“My feeling talking to people at Treasury Board and the minister on this is that they are awaiting the report and want to consider what the committee actually had to say following its hearings. I think they’re approaching it with an open mind,” Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Ont.) told The Hill Times last week. “If there’s one thing that Minister [Tony] Clement has been clear on, it’s he wants to provide even more transparency.”
The House Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee released its report on its review of the Lobbying Act on May 14. It made 11 recommendations after months of hearings from stakeholders and Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd.
Some of the recommendations include adding directors general to the list of designated public office holders; removing the ‘significant part of duties’ threshold for in-house lobbyists, commonly known as the 20 per cent rule where employees in an organization who do not lobby for more than 20 per cent of their time are not required to lobby; changing the monthly communications filings so that all people who took part in meetings are included rather than just the most senior person in the organization; and giving the Lobbying Commissioner the power to fine lobbyists if they breach the code of conduct.
NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ont.), who sits on the committee, said that he believes the Conservatives are “serious about moving forward” to enact the recommendations in legislation. “They seem to take this seriously, and I trust that they’re going to do it,” he said.
The NDP members on the committee added a supplementary report to the committee’s report, stating that although they agree with the general report, the committee could have gone further.
“The government has failed to address some key aspects of lobbying reform,” the NDP’s report states, before making five recommendations of its own. The NDP recommended that the Lobbying Commissioner should be able to continue investigations even if they’ve been referred to the RCMP; consultant lobbyists should report in their monthly communications who their clients are when meeting DPOHs for more transparency; the Lobbying Commissioner should have immunity and “retain a formal mandate to educate lobbyists, public office holders, and the public about Canada’s lobbying rules and regulations;” and the commissioners’ office should maintain a list of all DPOHs.
“We had to put in a dissenting report because we were concerned about some flaws in the lobbying report and we were surprised that the government didn’t listen to some of the recommendations from the commissioner. Overall, I think it’s a good report, but it could be better,” Mr. Angus said.
Lobbyists last week had mixed reviews about the report.
The Government Relations Institute of Canada, the association for lobbyists, said the report “captured some good things” but also “missed the boat on others.”
GRIC president Charles King, a lobbyist with Shaw Communications, told The Hill Times that if the recommendations are enacted, it would increase the administrative burden for lobbyists. He noted that for non-governmental organizations that have limited advocacy dollars, the potential new rules would affect them tremendously.
“A lot of these organizations are going to fall through the cracks and you’ll have the lobbying commissioner going after them,” he said, noting that the report needs to be clarified overall.
For example, he said, one of the recommendations is to “require in-house lobbyists to file a registration, along with the senior officer of the company or organization,” but that is already currently being doing in most cases on one registration. Mr. King questioned whether he would now have to separately register all senior members at Shaw who would potentially lobby, in addition to himself. Additionally, he said, when it comes to banning gifts from lobbyists to DPOHs, there needs to be a clear line drawn. He said he understands that perhaps hockey tickets would not be acceptable, but questioned whether a ticket to a charity event would be.
“I have no idea what the government’s appetite is to implement all of this. Overall, most of these are really good. There are just a few that make me scratch my head,” Mr. King said.
Similarly, the Public Affairs Association of Canada also said it welcomed the recommendations in the report, but wanted more details especially on giving the Lobbying Commissioner administrative monetary penalty powers.
“I don’t think it’s a landmark decision. I don’t think it will affect us too much. I think there’s going to be some nervousness around the administrative and penalty side of powers given to the commissioner,” said PAAC chair John Capobianco, a lobbyist with Fleishman-Hillard.
Mr. Capobianco told The Hill Times that the commissioner’s investigation process needs to be more transparent if she has more powers to fine lobbyists. He said in the past, there have been some investigations conducted without the lobbyist’s knowledge.
“What’s happened is that if there’s some questioning about a lobbyist’s actions, the commissioner will undergo this review without even letting the lobbyist know. There’s a bit of a challenge there in the sense that a lot of that could potentially be dealt with if the commissioner were to talk to the lobbyist,” he said. “All in all, the rules are there for a reason, we believe in adhering to them, but we also think there should be a sense of fairness and sense of transparency when it comes to those who are being investigated or those who are going to be punished, especially if you’re going to give the commissioner that much more power to actually infract a monetary penalty, or a suspension. So I think from that perspective, we need to make sure that process is transparent.”
Mr. King agreed, saying that the “devil is in the details” when it comes to new powers for the lobbying commissioner. “I want to see the rules. I mean, is there an appeal mechanism?” he said.
Mr. Capobianco said he’s also disappointed the committee recommended to maintain the five-year ban on lobbying after leaving office.
“It should reflect more the provincial standard which is one year,” he said. “We believe five years is too intense. Most people understand that a year out of government is enough to be able to distance yourself from the connectivity of it. Others believe even if you’ve been out five years, even 10 years, you still have knowledge of how government works. A year nowadays is a long time.”
Liberal MP Scott Andrews (Avalon, Nfld.), who also sits on the House Ethics Committee, said last week that the recommendations in the report are fair. “There were a couple of areas where we could’ve gone a little further, but all in all it’s a step forward,” he said. “Now we’ve got to see what the government will do when it comes to legislation.”
Treasury Board President Tony Clement’s (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ont.) office said last week “the government’s official response should be coming in the near future.”
In response to a Hill Times question, Ms. Shepherd’s office said that she is “pleased that the committee considered her recommendations” and included some of them in their report. “The commissioner looks forward to the government response,” said Natalie Hall, senior communications adviser to Ms. Shepherd.
Advocacy group Democracy Watch criticized the committee’s report in a press release last week. Tyler Sommers, Democracy Watch coordinator, said loopholes for “secret, unethical” lobbying remain even if the recommendations are enacted.
The government has 120 days to respond to the committee’s report.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Bea Vongdouangchanh
No comments:
Post a Comment