INST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 28, 2002

¹

1520

The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.))

Ms. Carole Presseault (President, Government Relations Institute of Canada)

¹

1525

¹

1530

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John Scott (Representative, Government Relations Institute of Canada)

¹

1535

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)

Mr. John Scott

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. John Scott

¹

1545

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. John Scott

¹

1550

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. John Scott

Ms. Carole Presseault

¹

1555

Mr. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ)

Ms. Carole Presseault

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Ms. Carole Presseault

º

1600

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Ms. Carole Presseault

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. John Scott

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. John Scott

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. John Scott

º

1605

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Scott

The Chair

Mr. John Scott

The Chair

Mr. John Scott

The Chair

º

1610

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. John Scott

º

1615

Mr. Brian Masse

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Brian Masse

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Brian Masse

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Serge Marcil

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. John Scott

º

1620

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Serge Marcil

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. John Scott

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Serge Marcil

Ms. Carole Presseault

º

1625

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick

º

1630

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick

The Chair

Mr. Geoffrey Kieley (Committee Researcher)

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Geoffrey Kieley

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Geoffrey Kieley

Mr. John Scott

Ms. Carole Presseault

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

º

1635

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Dan McTeague

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Dan McTeague

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Dan McTeague

Mr. John Scott

Mr. Dan McTeague

Mr. John Scott

Ms. Carole Presseault

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. John Scott

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

---

NUMBER 006

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1520)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order to study Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

    Today we have witnesses from the Government Relations Institute of Canada, Ms. Carole Presseault, president; and Mr. John Scott, representative.

    We'll start with the witnesses giving their opening remarks, and then we'll go to questions.

    I welcome you to the industry committee. Thank you.

    Ms. Carole Presseault (President, Government Relations Institute of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have some brief remarks to make--and I understand they've been circulated to the members--and then John will join me in discussion with you.

    We are pleased to be once again at this table to talk about the Lobbyists Registration Act. We think this process is important because we believe it really allows for many voices to be heard. The result has been good legislation that recognizes, on one hand, that lobbying is a legitimate activity and that transparency is a matter of public interest. We think these two principles achieve the right balance while ensuring that government relations professionals are able to serve their clients and employers in a diligent, efficient, and ethical manner.

[Translation]

    We would like to take this opportunity to provide the committee with some background on GRIC.

    The institute was established in 1994 to represent lobbyists in Canada. Today we have approximately 130 members that form a cross-section of consultant and in-house professionals. We represent all sectors, from small and large corporations and non-governmental organizations to national and international government relations firms.

    In passing, all our work with GRIC is done on a voluntary basis. For example, I work for the Certified General Accountants' Association of Canada, and my colleague John is Vice-President and Legal Counsel for GTC International.

[English]

    GRIC's mandate is threefold: advocacy, networking, and professional development. We promote high standards of conduct for our members. In fact, all members must endorse the code of professional conduct on an annual basis when renewing their membership--and we've appended a copy of the code to our presentation. All members must also be registered lobbyists.

    We seek out opportunities to promote best practices for our members, and last winter we were pleased to participate, along with members of Parliament, including members of this committee, in a round table discussion led by the Public Policy Forum. This initiative sought to examine means of improving the relationship between government relations practitioners and members of Parliament. The report was widely disseminated to our members.

    We're also working with the Canadian Society of Association Executives to organize a one-day conference in January. We believe this event will help build capacity within the association sector, a core component of the industry. We hope many of the members sitting around this table would attend the conference. We've also invited members to participate in panel discussions with GR professionals.

    Finally, we see a clear role for GRIC in keeping its members informed about changes to the LRA. We closely monitor developments relating to the act and maintain good relationships with this committee and the ethics counsellor. In that respect, he and his office have helped GRIC to gain a better understanding of the effect of the laws, regulations, and guidelines that govern the practise of government relations.

    We believe these activities are tangible evidence of our commitment to foster an environment conducive to the implementation of best practices.

[Translation]

    Professional development is an important aspect of GRIC's mandate. We are always seeking ways to promote best practices among our members.

[English]

    We would like now to turn to the proposed amendments of the LRA. My comments will address three specific issues: the definition of lobbying; the removal of the registration exception for submissions made in response to written requests for advice or comment from public office-holders; and thirdly, the new filing requirements for corporation lobbyists. And we appreciate the challenges faced in enforcing the act. A strong act that is fully enforceable is in the best interests of everyone.

    Since the completion of the committee's review of the act in June 2001, and in the spirit of the recommendation that further consultations be undertaken to resolve the enforcement issues arising from the use of the phrase “in an attempt to influence”, GRIC has worked with the ethics counsellor to find that middle ground, that definition that would meet the needs of both legislators and practitioners.

    Today we are prepared to accept the proposed definition contained in Bill C-15 to mean to communicate with a public office-holder.

    However, while the act sets out the types of activities that are registerable and non-registerable, we find that some grey areas remain and that additional guidance is needed in interpreting, for example, what activities constitute lobbying versus the exception for making a communication restricted to a request for information, as is now proposed in the new amended paragraph 4(2)(c).

    In order for the legislation and the registry to be meaningful, only those activities that constitute lobbying should be reported. We believe clarity is a critical factor in ensuring compliance. To this end, we wish to make the following recommendation.

    GRIC recommends that this committee instruct the registrar to promptly issue an interpretation bulletin under subsection 10(1) of the act clarifying what constitutes a “communication restricted to a request for information” that will be exempt from registration under the proposed changes of new paragraph 4(2)(c) of the act.

¹  (1525)  

[Translation]

    We feel that this recommendation would bring greater clarity, which we believe is essential in order to ensure compliance with the regulations.

[English]

    Our second point deals with the removal of old paragraph 4(2)(c), which provides for the exemption from registration when a submission is made by an individual or an organization for advice or comment on a government issue at the specific written request of a public office-holder.

    The ethics counsellor has previously indicated that this section creates a potential loophole in that a valid written request from government for comment or advice opens the door for a much wider and unintended comment. We submit that this is a matter that can be addressed by an interpretation bulletin from the registrar on the limits of any such submissions that would comply with the exception under the act.

    Every single day government officials contact respected community and business leaders, special interest groups, and representative associations for the valid insight those individuals and organizations can give to assist public office-holders in assessing issues of public importance.

    Equally as important, members of Parliament consult regularly with their constituents on issues before, or coming before, the House. The removal of old paragraph 4(2)(c) from the act in many instances would make it a registerable activity to reply to written requests for such comment or advice.

    We anticipate that this would cut off, or at least put a chill on, the valuable and necessary dialogue between public office-holders and the public. The purpose of this dialogue initiated by government is to better understand issues it is dealing with.

[Translation]

    Our recommendation is intended to recognize the importance of dialogue between representatives of civil society and public office holders in the development of public policy. The purpose of this government-initiated dialogue is to foster a better understanding of the issues under consideration.

    For example, members of Parliament regularly consult their constituents on certain issues before raising them in the House. Such consultation is done out of public interest and not private interest.

[English]

    We therefore wish to make the following recommendations. We have two, in this instance.

    We recommend that this committee retain, and not delete, the old paragraph 4(2)(c) of the act as a valid exemption from registration. Furthermore, GRIC recommends that the committee instruct the registrar to issue an interpretation bulletin clarifying the limits of an acceptable non-registerable submission, which is made in compliance with old paragraph 4(2)(c) in response to a written request for advice, or comment, from a public office-holder.

    Finally, I would like to address our third point, the proposed change for in-house corporate lobbyists. The legislation proposes to amend the current practice and create a single filing process for corporate lobbyists, which is similar, though not identical, to the current method used for organization lobbyists. Under the proposal, the senior officer is made responsible for filing, and others, who report to that senior officer, may have to be listed on the registration. For corporations, these changes, combined with the proposed changes to the definition of what constitutes lobbying, are quite important. They are quite substantial. Indeed, they may require companies who have never previously filed under the act to be brought into compliance. Failure to comply has very direct penal provisions, which have been enhanced under the new amended provisions of this act.

    We therefore wish to make the two following recommendations.

    We recommend that in order to assist transition and to better facilitate compliance with the new requirements for in-house corporate lobbyists, the period required to file returns under the transitional provisions—found in proposed section 16 of the bill—be extended from two to six months.

    GRIC further recommends that the federal government take steps to broadly notify Canadian corporations and other firms operating in Canada of the changes to the act so that they can take the appropriate steps and bring their corporations into compliance, as required under the act, within the extended six-month transition period.

    One other point outside the proposed new legislation that we'd like to bring to your attention concerns the impact of the proposed amendments. They should be closely monitored by the registrar and be measured against compliance.

    In your June 2001 report you recommended that the government undertake a study to determine rates of compliance and the reasons for non-compliance, if they exist. We strongly believe that an effective act is one where there is a high degree of compliance and urge this committee to reaffirm to the government the need to provide meaningful compliance information on a regular basis.

¹  (1530)  

[Translation]

    In conclusion, we also recommend that the committee urge the government to clearly articulate its plans to inform all stakeholders of the impending changes to the legislation to ensure a smooth transition process. The Government Relations Institute of Canada is willing to assist the government in this endeavour.

[English]

    We thank you for your attention and look forward to answering your questions.

    Merci.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Before we begin any questioning, I'd like to inform the committee that we have notices from Mr. Volpe and Mr. McTeague. It's been agreed that we'll deal with these motions on Tuesday, in line with the 48 hours, giving the committee a chance to review the motions. I thank Mr. Volpe and Mr. McTeague for this.

    Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Chair, would it be acceptable for your clerk to pass the notice of my motion?

    The Chair: I will do that.

    Mr. Fitzpatrick.

    Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): I have just one question.

    You would not like to delete paragraph 4(2)(c) of the act. Could you maybe explain your reasoning behind this, as clearly as you can?

    Mr. John Scott (Representative, Government Relations Institute of Canada): Certainly, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

    This committee, on page 24 of its June 2001 report, recommended the deletion of the old paragraph 4(2)(c). That recommendation, though, at that time was done without a final determination being made about the definition of lobbying, which has now been defined under Bill C-15 as the mere act of communicating. That had not been resolved in the report at the time that recommendation to delete was made.

    Second, that recommendation was made in a context where the committee had specifically rejected the requirements to make corporations register under the same provisions applicable for organizations, which has now been reversed and has been specifically included in Bill C-15. So there were two fundamental factors in the report that were tied to that recommendation at that time.

    In the government response to that report, the government agreed with the deletion of old paragraph 4(2)(c) and noted in its response:

...it is important to understand that the registration requirement applies only to paid lobbyists. Furthermore, for organizations or corporations it would apply only when their employees spend 20 percent or more of their time making representations to public office holders.

    But that was under the old rules applying to in-house corporation lobbyists, which were quite different. In that case, as you may recall, within a corporate environment the only people who were required to register were the actual employees who spent greater than 20% of their individual time in lobbying activity. It's now been changed, and where there is a cumulative total within a business equalling 20% of one person's time, then there is a new registration requirement. So the comment in the government response was again based on the old rules, without the Bill C-15 input.

    Under Bill C-15 we have two new aspects to lobbying that change the implications with respect to the old paragraph 4(2)(c). The net for lobby registration for corporations has been spread much wider and now includes senior officers and their reports, exactly the people who are or may be contacted by public office-holders, including members of Parliament, for valued insight on government initiatives.

    Under Bill C-15--and I'll give an example in a moment that will hopefully clarify the concerns we have--senior officers need to be named in that corporate lobby registration if any part of their duties includes lobbying. That's clear. But many corporations, many businesses, have dedicated staff for lobbying or they have key senior people who they know are going to be involved in lobbying. Those are the people who'll be named because they're directly involved in some way or another in the lobbying activity.

    But in this instance, with the deletion of that section, there are many other officers in businesses who will not be named in the registration. As a hypothetical example for now, suppose that in your constituencies you have a mid-sized business or corporation that's involved in an issue such as defence procurement or printing that involves government contracts or one that's involved in international development and seeks government financing for projects overseas. They, under the current legislation, might not have anybody who's going to be a registered lobbyist; nobody currently spends 20% of their time, the terms of the old act, so they don't register.

    Under the new act, if they have a number of people in their company, as I explained a few moments ago, whose cumulative lobbying equals more than 20% of one person's time, they're going to have to register and the CEO is going to have to register. Then the CEO has to determine which of his or her reports is going to register, that is, those people who will have some lobbying activity at some point as part of their duties.

    Let's say that an issue of privacy legislation comes before the House or is going to be coming before the House. You may know a CEO in your constituency or you may know that business because it's an important business in your community, and you want to find out how that business is dealing with issues of privacy. You contact them and the CEO says, well, speak with my vice-president of human resources because that person is dealing with these things on an international basis and will be helpful. But that person may not have been named by the CEO in terms of any lobbying activity because their normal responsibilities would not include lobbying.

¹  (1535)  

    If you send a request to that company and the human resources vice-president responds to your inquiry just to give information about how it works and that sort of thing to better inform you in terms of dealing with issues of privacy, then that vice-president of human resources is going to be required to register as a lobbyist under the new legislation. In our presentation we have the sense that there is possibly going to be a chill. You'll find people who are not currently registered because they don't deal with lobbying activities who, if they respond to a legitimate request from a public office-holder, whether a member of Parliament or a bureaucrat, would then suddenly say, if I do reply, because paragraph 4(2)(c) is gone, that's deemed to be a lobbying activity and I'll have to register.

    I wear two hats. I am a representative of GRIC, but I'm on the executive of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association. I'm not here to represent them, but I'm talking from the corporate side of things with that understanding I have as to this issue.

    That's the first thing, that it would be an automatic registerable activity in that situation, and that is something we should be concerned about.

    The second point in terms of the rationale for this is, as Carole indicated, that we've worked very closely with the ethics counsellor in terms of the new definition of lobbying. We appeared before this committee at the report stage in April 2001. We met with the ethics counsellor because we had expressed concerns about removing the words “attempt to influence”. The ethics counsellor has convinced us that the act of communication being registerable is acceptable. But that being said, Bill C-15 introduces the whole issue under the new, proposed paragraph 4(2)(c), which states that a request made by anyone, even a lobbyist, that is restricted to a request for information is not a registerable activity. If you communicate, it's registerable, but if it's only for information and you're not trying to influence anyone, that's not registerable. That's under Bill C-15.

    With the deletion of old paragraph 4(2)(c), the reverse request from a public office-holder to a senior officer of a corporation inviting that officer to communicate with the public officer-holder, i.e. the MP, and provide information about that corporation, information that may relate to a government initiative, could create a registerable activity. On one hand, if you're a member of the public asking for information, it's not registerable. On the other hand, if you're a member of Parliament or a senior member of government asking for information, it becomes registerable, and that's not consistent. That's inconsistent, we feel, but it is contained under the proposed legislation that's before you.

    As for issues about closing loopholes, when we were here at the committee stage before and I pulled out the report to deal with the wording that was put into the report--that's on page 23 of the report of June 2001.... We feel that a clear interpretation bulletin issued by the registrar would be able to address every such concern while leaving the integrity of the dialogue initiated by public office-holders intact. For example, there was a presentation by Democracy Watch, which is in the report, saying that everyone receives a confirmation of any meeting they go to; send me a confirmation, and when the written confirmation is sent, you don't have to register.

    Our recommendation is twofold with respect to this issue: leave old paragraph 4(2)(c) in, allowing for that dialogue, that request for information to come from public office-holders, but tie it to the registrar giving an interpretation bulletin that is very clear as to what constitutes a request for information and not going to the next stage, where just giving a written confirmation constitutes an exemption. We argue that this can be handled within the context of that issue, as has been done with other interpretation bulletins under the act.

    I was interested to see in the report of this committee that the final comment on this whole issue was “Accordingly, in the absence of any apparent public policy reason for its continuance”, paragraph 4(2)(c), it should be deleted--“in the absence of any apparent public policy reason”.

¹  (1540)  

    We would argue that there are now public policy reasons it should be left in. They may not have been there under the old act, but Bill C-15 does change the rules, which we endorse and support. It brings to issue the matter of dialogue, which we think is important and should be retained.

    The Chair: Mr. Volpe.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Scott and Ms. Presseault, thank you for an interesting presentation.

    I'm going to ask you a very brief question, Mr. Scott. It may sound nonsensical to you, but just bear with me, if you will. You were asked to appear before this committee because you had something to offer, and you've come. In your estimation, under the rules as they are written, would this constitute a registerable act?

    Mr. John Scott: No. There's a specific exemption under the act for appearances before committees to deal with issues in terms of legislation. That is another exception under the act, which has been retained.

    Ms. Carole Presseault: There's a double test here. We're also volunteers, and that's not a registerable activity. We're not paid by GRIC to be here today.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: This is not the usual situation. Many people who work for companies quite legitimately appear before committees, because they need to influence the outcome of legislation, which may result in a better financial position for the interests they represent.

    Mr. John Scott: Paragraph 4(2)(a) of the act, which is not removed by Bill C-15, says:

This Act does not apply in respect of(a) any oral or written submission made to a committee of the Senate or House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament.

    So there's a specific exemption in this environment.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: That brings me to the issue that initially prompted my desire to ask you something. If one follows much of this logically, one would have to come to the conclusion that industry or interests that appear before a committee to get legislation changed have essentially done all the lobbying work they would need to do.

    I'm not sure if you keep these kinds of statistics, but if you do, please share them with us. What percentage of the activity of your members is directed toward influencing members of Parliament on an ongoing basis, as opposed to that dedicated to influencing the interpretation by members of the bureaucracy of legislation that's in place?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: That's a very difficult question, and it's one that is often asked of us. I can't speak for all of our members. I can speak about how I go about my own activities on a daily basis. One would argue that there really is balance, and it depends at what stage the policy initiative is involved. We spend a lot of time working with members of the House of Commons and the Senate. If I were to throw a number out, I would say that currently 80% of activities are done at that level. But again, I can't speak for all of the members. I would assume that to a certain extent it would depend on whether you are an organization, a corporation, or a consultant lobbyist. It also depends on the practices of those people. I think that in all cases it's a matter of balance.

    I'm not sure that answers your question.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: It does and it doesn't.

    During part of the discussion that emanated from a presentation yesterday, some colleagues on both sides of this table were more interested in the way a log is kept so that one can have verification of an attempt to influence. I mean legitimately. I don't think there's anything negative here. It's quite easy to keep track of members of Parliament or the Senate who may be approached, but we don't seem to have the same kind of ready access to information about the members of the bureaucracy who might be approached. Presumably, once legislation has passed both houses, the interpretation of that legislation would interest a lobbyist much more acutely than the intention that preceded the implementation of the act. So in my mind effective lobbying would direct itself to the members of the bureaucracy. That's why I asked if you have an indication of where the activity of your members is balanced.

    Ms. Carole Presseault: I would argue that if you go to the preamble of the act, the intent is to ensure that there is transparency, and I would submit that the definition is to communicate with a public office-holder, and it's clearly defined in the act who that is. The registry is perhaps the place where one would find some answers to your question.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: The registry indicates that you are a registered lobbyist and that you're going to lobby office-holders on this particular issue. It doesn't say you're going to lobby Mr. Bagnell, or Mr. Masse, or Mr. Volpe.

    Ms. Carole Presseault: I agree. It's not a requirement.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: What's in the back of my mind here, Mr. Scott, since you gave us a really thorough assessment of a couple of clauses and their implications, is, are we engaging in a lot of discussion about very little?

    Mr. John Scott: No.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: If you can't tell me who you're lobbying and I can't tell you whether I'm being lobbied, you can put in the most elaborate monitoring system, and what have we captured?

    Mr. John Scott: You would be capturing.... If a senior officer of a corporation was not in the current registration and responded to a request from someone in the bureaucracy or a member of Parliament on an issue, then they would have to register the next day or within ten days after responding. So right way there would be a new registration in the system that would relate to the fact that they had spoken to the House of Commons, writ large, with respect to an issue.

    The only point I was trying to make in this issue was that you may find that people are not going to respond to requests that you may want to make, because they're going to say, “If I do, then I have to become a lobbyist and I'm not a lobbyist, I'm the vice-president of human resources; so I'm sorry, I'm not going to speak with you about that”. Is that the intention of the legislation?

    If the intention is to dissuade people because they then become something they aren't.... They're responding to a request for information; it's not them making the lobbying activity, initiating the lobbying activity. So I think there is some substance to this, Mr. Volpe.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Scott, please don't take this to be argumentative on my part. I think the response was that, if I remember it correctly from yesterday, in my interpretation, one, there are so very few and rare occasions where there is a call to somebody for specific advice on a particular issue that this really doesn't capture that many people. When was the last time you got a letter from an office-holder asking you to give him a response on an issue?

    Mr. John Scott: But I'm general counsel of a company that's involved in the lobbying business, all right? I'm not within a corporation. I think perhaps Carole can speak more directly to this in the role she played, about being called regularly on particular issues.

    Corporations in major sectors, I would expect, are called whether it's competition issues, whether it's environmental issues, whether it's privacy issues. This is the role of the bureaucracy and members of Parliament, to do the outreach in terms of trying to understand what are the issues that are out there, to better inform themselves.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: Sure.

    Mr. Scott, let me understand it a little bit better then, okay?

    The issue at hand really is, then, as I can visualize it, more or less like this: I'm preparing legislation or I'm thinking in terms of interpreting legislation in a particular direction, and so what I want to do is to take a look at the marketplace and see how the people in the marketplace, the consumers in the marketplace, would react to this. So I'm going to go to several sources, if I'm an intelligent human being, and I'll commission a poll, for which I will pay. I will sound out a survey amongst my colleagues, for which I don't pay, but it's a normal course of my business; or I will do something on the cheap, which is that I will call all the clients and ask them to respond to a satisfaction-type survey on the way that some of the things are being done or not.

    I guess that's probably the kind of call you're getting all the time. Is that it?

    Your response to that third item is really, I guess, a nuanced lobby to have things go your way.

    Mr. John Scott: Carole will give specifics, but it is a communication, and under the new definition under Bill C-15, a communication--forget attempt to influence, just a communication--constitutes a registerable activity.

    Carole can speak to specifics.

    Ms. Carole Presseault: In the 12 years that I worked at the association secretariat at the national level, I worked for about 10 years for a national health-related organization, and on a weekly basis, I would submit, we had four or five written requests from public policy-holders asking our advice on very specific areas, none of which we had the expertise in-house on and we had to seek out expertise on issues. My favourite one was on disinfectants in operating rooms. I know absolutely nothing about disinfectants, frankly, but we had to seek out expert advice. And this is not, in my opinion, lobbying, but because we had access to a network of experts we were able to facilitate government's work and government's understanding of an issue that they felt to be complex.

    In my current role as director of government relations for CGA Canada we are involved in a consultation with Industry Canada on the review of the framework legislation for the Canada Corporations Act. It is a significant piece of legislation for our members as it defines specifically what constitutes auditing. I'm not a specialist in auditing either, but I know this is a very important issue for our members. We were invited to attend the consultations. I had a look at the GRIC code of conduct, and I felt I needed to register for this activity because I'm going to those meetings and I'm going to lobby for an amendment to that definition.

    But the point of paragraph 4(2)(c) is groups, in many cases organizations or associations, are not only invited but asked because of their expertise to a government-led...and it is a government-led consultation; it's not a lobbying activity. I can explain this better in French. It's not necessarily a lobbying activity that is instituted by the organization, but it is in response to.... Our position is that “in response to” should not require registration.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: Merci.

    The Chair: Madam Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I have gone through your presentation carefully and I would like you to clarify certain points. On page 3, regarding the amendments, you say that after checking and working with the Ethics Counsellor to find some middle ground, you are now prepared to accept the definition of the term “lobbying.” But you also say that some grey areas remain with respect to the types of activities that are registerable and non-registerable.

    I would like to know what you mean by “grey areas.”

    Ms. Carole Presseault: I will attempt an answer, but I am sure that Mr. Scott will want to add something afterwards.

    The new definition is very broad and that gives the impression that it lacks focus. As Mr. Scott explained earlier, broadening the definition will expand the scope of the act. As a result, various activities that were not recognized by government relations professionals, and this affects all members and all aspects of lobbying, will becoming lobbying activities once the bill is adopted.

    So we are asking to have the registrar issue an interpretation bulletin to explain what constitutes a lobbying activity. That brings us to the point we were discussing earlier with Mr. Volpe, that is, requests that come from an official or a member of Parliament.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: In the introduction to your presentation, you say that lobbying is a legitimate activity and that transparency is a matter of public interest. It seems to me that by expanding the definition, we would be increasing the transparency. That is the desire expressed in your presentation.

    If that is the case, I think that people who call on your services will be reassured.

    Ms. Carole Presseault: What can we say about transparency except that it is one of the objectives of the legislation and something that is necessary and that we support? But to come back to the scope of the act and the validity of the bill, it does not come down to including everything in the lobbyists' registry. We need to make sure that these are genuine lobbying activities and not just natural discussions between those who are developing public policies and representatives from civil society who are helping develop those policies. We need to find the right balance.

º  (1600)  

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You will allow me to disagree with you.

    Ms. Carole Presseault: Absolutely.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yesterday afternoon, I had the same discussion with the Ethics Counsellor. In my opinion, the more things we include in this bill to ensure transparency, the more those who have to deal with lobbyists will feel safe. Given everything that goes on behind closed doors and what the public thinks about lobbyists, the safer the public feels, the more clients you will get, in my opinion. This is an effect that will benefit you more than the public, because the more a corporation sees that there is transparency and that we're open to giving as much as possible to clients, the more it will call upon your services.

    In addition, you say that what's included in clause 4(2)(c) could only be disclosed in an interpretation bulletin. You know, no matter what corporation you work for or what line of work you're in, it does happen that you don't look at an information bulletin. If it's included in the legislation, people will be more likely to look at that legislation rather than using a mechanism that results from that legislation but that is not included in its wording. Those are my views about your recommendation.

[English]

    Mr. John Scott: If I may, with respect to the issue of interpretation bulletins, there are interpretation bulletins that have been issued under the Lobbyists Registration Act.

    For example, the issue of what constitutes a significant part of your employment has now been defined as 20%. That was an interpretation bulletin, and that is honoured; that effectively becomes provided for under the act. So the fact that it's in an interpretation bulletin will have equally as much weight as it would within the act, and in accordance with the practise of the registrar—

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: But it's still included within the legislation. That's why I'm saying that the interpretation bulletin defines the legislation. If it's not included in a bill, an interpretation bulletin would not be based on that bill. Is that what you're trying to say?

[English]

    Mr. John Scott: Yes. What we were proposing was to reinstate that section but to address the issues of concern that were raised by other groups that have made presentations here. As I pointed out earlier, the interpretation bulletin can deal with those concerns quite easily. We would endorse the entire section being reinstated into the act, not making any change to it with respect to the validity or allowing that to be an exempt situation, but the loophole environment would be easily dealt with within an interpretation bulletin.

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Sir, as you know, we do not rewrite legislation every year. The more specific it is, the more power it will give you and the greater the feeling of security for the public. Right now, there are many different interests at play and many people who come here to testify, but I find that within all those viewpoints... When you eliminate the need to interpret something, it does make things a lot easier. I think that the more specific it is, the easier your job will be, and you will come out on the winning side at the end of the day. When people ask me if I know any lobbyists, I tell them that first of all not many people come to see me because generally speaking they don't go to opposition parties, and I'm very glad about that. I think that many things have to be provided for within the act in order to make it reliable. Thus, it's not an interpretation bulletin that will specify certain things, it is the act that will define them. Therefore, it's important to be specific in any legislation these days. In the future, new bills that governments intend to present to the public will have to be more and more precise. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Bujold.

    Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you.

    Thank you for coming today. I have just two short questions, I think.

    First, you were talking about the company vice-president, if you phoned him and asked him for information. If it wasn't a company that was lobbying and it didn't have 20%, it wouldn't matter, but if it was lobbying so that 20% of an employee's work at least was lobbying, then wouldn't they just register all their senior employees in case, because they'd obviously all have the interests of the company in mind?

    Mr. John Scott: Mr. Bagnell, you've raised a very interesting point.

    I've spoken with a number of people within the business community and it ranges from one extreme to the other. As an in-house general counsel, a lawyer advising the chief executive officer of a company that falls within the new registration requirements, the short answer to the CEO, if asked, “Who do I name?” would be, “Name everybody”. That defeats the issue of the intent of the act to get the names of the people in the lobby registry who are going to be doing the lobbying. In order to protect the position of the company against any offence, because you don't know at some point whether someone will pick up the phone and speak to someone, cover everybody. So is that the intention? No.

    Then it goes to the other extreme of some colleagues who are not even aware of the fact that this legislation is coming forward. That was the reason for the six months instead of the two-month transition period. It was to allow them to better understand what is required, to allow them to make meaningful registrations.

    Your point is well taken, but I don't think that's really what the intention of the legislation was all about. On the reverse recommendation that we made about you contacting somebody, they make the choice about whether they would like to register or not. If it's exempt, if you're allowed to speak with those people without registering, then they'd feel comfortable about doing that--and there would still be the registration of all the other officers who were very specifically directed to lobbying. They'd still have to have those names.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: On your recommendation at the bottom of page 3, about the interpretation bulletin, I agree with the six months, actually, relating to restricting the requests for information and defining that. I, too, thought defining that would be difficult, that a request for information, depending on who calls, could actually be lobbying, just by the fact that they phoned. So would it not be easier to not include any contact and not have to come up with this complicated definition?

    Mr. John Scott: The reason this is in here is twofold. One, the ethics counsellor himself has indicated to us that this is something that is going to be needed, and we support that because there is this grey area. If you pick up the phone to ask for something and if the person responding says, “Oh, by the way, what is your name, what company are you with, and why are you phoning”, an innocent request to find out about the status of something, all of a sudden, may be turned into a lobbying activity. We need some direction. We clearly want clarity because that's in the best interests of government and the public at large.

    The only reason this has come forward is because of the change and the removal of the words “attempt to influence” within the old legislation, which the ethics counsellor, because of enforcement requirements, has strongly argued is necessary. We don't necessarily agree, but we accept it.

    Going to the next step, when you have this, we see this is the practical way of making the legislation more practical, more meaningful, more effective. And it's up to this committee to give direction, we feel, to the registrar, who will have carriage of this bill, to deal with this and to get it out there to everybody quickly so that we know how it works.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Yesterday one of my colleagues raised the concept of interaction with middle managers and the bureaucracy recording that. Do you have any comments on that?

    Mr. John Scott: In what way reporting that... That would be a registerable activity, no matter what level the person is within government. Any employee within the government is a public office-holder so it would make no difference whether it was at the deputy minister level, the ADM, the director general, or at any other level. It would all be registerable.

    The Chair: I think the member is referring to when a middle manager, or whoever, has been called by somebody...they would be recording that, and it would be registered that they were called on.

    Is that the question you are asking?

    Mr. John Scott: Is this naming of names... or the person called would have to record—

    The Chair: The names of whom they called...

    Mr. John Scott: If I may, we're very strongly opposed to the issue of naming names. That really does go to the heart of the principles of the legislation about free and open access to government, and it raises a whole bunch of different issues, perhaps some charter issues.

    We argued this at the committee hearing previously, at the report stage, and the recommendation was not to go to that length. We felt it would create an enormous chill within government if individual employees of government were being named on a person-by-person basis, and that goes a long way.

    On the reverse situation of someone who's called, you have to respect the profession. The law is the law, and a lobbyist who makes a registerable lobbying activity by communicating... if that person does not register, then that person may suffer the consequences of the penal sanctions of the act, and they've been enhanced under Bill C-15 with the ethics counsellor or the registrar to report to a peace officer a situation where it comes to their attention.

    If, for example, a member of government is phoned and lobbied, and that person finds out subsequently that this person who called was not registered, it would be within their ability to instantly contact the registrar and say, “I was contacted and that person is not shown on the registry. Why aren't they”--not to force the government employee to make them register, but to note that someone has carried out a registerable activity and has not complied with the act. I think that's the more preferable way to deal with it. We have to self-comply; if we don't we suffer the consequences, and we're prepared to do that.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Masse.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Just to carry on with that line of questioning, the specifics were that a former MP had called. The member couldn't find out who it was. It involved a particular case.

    To play the devil's advocate, if there's nothing improper here, if it is an activity that is formulated under business and operates within the realm of government, why would naming names be a problem? What would be the big chill in terms of across the government? Would there be a big chill across the lobbyists?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: I would just go to the principles of the act, and those are the principles that we think should be upheld. But nothing in this should impede open and free access to government.

    Coming back to an earlier point Mr. Scott made, our interest as GRIC is enforcement of the act. Under the act lobbyists must register. It's a requirement of membership in an association. We would want to make sure that those people who are not registered... This is why we're supportive of the definition that makes the act enforceable. Naming names, in our opinion, doesn't do anything. It does not create a more open and transparent act and a more open and transparent process.

    Mr. Brian Masse: Why is that, though? What is the fear in that process?

    What we were talking about yesterday is after MPs have been lobbied for a significant amount of time about a particular issue, should they register that in some capacity? If it's a particular issue they've been working on or it involves an ongoing relationship, it wouldn't harm them to note that type of lobbying. You're preoccupied under a particular format.

    But there's no way to cross-reference any of these things. It goes back once again to whether there is any enforcement. If it's an open activity for which people in the private sector are being paid through their companies and people in the public service are being paid, with a high level of activity--for others it has to be all activity--what would be the problem with identifying the amount of time spent on lobbying? Are people afraid?

    Mr. John Scott: No, they're not afraid. But I think the concept is that in terms of the people who are working within government, who may not take calls and who are not going to be as open and transparent in terms of... I look to the principle here again that lobbying public office-holders is a legitimate activity. On the other side of the coin, if John Doe or Jane Smith are named 500 times and the person in the next office is only named twice, is there some implication that may flow to the deputy minister or someone else in government as to why that person is talking more than someone else? It just doesn't make sense.

    The whole issue is to ensure that the lobbyist clearly sets out in the registry, “I will be talking with the Department of Finance on the issue of a particular area of legislation, and the type of activity I will be carrying out is arranging meetings, making phone calls, and conducting a grassroots campaign”--specifics in terms of what the activity is. That gives a clear statement on that department on that particular issue by that person, whether it's John Scott or Carole Presseault, whoever it may be, that they're focusing hard on a particular item. We feel that fits within the parameters of the principle and is the type of transparency that's appropriate.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Brian Masse: I don't want to be argumentative, but I think in trying to open the process...I don't understand, if it's something that's legitimate, why there can't be some checks and balances somewhere so that the general public would have an idea that somebody in particular is spending a lot of time working with somebody in the government in whatever position. I'm not looking for every single case here but more of a specific...because sometimes things happen and it makes it worse, because people are going to think there's stealth underneath it and it gets worse.

    Ms. Carole Presseault: I would say that the registry accomplishes this. It identifies the policy initiative; it identifies the regulation or the department you're lobbying, the subject matter, and the technique used.

    I was looking through our code of conduct, and I would argue that lobbyists would be in contravention of this code if they misrepresented themselves. I think all lobbyists are very clear on whose behalf they're working, and I think it's the right of any public office-holder to request who it is. I think it's an obligation on the part of the lobbyist to affirm what their issue is and who they represent.

    Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you for noting that. I did go through your code of conduct, and I've seen similar ones for different issues. I wonder, have you had violations? Do you audit them? Is there a process you use with your code of conduct before you renew members, and what has that led to?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: We're a fairly young organization. We haven't adopted the full self-regulated model yet. The compliance is verified in terms of the clients who register. Our members are registered lobbyists, and we request that they be registered. There is no professional conduct process within the organization, but it's something as an organization that we're looking to for the future. These are good questions we're posing to ourselves as a very young organization.

    Mr. Brian Masse: You've been in existence since 1994, right? So you really don't do much with it right now, then. You sign and people are expected to abide by it themselves.

    When we look at our legislation, we moved towards a code of conduct that had something in it where, for example, if it was broken they couldn't register their activities. Would this be something that would be progressive? I'm looking for ways.... I'm thinking of the disappointment we felt, or at least I felt, when we found out from Mr. Wilson yesterday that sometimes there hasn't really been any cross-referencing, or any type of real breaking news, about potential conflicts or any types of changes with registration, and it hasn't led to any weeding out of potential problems. There don't seem to be teeth in the legislation. Would a code of conduct help with that?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: As we understand it, the issue has been with the enforcement. This is why we're supportive of the definition, which we're assured by the ethics counsellor is enforceable, and--

    Mr. John Scott: With penal sanctions, and this was the issue. The ethics counsellor felt that the government could not proceed on those items, and we're not objecting to that and feel as a profession it's appropriate.

    There are two elements that come into this. One is that if someone breaches the code, then any number of people can bring that to the attention either of GRIC or to the registrar, and the registrar has the power to act on it.

    In terms of removal of the right to register, you're getting into a professional regulatory environment or something that doesn't exist.

    Mr. Brian Masse: Thanks for that.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Marcil.

[Translation]

    Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Are you familiar with the new bill on transparency and ethics in lobbying that was tabled by the Government of Quebec?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: Our members brought it to the attention of the institute. We are not experts in this field. We saw a few glimpses of it. It's very new because it came into effect on October 1^st. To be honest, we have a very superficial knowledge of it.

    Mr. Serge Marcil: Are there many similarities between the two pieces of legislation?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: To my knowledge, there are major differences with regard to definition. I'll stop there, because that's all I know about it.

    Mr. John Scott: May I speak English?

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes, there are good translators here.

[English]

    Mr. John Scott: With respect to definitions, I believe the Quebec legislation follows the old Lobbyists Registration Act, not Bill C-15, and it includes the reference to attempt to influence. I would expect in due course that whatever comes out of this bill and is enacted in legislation at the federal level may flow down to not only Quebec but Nova Scotia, Ontario, and British Columbia, and perhaps other provinces if, as, and when it's enacted. But with respect to the Quebec situation, unfortunately I don't have a full understanding of all the details.

[Translation]

    Mr. Serge Marcil: In your brief, you say that you worked in close cooperation with the Ethics Counsellor. Your proposal today is something you also suggested when the Ethics Counsellor was working on the subject. Why was it not chosen?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: We did not talk about some of the new provisions, for example paragraph 4(2)(c) proposed since the tabling of the bill. Since the bill was introduced in June 2001, our discussions have dealt mainly with the definition, since c'était le problème à solutionner, as well as the registry of lobbyists on behalf of corporations. These are the two items that we focused on.

    As for the matter of two to six months, we did not discuss it but it is now being brought up.

[English]

    Mr. John Scott: We only saw that when Bill C-15 came out, that it was a two-month transition period, so we're reacting to that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole Presseault: I should mention that on the day after the introduction of the bill, Mr. Wilson was attending a breakfast meeting we had organized for our members. He is very open to the discussion and it is in everyone's interest.

    Let me return to the point raised by Mr. Masse. It is in everyone's interest to have an act that works well and that has teeth.

    Mr. Serge Marcil: An act on lobbying should not be an act that prevents people from registering. It should encourage the greatest possible number to register. So the law must provide a framework for them and at the same time encourage them to register. It should not be repressive, but proactive when it comes to lobbyism.

    Yesterday the Ethics Counsellor raised the point and I think that we did discuss it somewhat in a section today. When an act is drawn up, it is assumed that the act is applied when people register. It is rather difficult to make provisions for all kinds of relationships that may exist between a lobbyist and a public office holder. For example, a minister may be a speaker before the Chamber of Commerce or a business association. He is at the same table as the representatives of a company. There are exchanges between the minister and the representative and such conversation may be quite far-reaching. How can we make provisions for such circumstances? A public office holder may find himself in the same situation since deputy ministers are also invited as speakers. A lot of things are said on such occasions. I know this is the case because I have often experienced it. I occupied an executive position with the Government of Quebec and there were always organized meetings, sometimes quite unexpectedly. Is the minister or the public office holder expected to file a return following the event?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: The responsibility for filing a return rests with the lobbyist. If this individual were the president of my association, he would be recorded in the registry. The activity would be recorded because a discussion is rarely undertaken with a member of Parliament, a minister or a public office holder without an attempt to promote the interests of one's organization, one's client or association. In such a case, the activity must be reported.

    One must then consider how the act is applied. If it is a representative from my association, it would certainly be registered. On the other hand, if it is a volunteer or one of our members who is a CGA, it would not be registered because this activity is normally undertaken as part of networking in a business environment, and not as an activity officially sanctioned by the association.

    The purpose of the act is to encourage exchanges and to recognize that they are something useful in the development of public policy. It is a natural process. People are now talking about cybergovernment. There is talk about encouraging greater participation among citizens and creating a new public forum for exchanges. In order to do this, there must be an appropriate legal framework. It would serve no purpose for me to register the 55,000 members of my association, it would not be in the public interest.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Serge Marcil: Would you like to answer, sir?

[English]

    Mr. John Scott: I agree. The intent of the legislation is to have the registration of those people who are going to be involved in lobby activity. If it is flooded with all names, then it loses the substance.

    In talking with a business colleague, business generally wants less red tape, not more. If there's going to be red tape, it must be meaningful and it must be pointed to a principle, and that principle should be measured. So business will agree with all of this, but to make it important, the people who are going to be lobbying are the ones who register.

    In the example you gave about sitting at a dinner, or at a meeting or something, of course that could be a registerable activity. They should know that and they should register. The government, in promulgating the new revised act, in its communication to the business and community writ large, should make it clear what those types of activities are and that the government expects there would be registration. In those situations, of course, they would do that.

    Getting away from the issue of volunteers, that's another issue. A person who isn't paid cannot be a lobbyist to do it. But in terms of regular things, of course, make it meaningful; don't flood it. Get to the key and make sure they all register.

[Translation]

    Mr. Serge Marcil: Could I ask a brief question?

[English]

    The Chair: A short question, quickly.

[Translation]

    Mr. Serge Marcil: What I'm about to say may seem a bit simplistic. I'm not saying it as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, but as a member of Parliament.

    I think there may be some correlation between the Act to Govern the Financing of Political Parties and the Lobbyists Registration Act. It's believed that the lobbyist is simply someone who registers and who asks for a meeting with a senior official, for example. How do we deal with the case of a corporation that makes donations to a political party and that has a lobbyist that makes representations for it to the government? This is valid for all political parties; it's not specific to one.

    Ms. Carole Presseault: Those are two different legislative frameworks. The Lobbyists Registration Act does not target the Act to Govern the Financing of Political Parties, but these are two parallel activities. There's no doubt that there some link for all political parties, but it's something that comes under another piece of legislation.

    Mr. Serge Marcil: It is someone who is attempting to influence someone else. The definition has been amended.

    That's all, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

    Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: This discussion has twigged my interest. I sometimes think that as parliamentarians we should be trying to figure out ways to make life easier in this country rather than complicating it. It's very easy for us to create a bureaucratic empire. We can use terms like “transparency” and all this sort of stuff so that we can start collecting information like it's going out of style, and hiring more bureaucrats and making life more complicated for people, but for what purpose? Just to gather information somewhere in Ottawa and accumulate it?

    I do recall something that happened in B.C. The new government in B.C. had made a pledge to reduce the regulatory burden in B.C. by one-third. Once they gained power, they actually took a look at all the regulations that existed at the provincial level and found something like 400,000 regulations that had the effect of imposing obligations or prohibitions on individuals and businesses. To reduce that by one-third was a daunting task, and it was very costly too. They found that these things had a big cost associated with them.

    I want to be clear on this point about the deletion of that section. I may have to do some backtracking on my own here, but let's try to use a real example: softwood lumber.

    I'm 2,000 miles away from Ottawa and I have some softwood lumber mills in my riding. If I were to call somebody in from the plant, when I'm back in my riding, to help explain this issue to me and to educate me on that, what you're really saying is this person could be violating the Lobbyists Registration Act unknowingly because of this fact. The effect of this is that a lot of these folks are going to get directives from their companies and so on that they just don't talk to anybody in the government any more; this just invites headaches and trouble, so don't do it.

    In a yes or no answer, am I right in that understanding?

º  (1630)  

    Mr. John Scott: Yes.

    Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Okay.

    I've finished.

    The Chair: I want to get back to what you said. I thought that yesterday Mr. Wilson said it was our responsibility as MPs to search out and gather information to better represent the constituent, the district, the province, and so forth, and that such activities would not necessarily be part of lobbying. I may stand corrected, and I'll ask for legal advice here.

    Mr. Geoffrey Kieley (Committee Researcher): I wouldn't presume to second-guess Mr. Scott, but I think some of those activities might clearly be registerable if your company is registered as a lobbyist and if you are.... As I understand Mr. Scott's hypothetical case, we have, say, a vice-president in charge of human resources. If the company cumulatively spends a significant amount of time lobbying, then it's registerable as a company, in which case a senior VP would be registered anyway since he or she would be required to as a senior officer of the corporation. That's what Bill C-15 proposes.

    Mr. John Scott: A senior officer is the chief executive officer, the president, the CFO, and all their reports, so it may not just be a vice-president of human resources. It could filter down quite deep within a mid-sized company--quite deep.

    Mr. Geoffrey Kieley: It would filter down to anybody who does any lobbying, so if your company reaches the 20% threshold and your senior VPs or your senior officers are already listed--and any employee who does any lobbying would also be captured--presumably, if you make one phone call or have one meeting, you might qualify. I would suspect that someone would want to address that in an interpretation bulletin.

    Mr. John Scott: The CEO may only name the people he or she thinks are going to do that lobbying activity; that's the only requirement under the bill. But if the member of Parliament speaks with someone else in the company who does report to the CFO or whoever and they're not named, they would be in contravention of the act. It could well be.

    I just suggest to you that there may be a process of directives within companies such as not to talk or to be careful.

    Mr. Geoffrey Kieley: My only comment on that would be that I presume that companies would find a way to comply as they currently do, and they would probably do it in some way such as having an information officer: for any request that comes to the company, talk to our information officer. That doesn't strike me as being--I don't know. I don't run a business, but it does strike me--

    Mr. John Scott: It changes the dynamic of dialogue among civil society, parliamentarians, and the government. It does put a potential wedge in there. I can't presume to say how businesses will react, but it does cause potential confusion and is a cause for concern.

    Ms. Carole Presseault: May I just add that the second dimension is of course the broadening of the definition of “to communicate with”. Suddenly the net is cast much wider. Presumably, you have a lot of companies that have not registered, and now with this new net there would be a double whammy in a sense with proposed paragraph 4(2)(c) and the new definition.

    The Chair: Mr. McTeague.

    Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

    I thank you and I'm glad that you've appeared before our committee. Your comments are very interesting to us. This is the third or fourth time we've discussed this issue which is of great interest to us.

º  (1635)  

[English]

    I have a couple of interesting... I don't mean in any way to signal any disrespect. I understand you have recommended that the standing committee retain and not delete paragraph 4(2)(c) of the act as a valid exception from registration. My question to you is, is it your understanding that the association you represent would be something a bit like a clearing house, where through information gathering you might be able to analyze, understand where government members and government are at, and then sort of apportion those to various people within your organization, in the association?

    Mr. John Scott: Not within GRIC and not within the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association. We're just addressing what individual companies would be faced with. That doesn't fall within our jurisdiction.

    Mr. Dan McTeague: It says that you have represented registered lobbyists since 1994. The ambit of registration in the existing legislation of paragraph 4(2)(c) would mean that those who have any oral or written submissions made would not have to be registered. Do you currently have individuals who fall under that but do not need to be registered? In other words, do you have members of your organization who do in fact spend a considerable amount of time gathering information within the meaning of the act, and what percentage of your clientele overall would that be?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: All our members are registered lobbyists—100%. They work for organizations, associations, corporations, or they are consultant lobbyists and work for firms like the one Mr. Scott works with, or associations like my association.

    They carry out their business the way they see fit. They come together under the GRIC umbrella as a professional association, as a regroupement with really three aspects: the networking aspects of any professional association; the advocacy aspects, the speaking out on issues--and that has mainly been the Lobbyists Registration Act, which is the only piece of legislation we see that impacts us; and the third piece is the professional development through the organizing of conferences, speaking opportunities, and that type of thing.

    It's all volunteer-led. We have one staff person two days a month who just keeps us going and makes sure we have minutes and that type of thing.

    Mr. Dan McTeague: Would you see an increase in your clientele if this legislation were to proceed, the new amendments merely requiring communications, as opposed to not getting what you're seeking, which is the first recommendation that this section not be deleted? Would you see an increase in your membership, given that the activities would now have a far greater reach than they did before?

    Ms. Carole Presseault: We'd like to represent all registered lobbyists. Like any association there is strength in numbers. We'd like to represent all lobbyists, but I don't think it would really matter. We're a young association that is growing.

    Mr. John Scott: Not with respect to 4(2)(c) and whether it's in or out, but the issue of the expansion of the corporate in-house lobby registration is going to significantly--I won't say significantly--increase.

    Mr. Dan McTeague: It will increase, though.

    Mr. John Scott: It will obviously increase, of course.

    The rules were different under the old act, and now any company, and cumulatively all its people--if it equals 20% of one person's time--is going to have to register so there'll be a broader, more transparent if you want to call it that, catchment of potential lobbyists.

    Mr. Dan McTeague: This is why I asked the first question. In fact there are people within your various organizations who are gathering information, of necessity I suspect, and if this were law tomorrow morning, you would have an increase obviously in those who definitely require registration.

    Mr. John Scott: Our organization is a voluntary joining organization. It's not mandatory, like a law society, so all we would do is offer what we do, which is the cachet of being a member of our organization, which we hope is respected by public office-holders, and also the networking and all the other activities we do. So once the number increases, we'll say, “We're here. If you'd like to join us and take advantage of it, that's fine.”

    Ms. Carole Presseault: I would think people would want to choose to belong to GRIC.

    Mr. Dan McTeague: I ask this in the context of Mr. Wilson's testimony yesterday and he said it's not really used. You, of course, say that it is in fact used and would make a difference, and I think that's very important for this committee to get its mind around this understanding.

    Thank you for being here.

    Mr. Chairman, those are all my questions for now.

    The Chair: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: I thank you very much for being with us today.

    Yes.

    Mr. John Scott: Mr. Chairman, I have copies of my notes, which I'll leave with the clerk.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, and they will be circulated.

    I really appreciate you being with us today to help us understand Bill C-15 and to be able to move forward on this next week. Thank you very much.

    For the committee, on Tuesday we will hear one more witness and then go into the motion and then get into clause-by-clause. So I leave that with you.

    Also, those who wish to make changes or amendments to the legislation, you received a circular on the people to call. Did everybody get that circular? Yes? Good. So if you want to make changes to the registration act, there are people with phone numbers and e-mail to assist you in your work.

    There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned. Have a great weekend.