. Ian Faris: At present it's not in their best interest because of some fundamental barriers.

The Chair: There may be fundamental barriers, but let's not go into broadband; let's just stay on the topic here.

I think members of Parliament need to have a larger say. Somehow, if we're not aware of where policy is being lobbied—

Mr. Ian Faris: Perhaps I mischaracterized the actual task force. To get back to this example, I don't want to hammer away on it, but this is a private sector task force that's providing advice to the Minister of Industry, purely. So this is one side of the equation, and you talked about wanting to see all sides. Members of Parliament have input into that process. This is purely a private-sector-driven initiative, although it's sponsored by Industry Canada.

• 1030

We are certainly operating under the understanding that the present rules are at work where the industry actually subsidizes any deployment of any telecom infrastructure into rural areas at present. So it's self-paying. It's not financed by the Government of Canada. There are no benefits sought, nor is it our recommendation at this point to seek money.

The Chair: But that's the key, Mr. Faris. How do we ensure that everyone's interests—private sector, public sector—are covered by the Lobbyists Registration Act so that it is transparent for the public good? That's my concern, and that's why I'm raising this here, because I think we need to have this discussion.

We can all come here and say the Lobbyists Registration Act is great and operates this way, but there are some questions out there. People have them. Mr. Alcock had the question earlier. He left before he could ask his next question, which is whether or not you should be able to lobby public servants at all. That's where we're at, and that's a discussion that we will need to have with a number of witnesses.

Mr. Stikeman, you wish to respond.

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Well, Madam Chair, I'm glad you brought this back from a referendum on the merits of the broadband task force into the question of openness and transparency.

We believe that we are very fortunate in this country and in this city, in particular, to have a very open political culture. I think it serves Canadians very well. It serves—we hope—members of Parliament well to have the openness and lack of suspicion and lack of cloud when one comes forward with a particular point to make, and it serves our clients well. We think it allows for intermediaries such as the four of us represented here at this table to assist in the whole public-policy-making process.

I would really want to vigorously resist any impression that may have been accidentally left that we are focusing on public servants to the exclusion of members of Parliament. It's not the case. I don't believe it was the case. I believe any self-respecting professional who wishes to put a position forward coherently and effectively will include Parliament. I can't imagine anybody who chose to be professional who would wish to concentrate on one particular group of government rather than another. So I leave that point.

The Chair: Mr. Stikeman, with all due respect, I understand what you're saying, but I guess part of my earlier point was that I'm not sure this is accurate.

I tried to give the example of Bill S-17, which is going to be coming to this committee. In fact, here we are at the end of the process, and all of a sudden members of Parliament are being lobbied. You can't tell me that lobbying hasn't gone on prior to this. So with all due respect, I would have to disagree with you that in fact members of Parliament are treated with the same utmost respect as perhaps some public servants are.

I think there's a problem. I'm not sure if the problem lies in the Lobbyists Registration Act or if the problem lies somewhere else. But I do believe there is a problem that is getting deeper in Canada today than it ever was. I think somehow we have to address that. Maybe there is some place in the Lobbyists Registration Act to address that, maybe there's not. But I do think that we are entering a very different era in the way policy is structured in Canada. I think it's important that members of Parliament be back at the forefront.

This committee has gone through a number of issues where we have debated and had public forums and had opportunities for people to participate—I could go on about what they are—and then I've attended conferences a year and a half later where basically I was told as a member I don't have the right to do that. With all due respect, we do have the right to do that. That's what members of Parliament do.

A good example is the Competition Act. I think there seems to be a lack of understanding by my colleagues—I'm a lawyer—out there on what it is members of Parliament do. I was quite taken aback when I attended the Insight Conference on competition, where it was basically said we don't have the right to make those suggestions as members of Parliament. Well, indeed we do. And when we have things that go on for a year and a half, I'm really sorry that the CBA or the Insight Conference or whoever the participants were didn't realize we were discussing it for a year and a half. But that's exactly what members of Parliament do, form public policy.

So there seems to be not the best cohesion there could be. I'm not sure if it's the Lobbyists Registration Act that's contributing to it, or if there's a way the Lobbyists Registration Act can assist to make it better. That's what our goal is, to find out whether the Lobbyists Registration Act in this review will provide a more transparent process, whether it's doing the job it was set up to do, and whether there are ways to do things differently or better.

Mr. Scott.

• 1035

Mr. John Scott: These are very weighty issues, Madam Chair. But I remind the committee that the first preamble of the act is “Whereas free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest...”. Suggestions, for example, that the committee might be considering denying the right of a segment of our society to be able to talk with the public service, in terms of carrying on their role... And I'm proud to be a lobbyist and be associated with the lobby firm, because I think there's an enormous role that we play in terms of allowing members of Parliament to have a better understanding, a more reasoned understanding, of very complex issues in some instances.

Of course there may be vested interests in terms of how it's being presented, but there will be others who will present the other side and try to focus the issue. That's the fundamental principle of the act. The act was set up to set out criteria and restraints that when we do meet with public officials, whether elected or not, we will disclose what we're doing and the areas we're dealing with. I think that to go to the other extreme... I caution the committee to be very sensitive to that, and what the implications of that mean in terms of free and open access in a democratic society.

I again echo Mr. Stikeman's words, and I hope that I've said them adequately before. It works together. There's a synergy there that has to work together. They're equally important in many respects, and we need to treat them with all due respect at all times.

The Chair: Mr. Scott, I don't think anyone is trying not to have free and open access to government. What we're talking about are different issues here today. I don't know why, if everyone talks about free and open access, it's so difficult then to register who you meet with. Personally, I see that as more open and transparent than anything. If that's part of the preamble, then that's something we'll have to look at as a committee. I do think that there are things we have to address. You have to look at all the possibilities and all the sides.

As chair, perhaps I play devil's advocate from time to time, but my role is to stimulate this discussion and to ensure that we have this discussion. There are things that need to be discussed. We can sit back and say everything's fine, but I don't think everything's as open as it could be.

I don't know what the answer to that is. That's why we're having these hearings. That's why we're going to make recommendations. That's why we don't have draft legislation in front of us. This is a review of the act to stimulate that discussion and to have that review. I don't think it's healthy for any of us to sit here and say everything's fine, when everything's not fine. That's my view on what my role is. Not everyone's going to agree.

I don't know whether there are any other questions. Monsieur Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would simply like to make a brief comment. Mr. Scott, you are proud to be a lobbyist, and with reason. As for us, we are very proud to be members of Parliament. We fight very hard to be able to sit here around this table.

The opinion you have expressed is shared by a good many MPs, and I would like to add my voice to yours regarding this issue. I would like you to take back with you, from what you will have heard here, so that you might relay this message to the people you work with, the fact that oftentimes we do not feel very respected by the way in which lobbying is carried out. And the situation is the same both for members of the party in power and for opposition members.

There is a real problem, and it is not in my view simply a matter of perception. I believe that this morning we had a wonderful opportunity to relay this message to you and I do hope you will remember it and pass it on to your colleagues working in the same profession as you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Brien.

Mr. Grose, you wish to make a comment.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, just a short one.

It has been most enlightening for me today. I'm not a regular member of this committee, but I'm glad I came.

Mr. Scott, you made the comment “public officials, whether elected or not”. There is quite a difference between public officials who are elected and those who are not. As I've been explaining to civil servants on occasion in my usual diplomatic fashion, “You were hired and I was elected. You can be fired; I can't be.” There is quite a difference. Really, in the last few years I have thought, this is great, I don't see any lobbyists; they're not crawling around here. Now I find that they're not coming to talk to me. It may be because the committees I'm on—public accounts and justice—are not so prone to lobbying, but it also could be that you've already written me off.

It amazes me, as it has you, that these people are operating. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing. It's just that you're operating and I didn't know you were there. You're talking to people, and you're not making your position clear to me. That's worrisome. I think you really should take a long look at it.

Mr. John Scott: Mr. Grose, when I used the term “public official”, I was just referring to the act and its term “public office holder”, which is either a member of Parliament or a senator, or someone who's an employee of the government. That was the only reason. But I appreciate your concerns, Mr. Grose.

The Chair: Mr. Stikeman.

• 1040

Mr. Tony Stikeman: Could I just interject? Listening to this debate—not going in a direction I expected it to go, I might add—

Mr. Ivan Grose: Good.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): You should have been here the other day.

Mr. Tony Stikeman: It shows you how little some of us know about the workings of Parliament.

This is coming off the top of my head, but I think I could safely say that virtually every member of our institute would support this. Because of the importance of the debate, which, Madam Chair, you have put your finger on, I think it might be a useful occasion, or a useful prompt, for members of Parliament—301 if possible—to meet with members of GRIC in an informal round table session and have a discussion about some of these issues. This is quite irrespective of the recommendations this committee makes about the Lobbyists Registration Act. I would issue an invitation to any members of Parliament, hopefully from all parties, who would like to engage in such a round table, or a series of round tables. Set the rules, set the time, set the place. I think I can promise you a high level of attendance and interest on the part of our members.

The Chair: Well, Mr. Stikeman, we'll take that under consideration. We do appreciate the discussion. We appreciate your time here this morning and your patience, and we look forward to future discussions.

We're going to excuse you as witnesses.

I did want to ask if there were any questions on the science draft report that we sent out. We sent it to your offices and we gave it out at committee about a week ago. It recommends about nine different round tables as part of our science discussion. I didn't know if there were any other witnesses or any other comments. We can come back to it again after the break. It might be better to give people some time to take another look at it, because there are nine round tables suggested. If there are any other witnesses you want on the Lobbyists Registration Act or on estimates that are coming up, please let me know. The clerk is trying to do the scheduling.

We will have Bill S-17 coming to us shortly after the break. We don't have it yet, so it's kind of hard to start scheduling it.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: As soon as you have an idea of the schedule, even if it is not definitive, it would be useful to bring us up to date so that we have time to better prepare our files, given that we are working on several fronts at the same time. Therefore, as soon as you have a proposed schedule of meetings, you could perhaps get it to us over the course of the holiday. That would be much appreciated.

[English]

The Chair: I'll ask the clerk. He told me yesterday he's going to try to get one to me. I haven't seen it yet. As soon as I see it, I'll have it sent out to everyone. We hope to get it today, he says. He has scheduled a number of meetings on estimates until the end of May. The last meeting scheduled right now is the 29th, with one of the ministers—we've tried to accommodate their schedules—which would be pretty much the last day, because we have to table the report in the House by the 31st. We could go until the Wednesday if we had to have another meeting. We are also scheduling the round tables on science and technology, as was part of that report we circulated.

But we will have to fit in Bill S-17. On the Lobbyists Registration Act, we've had a couple of other witnesses come forward. I know Geoff is at the back there. We will have someone coming to talk to us from the legal council on some of these issues that have been raised. We've had a couple of people approach us as the hearings have gone on. So it will be interesting to see if others do. But if you think of anybody, please let the clerk know, because the goal is still to try to finish the majority of the witnesses on the Lobbyists Registration Act by the second week of May, to give our researcher time to do a draft report. If possible, we'll table that report in June.

You'll see in the science recommendations that have come forward, we are going to try to come up with something by June. It may not be feasible. It may have to wait until the fall. But the goal is still to try to do it in June. If we go by the last scheduled day of the House, there will be time in June. That being said, we all know there is a possibility the House dates change in June. Since I don't have any control over that, we'll just have to do our best within the timeframe we have.

I'll try to get something to you that incorporates a schedule in approximate terms until the end of May. There's some flexibility in there. But we do have the estimates, which do have a timeline on them.

Mr. Cannis, did you have a comment?

Mr. John Cannis: Madam Chair, I just want to compliment you and everybody on this committee today. They were very constructive exchanges, I must say.

The Chair: Thank you. Hopefully we'll be doing a lot more good work together.

Ms. Jennings.

• 1045

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The invitation Mr. Stikeman made off the top of his head, as a result of the concerns we expressed, I think is something this committee should look at seriously. That it should be hosted by them, I'm not sure about.

Mr. John Cannis: I'd watch that word “hosted”.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I think it is something that merits a real discussion and a real debate.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, possibly open to all members.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

The Chair: I think that was his intention, that it be open to all members. We'll have our researcher Geoff take a look at it, and we'll come back to it after the break as well, if that's okay.

I hope everyone has a relaxing two weeks.

The meeting is now adjourned.