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]

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

• 1543

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee proceeds to the statutory review of the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Today we have people from the Canadian Society of Association Executives: Mr. Michael Anderson, president and chief executive officer; and Bob Hamp, manager of communications. Welcome.

I take it, Mike, you are going to begin.

Mr. Michael Anderson (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Society of Association Executives): Sure will, Mr. Lastewka.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Over to you.

Mr. Michael Anderson: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for letting us appear before the committee today. We are very interested in the issues around the Lobbyists Registration Act, and our views have been provided to you in advance in the brief that you now have before you.

I have a couple of comments I'd like to make in opening with respect to who the Canadian Society of Association Executives are, and what essentially our mandate and role is within the Canadian marketplace in terms of non-profit organizations.

With me today, as you know, is Bob Hamp, our manager of communications. Both Bob and I, by way of background, come out of the private sector but also spent a number of years in the non-profit sector, so we'll be able to speak about various issues as they impact the different types of organizations we represent.

Essentially, the Canadian Society of Association Executives is an organization that's been around since 1951. I think in its probably most directly descriptive terms, we're known essentially as the association for association executives—those individuals who manage and operate and work within non-profit organizations across Canada, be they trade, professional, issue-specific, or charitable organizations.

• 1545

In terms of its founding and its continuance, CSAE has basically been formed around and focuses on providing our members with a diversity of educational, research, and publication information that essentially allows these individuals to better manage the non-profit organizations they work for and represent. For example, we do an annual conference, which is integral in terms of providing our members with education about non-profit organization issues. We also do an online training program that's referred to as the association management education program, which eventually leads to certification, which again enables individuals who run non-profits to better manage and run those organizations, regardless of the level of management capability they have within that organization.

As I mentioned, we have a number of organizations across the country. Our total membership numbers about 2,200 non-profit organizations. As I say, they're an amalgam of trade, professional, issue-specific, and charitable groups. Membership is essentially constituted of people who are working for these non-profit organizations, so we will have members who are for example managers of education for various non-profits through to individuals who are managers of research or website content or individuals like myself, would be the most senior staff officer in terms of managing the non-profit organization.

As indicated, we've got 2,200 members across the country. About 40% of our members are national organizations, who may or may not be involved in federal government relations. The issue there really depends upon the type of organization and the issue at play.

Much of what we've seen in terms of the Lobbyists Registration Act over the years that it's been in place leads us to the conclusion we've put in our submission: that in fact the act is working, that it is agreeing with the principles that have been laid out in the preamble to the act.

The one issue that we would like to raise in terms of one of our recommendations I think relates primarily to how members, the people who work in non-profit organizations, are categorized. I'm sure the committee is well aware that non-profit organizations are referred to as in-house lobbyists organizations. I think the thing we put forward and we'd like to discuss with the committee is the issue of when the act was put together the issue around non-profit associations required members of non-profit groups to register with the LRA twice a year, to update twice a year, as opposed to in-house corporate lobbyists, who are only required to file once a year.

As I noted, we have a couple of recommendations, but the one we would like focus on with the committee relates to the variance in reporting capabilities. I think the issue we have and what we would like to propose to the committee for its consideration is that in-house organizations—i.e., non-profit associations—actually would be required to file once a year.

The question that I am sure is going to come from you is why we would propose this. It is essentially this. It's been our experience that most not-for-profit organizations are often in a scenario where they have to represent the collective interests of a wide range of members. In my experience—and I think certainly Bob can attest to it as well—developing a consensus among a diverse group of people who belong to a not-for-profit organization takes time, takes a considerable amount of energy, and requires a lot of dialogue back and forth with members to ensure they understand the position that's being taken and the direction the organization is going to head in.

Typically what we see non-profit organizations doing with respect to their government relations efforts is they're often cast in the role of being a bit of a broker: they're working with government, be they working with elected officials or with bureaucratic officials, in terms of issues that are developing.

It's also been our experience generally speaking that many of our organizations who are dealing with Ottawa on a government relations basis are very small organizations. By way of background, I think approximately 40% of our members have annual budgets of less than $1 million a year. So we're not talking, generally speaking, about huge non-profit organizations. As a result, when they're getting involved in government relations efforts they have to be very specific about the issues they pick; they have to be very specific about getting member support, getting member buy-in and moving forward on their position.

It's our perspective that the way lobbying efforts generally work through non-profits tends to lend itself to a scenario where changes within the departments that are being contacted or the officials or the issues don't change to a great degree. Essentially, with that thought in mind, our view would be that it might be prudent to consider that non-profit organizations be required to register once a year and update once a year, as opposed to twice a year.

• 1550

Having made that distinction, we looked back over the records and frankly are unclear and can't determine why, when the act was first put together, non-profit organizations were required to update twice a year, while corporate were only required to file annually. So we unfortunately can't share that information with the committee. If the committee does have that information at its disposal, we'd appreciate hearing the rationale behind that.

Over and above that one particular recommendation that I raised, I'd like to reiterate that we certainly support the act. We think it's working.

The one final thing I would add prior to turning it back to the vice-chair is that we would certainly encourage the committee to continue the current no-fee electronic filing system. Anecdotally, a number of our members have indicated to us that the system works well for them and it allows for quick updates. Certainly the option of having no fee is a bonus as well.

Mr. Vice-Chair, that is the extent of my comments. I certainly appreciate your time and your attention. I'll turn it back to you, sir.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you.

Mr. Hamp, did you have anything to add?

Mr. Bob Hamp (Manager of Communications, Canadian Society of Association Executives): Nothing to add, sir, no. Sorry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Okay.

We'll now go to questions. Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The recommendations you make in your brief are quite clear. You address concerns that are quite limited and have been well defined by the Minister of Industry in his testimony. Do you have any more concerns other than those you have mentioned about potential improvements to the practice of lobbying?

[English]

Mr. Michael Anderson: Not really, no.

When we take a look at the act, I think the one issue we keep coming back to is just that disparity between the filings, two times a year versus one time a year. But in general, I think the perspective we have is that the act has been working fine and we don't really see the need for additional change to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: In terms of sanctions for not being registered or the timeframe to sanction someone caught lobbying without being registered, is it something that concerns you and that you have looked at?

[English]

Mr. Michael Anderson: With respect to non-profit organizations, often what we see is that when an organization enters into a government relations effort for the first time—and that does happen with a number of non-profit organizations—generally speaking, they're aware either directly or indirectly of the need to be registered and to file twice a year. So we don't necessarily see that the enforcement of it is an issue in that regard.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. You say that, generally speaking, people are relatively well informed of the legal framework with which they have to comply.

[English]

Mr. Michael Anderson: Yes, that would certainly be my perspective with regard to members of our organization. Often what will happen, for example, is that we inform our members of the requirement to make sure they are registered. We've done pieces in the past with respect to the act, just trying to generally inform them that they need to register and register regularly and comply with the act.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Mr. McTeague, please.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. I appreciate your insight in this area.

I'm still looking through this. I beg your pardon, I had to grab a phone call there, but I wanted to make sure I understood your position with respect to the final question the minister has asked the committee to consider: whether the enforcement provisions specific to the two-year limitation period remain adequate. Do you have any thoughts on whether or not people who work at the top level, senior cabinet, senior parts of it, public officer administration, should be given a much longer cooling-off period? Or are you satisfied with the current framework, tier one and tier two?

Mr. Michael Anderson: It's a good question, and one I candidly can't say I've spent a lot of time considering. It would appear that currently what is in effect has some merit, but realistically I think I have to give a great deal of thought to give you an appropriate answer.

• 1555

Mr. Dan McTeague: Okay. I have no further questions. I wanted to get your impression on that, since you represent a lot of small non-profit organizations.

Maybe I have a supplementary. How difficult is it for small organizations to have a voice to influence to some extent, or perhaps provide a certain aspect of public policy that is quite often overwhelmed by large lobby organizations, in-house organizations or in-house consultants, in your experience?

Mr. Michael Anderson: Actually, it's a good question, and I'll put on a different hat.

I ran a small trade association for about nine years. Initially the organization perhaps felt that it was difficult to be heard in Ottawa, be it at an elected official level or within a bureaucratic level. As we moved through the process and understood that consistency was key, the message was key, as time moved on we did see that we were being heard. We had members across the country who were certainly very close to their members of Parliament, regardless of the party they were in. Often that was an approach that was used, and certainly the MPs understood what the organizations' perspectives were.

So I think that when an organization understands that government relations efforts in Ottawa have to be consistent, steady, and you have to be here, they're able to achieve that. And fortunately, because of the diversity of where MPs are located across the country, constituents of an organization are able to talk directly to their member of Parliament while they're back in their riding. So I think that an organization that organizes itself well and keeps its nose to the grindstone, so to speak, can get their message across quite effectively,

Mr. Dan McTeague: Give us an illustration of what you believe to be lobbying activity. Is much of it advocating for a certain position, or in response to a legislative initiative? Perhaps that's not as fair a question as I'd like it to be, but I want to give an idea to this committee of what is involved with a lobbyist. Are they more often tied to rejecting, opposing, or are they there to flourish, create, innovate, prod, cajole, invite new legislation?

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): And the answer is...?

Mr. Michael Anderson: All of the above.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Fifty-fifty, forty-sixty?

Mr. Michael Anderson: Bob?

Mr. Bob Hamp: Well, I used to work for a large trade association. I worked there for about a dozen years, and it was my experience in that industry—it was one of the material sectors—that perhaps 80% of our time was spent responding to a federal government initiative. It could be amending, prodding, probing, all of those things you mentioned earlier, but it was mainly in response to a piece of legislation that had been enacted here in Ottawa.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you.

Mr. Michael Anderson: If I may just add to that, on the other side, when I was with a trade association we were mainly involved in an issue around legislation on one front and then we may have moved on and at one stage we found ourselves strictly in an awareness mode in terms of letting a member of Parliament and of course certain bureaucratic officials, depending on the department, know about the association, know about its membership, and know about the value the organization brought to the Canadian economy. So much of it I think is a public relations effort at times.

Mr. Bob Hamp: That was the other 20%.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you.

Your comments bring another issue to mind. I'm wondering, in your experience, both of you, with your association where you're currently working, how valuable is it to have—and this is not a leading question—have someone who has very close contacts with the ministry in which you are applying, or the issue you're applying pertains to a particular ministry? How valuable is it, and to what extent will associations go to hire a person who is seen to have strong connections with the current government or the current policy-makers?

Mr. Michael Anderson: I've certainly seen both sides of the coin, if I can use that phrase. I've seen organizations take a look at getting involved—I'm talking non-profits now—taking at look at embarking on government relations efforts, and not being particularly knowledgeable about it. But that often works to their advantage to the degree that they're not encumbered by the perception that they have to have someone, as you commented, who has to have some direct connection within the ministry.

• 1600

On the other side, I've seen organizations, when they're looking to hire a CEO.... If the organization's focus is very much on government relations, then they are obviously looking for someone who has government relations experience. I can't say, however, that I've seen them phrase it that this individual has to be an ex-staffer of this minister's department. More often than not, they're looking for someone who understands how the federal system works, understands the balance between dealing and keeping elected officials informed. And also there are times when you deal at a bureaucratic level because the issue is not something that is particularly of interest to the member of Parliament, or it may be around a particular program.

So I can't say in direct response that I've seen anybody come out with a job description that sort of lists directly that the single attribute we're looking for is someone who has a connection directly with ministry X.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: One of the issues raised a few times since the beginning of our hearings is how much information we have on lobbyists' activities. For example, should we not have more information on the meetings between special interest groups and non elected individuals, senior officials, on the relationships that might exist at that level? This probably has more to do with private companies. Would this type of information improve transparency in lobbying?

[English]

Mr. Michael Anderson: Again, my experience in government relations has been working for non-profit associations. Often what we've seen in meetings with elected officials is correspondence, letters, information that is provided. How to improve that, I don't really know. Are you thinking of the issue of an organization having to register every time it makes contact?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: At a certain level.

[English]

Mr. Michael Anderson: A certain level.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, deputy minister or....

Mr. Michael Anderson: Again, I go back to my experience, and I'll look to Bob as well. Back when I ran a trade association, we dealt with so many different levels of officials—be they elected or be they bureaucratic—on an issue. We were covering a lot of different bases. So I don't think we felt at that time that we had to differentiate between whether we were dealing with a bureaucrat or a senior elected official in terms of reporting. We would constantly update, of course, indicating the department we had been in contact with and the issues.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I will ask the question differently. Surely, it must have happened that as you were lobbying in favour of a particular outcome other groups were lobbying against it. Have you been in situations where you would have liked more information on the activities of these competing lobbyists?

[English]

Mr. Michael Anderson: I understand. Again, I'll use a personal scenario.

Yes, we would have liked to have known what the other group was doing. Whether we ever thought about being able to access that through a government registry I don't think ever occurred. I think often what we looked to was just general gathering intelligence of what the other organization that was also lobbying on the issue, perhaps on a counterview, had put forward. As you know, people will talk, and I think that was as much as anything how information was gathered, how you saw what their strategy was. But I can't recall that we ever thought there should be a way we should be able to see the documents they put forward, no.

Mr. Bob Hamp: I've been involved in a situation, which I alluded to earlier, with a trade association where there were several industries affected by the same issue and each with a different or slightly different position on that specific issue.

Inevitably, what happened at the end of the day was the minister finally said we need to assemble each of these groups together and work with them collectively, rather than separately, to resolve the issue. So in effect we did realize, as the process went forward, what the positions of the other groups were, and we did ultimately reach a consensus. That seemed to work effectively for the issue I was dealing with, but it wasn't in terms of registration or additional transparency; it was at the initiative of the minister in this case.

• 1605

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): I'll ask one of the questions that has surfaced. The question that comes forward is that non-profits, because they end up having to get donations, sometimes are lobbying on behalf of their donors. Therefore some people have suggested that non-profits should have to submit their list of donors in order to surface who's behind it. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Michael Anderson: Mr. Chair, in referring to non-profit, are you specifically referring to charitable organizations, or do you include trade and professional groups in there as well?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): I think it was all of the above.

Mr. Michael Anderson: Our understanding—and I'd look to the committee to add to this—is that charitable organizations who have a charitable registration number with Revenue Canada are unable to lobby government. For trade groups, professional associations, and issue-specific groups, their funding comes from a variety of sources.

I'll give you an example—ours, specifically. We don't receive any government funding. Our moneys to operate come from membership fees, from sale of publications to members and non-members, from running conferences, educational events, that type of thing. In our instance, if I use CSAE, it would basically be a list of those people who are members of our organization and non-members. And in our instance, because it's so diverse, it would essentially be a list of individuals, and not corporations.

Perhaps to add to that, if I understand your question correctly, there are organizations out there whose diversity of revenue comes from a variety of areas. So I don't know whether you're going to see any one in particular that is funded solely by one particular organization.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Does anyone have any more questions?

I think your report was very clear, as Mr. Brien has mentioned. I really appreciate you coming out today to be part of our review.

Mr. Michael Anderson: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair, and I thank the members as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you very much, and have a great day.

I'll adjourn the meeting to the next calling of the chair.