INST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 3, 2001

• 0910

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee will proceed with the statutory review of the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Today we have representatives from the Department of Industry, Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul and Mr. Irving Miller.

Who's going to begin?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul (Registrar, Lobbyists Registration Branch, Department of Industry): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here again. I had appeared earlier, as you know.

As registrar, I have responsibility for the administration of the registration provisions of the act. I'd be more than happy and pleased to provide you with clarification on any questions you may have with regard to the enforcement provisions of the act.

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

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: Thank you.

I hope you have received a copy of the brief, which basically explains the enforcement issues with regard to the act. Just briefly, a matter had been referred to the RCMP for their investigation. Following the conclusion of their investigation, they had sought advice from prosecutors in the matter. The advice they received was to the effect that the evidence was insufficient to support or demonstrate that indeed an attempt to influence had happened—the required threshold.

We were always of the view that the operative word in this context would have been “communications”, but in fact this conclusion, if you wish, was to the effect that “attempt to influence” was the focus. We found this surprising and somewhat problematic in the sense that it would be difficult to secure a conviction under that current approach if indeed the focus was on that expression of attempt to influence.

That's just a summary of the issue with regard to the attempt to influence and application of the enforcement provisions of the act. If there are any questions you would like me to address in that regard, I'm quite prepared to do so.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): We'll go to questions and we'll have a good round table on what we are going to do about it.

Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): First of all, thank you for coming. It's almost like a church congregation today, where we can all be told to move forward to the front pew.

On the issue that you've identified here, is it safe to say then that the prosecution had suggested changes that would make it easier for them to process a conviction?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: The prosecution did not make any suggestions. They basically provided advice to the RCMP as to why they would not consider this appropriate for proceeding to a—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So they didn't suggest changes, they just said—

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: This was its fate.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, that this was why it couldn't be done.

Is it the desire of the department that there should be something firmed up in the legislation to make it possible for conviction, as far as you know?

• 0915

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: In Minister Tobin's letter to the committee, he had asked that the committee look at enforcement of the act. Mr. Wilson as well, in his testimony before this committee, basically made the comment that given that the focus was on the expression “attempt to influence”, it would be very difficult to establish beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of being able to gather sufficient evidence to demonstrate this. Perhaps removing that expression and adopting language somewhat similar to what you would encounter in the U.S. Lobbying Disclosure Act could put the focus on communications. It could read something like, “where an individual communicates on behalf”.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's in the bottom paragraph on this page. Is that what you're looking at?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: That's the provision, yes, from the U.S. That's right.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It says:

The focus on the expression “attempt to influence” entails that in order to successfully obtain a prosecution under section 5, 6 and 7 one must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual has attempted to influence a public officer holder.

Further up it says, on the definition:

The term “lobbying contact” means any oral or written communication (including an electronic communication)...

Do you see any problems as a result of putting this type of clause in the legislation?

Mr. Irving Miller (Senior Counsel, Commercial Law Division, Department of Justice): I'll address that, if I may.

By removing the words “attempt to influence”, you would have a much easier time gathering the evidence to prosecute an offence—that's quite clear—because communication is something that you could probably establish quite simply. Attempt to influence, as Diane has suggested, requires much more subtle evidence, and that's been the problem. So that's the direction I think we're looking to go in.

If you do, however, drop those words and just focus on communication, then you throw a very wide net. In the drafting of that provision you may have to make some exceptions that are not already in the act, because not every communication should be caught. Enquiries after the status of things, for example, may not warrant that, and there are other examples. So we'd have to look at everything carefully to see what should be excepted from that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

This next question is not related, so I'm not sure if you'll be able to answer it. I'm just going by your titles and hoping that you will.

There have been some comments from past witnesses about whether or not people should re-file as being registered or make sure that they remove their names off the list after a certain period of time. What are your thoughts on that? Is there any problem with names being left on too long? Does it make the job harder, easier, convoluted?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: This is the whole question of requiring consultant lobbyists to reconfirm annually or semi-annually?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Right.

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: That's a good question. Just to give you a sense of background, my predecessor, the previous registrar, in the Summer of 1998 had put out a letter to all consultant lobbyists who would have filed a registration between January 1996 to mid-1997, an 18-month period. This covered something like 1,625 registrations. It asked the recipients to review these and determine whether they were still valid, or if any changes were required.

As a result of that call letter, something like 25% resulted in terminations. In other words, they were no longer valid. Their undertakings had been completed. Another 15% resulted in amendments, either for address change, contact persons, or again, more substantively, subject matter.

• 0920

So, yes, that was indeed an indicator, if you wish. As well, re-voicing what Bell Canada mentioned, they themselves have experienced that whenever they have retained a consultant, it seems they had remained on the registry for a period way beyond determination.

The registry is very well used. People look at it frequently. They do searches on it. It's a very dynamic registry. This would probably ensure that it is kept current.

As well, just as a point, because we do conduct our business electronically, this could be done fairly easily by us via e-mail.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Was there at any time any discussion as to the possibility, in terms of the enforcement of the act, of removing it from the Criminal Code so that it became, say, a civil infraction, where the rule of evidence, and the standard of evidence, would be much lower, preponderant of the evidence? Has that been discussed at all, and if so, what was the result of the discussion?

Mr. Irving Miller: Yes, those are options that have been considered and still are, I suppose, being considered. They entail some other difficulties, which I can get into. Okay.

If you decriminalized it, you would lower the standard of proof, the burden of proof, from beyond a reasonable doubt to a balance of probabilities or preponderance. You would still have, though, if you left the words “an attempt to influence”, some difficulty even then in establishing that, even on a balance of probability. So you probably wouldn't remove that problem completely. You would maybe help achieve it, but you wouldn't remove it completely.

As well, if you decriminalize it, you would go to an administrative penalty type of mechanism. This has been done in other places in certain statutes, in federal statutes, for example. In the Aeronautics Act they have such a mechanism for contravening certain sections of the act or the regulations. I've noted one, in the Canadian computer reservation systems regulations, that requires carriers to provide up-to-date and accurate information concerning schedules and fares. That sort of thing carries with it an administrative-type penalty for an offence.

If you adopt that type of mechanism, you then have to put in place a tribunal to hear appeals, because what will happen then is that an administrative penalty will be imposed, and the person will have to be given the right to appeal that if they choose not to plead guilty. That would mean they would have to go to a tribunal, which you would have to establish under the act and so on.

So it becomes a little more involved. Rather than using the court system we already have, you would have an extra requirement to establish a particular tribunal for that purpose.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Or take an existing tribunal and expand its mandate.

Mr. Irving Miller: Yes, you could do it that way.

There is another option being considered, and that is using the Contraventions Act, which is an existing federal law that provides for an administrative-type penalty and uses the existing courts of the provinces, referred to as contravention courts. They decriminalize the offence. They have a similar mechanism to the one I just explained, where the person is given the option of pleading guilty and paying the amount set out in a ticket of some sort, pleading guilty, and making representations or requesting a trial.

Now, this has been done through agreements with the provinces, and I understand that not all the provinces have signed on. I think only about seven or eight are signatories to this. They would allow their courts to be used for this purpose.

• 0925

The other concern there is that, at the moment, the amount of the penalty you could impose under that system is I believe $500 per offence. There have been negotiations to increase it to $1,000. That is also a concern in any non-criminal mechanism, that the penalty might have to be lesser. You're not imposing a criminal offence; therefore, under the charter there could be an issue as to whether or not you can go up to $25,000. You may need to reduce it somewhat.

So those are the problems we've seen with that. The mechanism might be a little bit unwieldy, the penalties may have to be reduced, and so on. As well, as I initially said, the basic question of proving an attempt to influence will still be there even though it'll be a lesser burden.

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

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam Champagne-Paul, earlier, I believe, there was some concern, or perhaps you raised this, that information does come to you. I'm a little concerned, given your role with respect to the enforcement side of the act, that you may not...

I guess what I'd really like to do is to give you an opportunity to tell the committee how you go about getting information about somebody who has not complied under the act. How long does it take between the time a person has actually, or potentially, committed an offence and the time you realize it? Are you not concerned about the question of limitations, on the civil side, of course, in order to get a summary conviction, and the more extended criminal procedure, through indictment?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: Let me begin by saying that lobbying issues are very much government-driven. Whenever there are issues of government policy or policy elaboration, lobbying basically will flow. And whenever lobbying happens on one side, you can be assured that counterbalance lobbying will occur on the other side of the issue. As a result of accessibility to the registry and the openness of the registry to all, via the Internet, we have been experiencing registrations.

Let me continue with regard to the other point dealing with how we become apprised. Because of the openness, we will often hear through the media, telephone calls, or queries. Because of the accessibility of the registry, if there's an issue, and someone knows it's very high profile, they can go to the registry, see that somebody's not registered, and know that this individual has been involved. There will be a newspaper article, or some other media person will pick up on it. We will get a telephone call.

When that happens, the first thing I do is make a call and follow up. First of all, I have to determine whether this is actually within the scope of the act. A lot of times people will think an activity is a lobbying activity when in fact it is not.

So I will follow up. I will make a phone call to the individual in question or to other individuals who are relevant to the issue, and I will determine what are the facts. From there I can determine whether or not it is within the scope of the act. If it is, the individuals are advised of the registration requirements under the act.

On the whole, in the metropolitan areas—and this comment was made previously by Mr. Wilson—we have experienced excellent compliance with the act. People do register.

• 0930

It sometimes occurs outside the metropolitan areas that perhaps people are not as familiar with the obligations under the act. That's why we follow up with these telephone calls and advise them. This usually will result in a registration. If it doesn't—not that it has occurred as yet—this would be referred to the RCMP.

Mr. Dan McTeague: So you would give a person who has not registered the opportunity to register before proceeding with any type of potential punishment or sanction?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: I'll put it like this: The whole purpose and spirit of the act is transparency. We want the public to know what's happening, and who is lobbying on what issues. If an individual has not been aware of his or her obligation to register, they are advised, and they register as a result of that, then we have met the spirit of the act. Because that's really what the whole act is intended to do.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Are you familiar with any examples of other jurisdictions that would have a much better opportunity of ensuring that people will in fact comply? I note the number of people here. I think you've had one or two incidents where you've actually had to bring in the RCMP or have an investigation into a certain allegation—not allegations—here.

Are you concerned that you may be missing several because they're not in the media, or they're perhaps not high profile? I mean, there might be an issue that is so beyond the interest of Parliament that the influence itself may not be seen as unduly harmful, and for that reason out of sight is out of mind.

Do you believe that, in the spirit of transparency, everybody is complying right now, to the best of your knowledge?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: I can say this much: We have found that the act has been working well and that we have been getting a lot of compliance under the act. There are a lot of registrations.

In terms of people falling between the cracks, so to speak, I can say that last Summer, as registrar, I had picked up on two particular cases—these reports are on my website, so I can refer to them by name—concerning Mr. Hugh Riopelle and Mr. Rick Smit. It was alleged that they had undertaken lobbying activities without being duly registered.

I contacted these individuals, and I contacted the individuals they allegedly had been lobbying. Following up on my review of these two particular cases, one was basically a true case of an individual trying to help out a friend. It was on a totally voluntary basis. It was not for payment. In the other instance, the activities at issue were not actually lobbying activities requiring registration.

So this process allowed us to come to a quick conclusion. The report was put on the website and there was a quick resolution to that.

Mr. Dan McTeague: How did those issues come to your attention?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: The issues?

Mr. Dan McTeague: Yes, the two that you're referring to. This goes back to my initial question, of how you know. Who brought it to your attention? How did you find out?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: In these particular cases it was through the media.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Okay.

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: Mr. McTeague, I think there was another part to your question. You were asking about other jurisdictions...

Mr. Dan McTeague: No, that was the question—someone who has not complied, and the tier one, the tier two, and the time period. I was more interested in knowing how you would pursue something if, after a period of time, the person has been successful at lobbying, undetected, for five, six, seven years. Now you're into a very different situation, whereby you now have to use the criminal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which, for a lot of people in this committee, means you'll never get your man—or woman.

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: On the whole, we find that there has been a lot of compliance with the act. There is no doubt that you will always have a minute minority who perhaps will try to avoid the application of the act. But on the whole, we find that the act has been transparent, and we meet the spirit of the act if we do a follow-up telephone call that results in a registration.

• 0935

By the same token, that's why, if you had a very minute number of people who still refused to register at that point, it would be important to have a truly enforceable act. And that is why that whole issue of expression has been brought to your attention.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): In the letter that you sent to us, you suggest how to change the expression "in order to influence" in order to make things clearer in comparison with what is contained in American legislation. I'm wondering whether you carried out an analysis of similar legislation in other countries or in other jurisdictions to see whether there were not any other improvements that could be made to the legislation on other fronts?

For example—and this is an issue that concerns me—we have a lot of information on the type of people who lobby and on the areas involved. On the other hand, we have very little information on how intense lobbying activities can be, for example, the amounts of money that are spent. Have you ever carried out any internal studies or analyses on the issue?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: The analysis was carried out, and if I could put it this way, it is a comparison with the American legislation which contains the obligation to report the amounts of money which are spent on lobbying activities. And I believe that that comment was made by one of the witnesses who appeared before this committee.

What I would like to highlight, is that pursuant to American legislation, it is a two-stage process. First of all, the legislation stipulates that any individual who will earn over $5,000 or any organization which will spend over $10,000 on lobbying activities must register, must sign up. Once registered, they must provide reports, which is the second stage. They must publish these reports semi-annually, at mid-June and in December I believe. These reports must state the amounts of money which were spent.

It is not a matter of specific amounts but of levels of spending or blocks of spending. And that is something that I would really like to highlight, that it is not as detailed as what we would expect. In other words, one does not report the exact amount that was spent or that was earned in relation to lobbying. All one has to do, according to the forms, is indicate whether one earned less than $10,000 more than $10,000 or closer to $20,000. And the same applies to organizations who report their expenditures.

That is what the American legislation provides.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Would it be complicated for you to add something similar, for example to ask those individuals who are registered—obviously the first stage will be registration—that they give us an idea of the amount invested without necessarily going into the detail of their expenditures?

Basically, we could do the same thing here: produce an annual report or a semi-annual report which would contain levels, from $10,000 to $25,000, from $25,000 to $250,000, and $250,000 and over. Then we would have a clearer idea of the situation.

We already have a lot of information. However, that doesn't necessarily give us a good idea of the rate of activity. Since this is something I have to look at closely, I have a problem finding my way around it. Of course I can recognize that BCE, in Quebec, probably has a more active lobby than a small non-profit organization. But outside of subjective ideas, I am not in a position to evaluate the levels of these activities, based on the information which is voluntarily disclosed at the moment and which doesn't contain any financial information.

Would this be something very complex for you to administer?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: We don't have any opinion on this point, given, and I would add this as a comment, that it is a matter of policy. As far as we are concerned however, yes it would be difficult to administer.

Mr. Pierre Brien: What exactly would be difficult?

• 0940

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: From an administrative perspective, the way we report, the way our forms are and all that, I'm trying to see... I can't see how we could create a system that would be able to track the amounts that were spent.

Mr. Pierre Brien: But if you are not asked to check the information... I understand that verification could be more complicated, but if people must disclose these amounts, the burden wouldn't be as heavy for you. If someone who is registered must report their expenses, all they would have to do is fill out a line on a form to indicate what amount is allotted to lobbying and in what area.

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: All that I can tell you on that issue, is that in this way you would be treating lobbyists differently than other professionals. It would be a type of discrimination.

As to the administration, that is something that we would have to look into. If the committee does make that recommendation, that is something we will have to examine to see how to go about it, but we feel that it could be difficult to administer.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Very well.

[English]

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

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): I have just one quick question. It may well reflect my ignorance of the act. This is not an issue that I am particularly seized of right now.

Heads of public sector organizations that come to Ottawa to lobby government on behalf of certain proposals or policies or the like on a regular basis, are they considered lobbyists at all?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: If I understand your question, Mr. Alcock, you're asking me if members of organizations—

Mr. Reg Alcock: I'll give you an example. Let's say a university president spends a portion of his or her time in Ottawa lobbying public servants on the creation of policy and programs. Do they come under the definition of the act at all?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: Under the requirements of the act, as it currently reads, in-house organization lobbyists, if they are paid to perform lobbying activities, and the amount of time they spend conducting this lobbying activity represents a significant part of their duties, which has been interpreted as being 20% of their time, then they would be lobbyists.

Mr. Reg Alcock: That is what I wanted to know. That's fine. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): A number of members have asked that same question, so perhaps I could ask you to elaborate on how that 20% is determined.

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: Extensive consultation was undertaken with the various interested parties, before the interpretation bulletin went out. Interested parties were consulted, and it was felt that 20% was a reasonable reflection of one day a week of the person's time. This is basically a reflection of that.

When they were contemplating what would be the threshold, various numbers and percentages were considered, including what was in the U.S. legislation. Their definition of lobbyist also refers to the 20% threshold. So at that point it was felt reasonable to use 20% as a threshold.

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

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: As a follow-up on the comment comparing the definition in that section with the U.S. side, you indicated that it was something that came about as a result of a witness who had appeared, and that they had given this section. Is that what I heard you say, that it had come from a witness?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: I said that during Mr. Wilson's appearance he did speak to the enforcement provision of the act. He mentioned that the attempt to influence had been a problem.

• 0945

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

In the area of this section that refers to the American legislation, have you, Mr. Miller, as senior counsel, done a legal analysis? Would it meet the needs of Canada in terms of lobbyist registration?

Mr. Irving Miller: No, I don't think copying it verbatim would meet the needs of Canada, but I do think the fundamental principle that focuses on the communication would be of benefit. They have exceptions under theirs as well, and as I mentioned earlier, exceptions are important. Now, their exceptions, I think, bring back the language of “an attempt to influence” in certain cases, and we would try to avoid that. So I think we would have to be careful not to just copy the American law as such but see where it was appropriate to do so.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

Ms. Champagne-Paul, you mentioned the number of people who access the registry. What numbers do you have?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: Yes, it's interesting. For the last fiscal year, as of March 31—I'm going by memory here—we had something in the vicinity of 28,000 visits. I'm just rounding that number off.

In terms of the number of pages accessed—printed and downloaded—something in the vicinity of 217,000 pages were accessed through the website last year.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Those are pretty impressive numbers.

When someone registers as a lobbyist, apart from the registry showing online do you have to give any kind of notice to anybody else? Do you send out any kind of written notice to, say, the minister in that area, that so-and-so is going to be lobbying on this issue? Do you do anything like that?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: No, given that the registry is accessible.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

You mentioned—following up on Mr. Brien's question—that there might be some issue of discrimination among professions if it was required to have certain expenses in there.

To Mr. Miller, as senior counsel, is it really discrimination... if because you're dealing with a different issue, you're dealing with someone who's going to be lobbying and—even though we don't want to use the words—attempting to influence? From your legal background, would that be seen as discriminatory, that in order to be able to do this you have to give this type of information? Would that be seen as discriminatory?

Mr. Irving Miller: It depends. I think discrimination is a general term, and probably in a general sense it's discriminating, but is it discriminating in like circumstances? I guess that's the question. And these are circumstances that are particular or exceptional, and require certain additional—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Every lobbyist has to do it, so it's not discriminating against one or the other?

Mr. Irving Miller: It may be that the circumstances of lobbyists are exceptional and require exceptional rules. So, yes, it is discriminatory if you look at how other professions are treated and the fact that they don't have to disclose certain things, but in this particular domain, is it appropriate? Well, that's another question. So discrimination is perhaps not the full answer, I guess.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

In the area of the possibility of decriminalizing not following the rules, you have indicated that the act seems to be working, and the issue is transparency. Is the reason that the act is working, so to speak, a result of the fact that it would be a criminal offence? Would there be less following of the act if it was decriminalized?

Mr. Irving Miller: It would be very difficult for me to respond to that. I guess any time you impose a criminal offence some people will tell you there's a certain deterrence factor, although I'm not an expert on criminal law per se. I suppose to some extent, yes, it could be, but I couldn't really factor it in. It's too difficult to say how much of an effect it has.

• 0950

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: How many cases of people who were charged under the Lobbyists Registration Act have ended in conviction?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: We've had no convictions so far. One matter has been referred to the RCMP.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just that one?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: Yes.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I want to come back to the issue of whether it would be discriminatory, or treating lobbyists differently from other professionals, if we were to require divulging the revenues received from the lobbying activity or the expenses paid out for lobbying activities. It's actually an activity, and I personally don't see any problem.

Lawyers, say, are not required to divulge the income they receive from a client when they act on a client's behalf. If that lawyer, as part of his or her activity, takes on a client where he or she is going to undertake lobbying activity, it's the activity that would define whether or not the divulging of the information is required.

I do think it is in the public's interest to know, for instance, what a particular company has possibly done in the past. If a system was in place to look at what they had divulged in terms of their expenses—under $20,000, let's say, for five years, and then suddenly in one particular year over $100,000—I think that would be in the public's interest. Because that says there was a particular issue or series of issues so important to that particular company—or to an association of companies, because then they all contribute into a general pot—that they felt this investment was worth it. I think that would be a pretty good argument for that kind of divulgation.

Mr. Irving Miller: I wouldn't disagree with you that there may be compelling factors there. I think it's an issue that has to be studied a little more. Yes, there's a public interest, but on the other hand, if you're speaking of individuals in particular, you have a charter issue as to reasonable invasion of privacy and that type of thing—what needs to be disclosed, how far you can go, and so on. There are certain balances you may have to look at.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: But don't most individuals, unless they're an employee, and as part of their responsibilities as an employee in a company, for instance, have to undertake lobbying activities, in which case they have to be registered if more than 20%, blah, blah, blah? But if it's an individual, chances are that individual has created an incorporated company, because the taxation system is quite different if you're reporting your revenues as an individual as opposed to reporting the revenues as a company, which then pays out a salary to you. Your expenses are quite different.

For instance, if I was undertaking lobbying activities and taking on clients, just as Marlene Jennings, Unincorporated, when buying a car or whatever I would have different treatment from what I would have if I had set up a corporation. I may be the single shareholder, but I set up a corporation. It's my corporation that signs the contract and does the billing, which allows me to acquire different kinds of assets. The taxation treatment is completely different.

So I find the argument on the privacy and charter issues a little bit nebulous, because I would suspect that the overwhelming majority of lobbyists who are single practitioners do so under a corporate veil. If that's not the case, I'd love to see the evidence.

• 0955

Mr. Irving Miller: You may be correct. There may be many more corporations. But I would suspect that there are still individuals. If you look at the definition of lobbyist, it's not only these large lobbyists. And you would get certain pockets of individuals, I would assume. So you would have to adjust for that. That's all I'm saying.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: They'd probably just incorporate, then.

Mr. Irving Miller: Yes. It's just a question that needs further consideration. We've not really considered it very much.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Right.

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: Perhaps I can add that this issue was dealt with and addressed by the Paul Zed committee in a previous parliamentary review of the act. It was discussed, and at that point some concerns were voiced in that regard.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: And do you happen to recall what the recommendations were on that particular issue?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: The recommendation on that issue was not to proceed with it at that point, because they felt it would discriminate against other professional types.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'll have to pull out that report, because I have a difficult time understanding this whole discrimination notion. Whether you're a doctor, a dentist, or whatever, if you undertake to lobby, then that immediately distinguishes you from your other colleagues in that particular professional corporation, because now you're not drilling teeth. So I don't see why that part of your income should not be divulged.

I think the public interest is great enough on this issue to have that kind of information available, particularly so in the connected communities, where more and more people are becoming more and more demanding of government. They want to know what government is doing, how it's doing it, and who it's talking to. So I would appreciate it if you, as the enforcers, would look at the issue again. I'm sure this will be discussed within this committee.

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: Madam Jennings, I just want to be clear that we don't have a position on this. I was basically just giving you information.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Why not?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: This is a policy decision, I think, of government, and something that I cannot speak to as—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): I think the message Ms. Jennings wanted to relay is that we need to look at it, to prove it or disprove it, before we go into making changes on recommendation from this committee.

If there are no more questions before we conclude, I have just a short one. I want to get some a definition.

I'd like to go back to the discussion on people who were doing lobbying but weren't registered. You talked about not in large communities, but you did find some who hadn't registered. Is it because of ignorance of the Lobbyists Registration Act that they didn't register or was it intentionally done? As well, did you have any repeats?

Ms. Diane Champagne-Paul: First of all, it doesn't happen frequently. I'm repeating myself, but we have found that there's been a lot of compliance with the act. I mentioned the metropolitan areas, where the community is very familiar with the requirement to be registered. It's when you start leaving and going to smaller communities—for instance, in the northern part of Ontario—that you will find that people are not quite as familiar with the requirements.

Now, I would say that in one instance where this did occur in northern Ontario, although the individual at issue was familiar with the requirements—and we are trying to address this and make it more user-friendly—he had thought he had registered when in fact he hadn't. As I proceeded with my review, I also was able to identify that the activity for which he was trying to register was not really a lobbying activity, per se, that would require registration.

I hope that answers your question, sir.

• 1000

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

We've come to the end of the hour. I want to thank you for your presentation and your discussion on the round table. It helped to clarify a number of items. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.