Registrar's Finding in the Matter of Mr. Hugh Riopelle

An article appeared in the National Post on April 7, 2000 alleging that Mr. Hugh Riopelle had been lobbying federal Ministers in relation to the potential sale to the federal government of Place Louis St. Laurent, a building, in Hull, Quebec, owned by Mr. Pierre Bourque Sr., without being duly registered as required by the Lobbyists Registration Act (LRA).

Following the appearance of this article, in order to clarify the facts surrounding this matter, the Registrar of the Lobbyists Registration Branch, on behalf of the Office of the Ethics Counsellor, interviewed several federal Ministers, as well as speaking with Mr. Riopelle and Mr. Pierre Bourque Sr.

Subsection 5.(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act states that:

Every individual who, for payment, on behalf of any person or organization (in this section referred to as the "client"), undertakes to

(a) communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence
(vi) the awarding of any contract by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada,

shall, not later than ten days after entering into that undertaking, file with the registrar, in a prescribed form and manner, a return setting out the information referred to in subsection (2).

The Registrar began her enquiry by communicating with the President of the Treasury Board. The President's office provided the Registrar with the names of those federal ministers who had been involved with this issue.

In order to determine whether there had been a possible breach to the registration requirements of the legislation, the Registrar, in her communications with the Ministers' offices, addressed three questions for the respective Minister's consideration and response.

The questions addressed were whether Mr. Hugh Riopelle:

1. Made any representations on behalf of Mr. Bourque to the particular Minister in relation to the sale of the building (Place Louis St. Laurent);
2. Was attempting to influence the Minister in the purchase by the federal government of the building in question; and
3. Mentioned anything which would have led the Minister to understand that Mr. Riopelle was getting paid for his representations.

Only two Ministers indicated that they had had dealings with Mr. Riopelle.

One Minister recalled Mr. Riopelle making representations about the building. The Minister clearly recalled being told by Mr. Riopelle that he was doing this as a friend of Mr. Bourque and was not being paid.

The other Minister recalled meeting with Mr. Riopelle, but there was no discussion about the sale of the building to the federal government.

The Registrar pursued the issue of payment with Mr. Riopelle and Mr. Pierre Bourque Sr. In her conversation with Mr. Riopelle she asked him what kind of arrangements he had with Mr. Bourque in relation to his lobbying activities for the sale of the building to the federal government. He advised that he had been registered as a lobbyist with Mr. Bourque as a client for the period beginning on October 16, 1991, but that the registration had been terminated on January 4, 1996. Moreover, during that period of time Mr. Riopelle stated that he never received any payment from Mr. Bourque Sr. for his services. With respect to the issue of the sale of the building, Mr. Riopelle stated that there were no arrangements between Mr. Bourque and himself nor were there any payments. It was for these reasons that Mr. Riopelle, who stated he was familiar with the registration requirements of the LRA, did not consider there was any need to register for this activity under the Act.

In her conversation with Mr. Bourque Sr. the Registrar also asked whether there were any arrangements between Mr. Riopelle and himself for the latter's lobbying activities for the sale of the building. He confirmed that there was no agreement, no understanding and no payment nor any fee for Mr. Riopelle's services. He mentioned they have had a very long standing friendship and that Mr. Riopelle was providing him with this assistance as a friend. She also asked Mr. Bourque whether Mr. Riopelle held a mortgage or other form of lien against the building and whether in the event of its sale Mr. Riopelle could have potentially gained thereby. Mr. Bourque stated that Mr. Riopelle did not hold a mortgage against the building in question. A title search of the Place Louis St. Laurent building was performed which confirmed that no liens, mortgages or other form of encumbrances were registered against the title in favour of Mr. Riopelle.

Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing, while there is evidence to indicate that representations were made by Mr. Riopelle, to a public office holder, it has been confirmed that there was no payment for these services. Since "payment" is a necessary component for purposes of the registration requirements under the Lobbyists Registration Act, the facts indicate that there was no need for Mr. Riopelle to register as a lobbyist.