Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[W. Scott Thurlow]

Absolutely, and if you look at the proposed code, it provides a listing of similar activities, or things that should be contemplated in a certain way. Precision is where the law comes from. It does not come from breadth. The advice I would give to you is....The reason there's confusion is these long enumerated lists with no precision.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thurlow, and Mr. Barrett.

Ms. Hepfner, you're next, for six minutes.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here discussing this code with us today.

Through you, Chair, I would like to direct my first question to Mr. Thurlow.

It seems to me that you're saying this new code would really restrict people's access to the democratic process. We want people to be involved. Volunteers aren't just about helping you get elected; it's about bringing people into this system and making them part of it. We should encourage that.

Am I right in that you are saying that this code would restrict people, and cut people off from participating in the process?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I'd flip it, and say there are people who are registrants right now who have said, very firmly, that as a result of this proposed code, they would not participate in the democratic process in the future. That's bad.

You are free to participate in the democratic process, as I could go and volunteer for a local candidate, but after the fact, I would be limited in what my professional capacity would be to interact with government—and not necessarily with that person but with government itself.

There is an argument to be made that this is a violation of the section 6 rights to freely work in the country. I haven't seen anyone really articulate that point yet, but we've got courts, and I'm interested in their views.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Starting there, can you talk to us about when the code was created? What was the intent of Parliament, when we created this code of conduct for lobbyists?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

That's a fantastic question.

If you look at the enabling provisions of the statute, they're about ensuring that the lobbying that actually happens will happen in a way that is ethical and transparent, and can be done in a publicly accountable way. There are certain aspects of the proposed code that make a lot of sense, namely, confidentiality with your clients, honesty, and dealing with information that you are provided as you are talking about regulations.

This is a principled code of conduct that actually applies to the work that is covered by the Lobbying Act. I would posit that the role of the commissioner is about what happens at registration and onward. It has nothing to do with what happens before registration.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

That's interesting.

I think we have about 6,500 registrants on the lobbyists list, and those include organizations, so several people would be caught up in that. It's not a small number of people we're talking about here.

[W. Scott Thurlow]

It is a very large number of people. I can't even imagine how many members are a part of your organization. It's not one man's charter right; it is multiple thousands of people who have the potential to have their rights limited. Even if it were only one, that's how our charter works—it's the charter of rights and individual freedoms.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I would turn to you, Ms. Vipond. What we heard from the commissioner at this committee is that the new rules will make things more equitable for lobbyists, so that lobbyists, who perhaps don't have the same bank account as others, would have the same access to members.

What do you think about that argument?

[Siobhán Vipond]

I'll speak as a labour activist. When I come to speak to elected officers or officials like you, it's never to buy you off. We come with the facts about what members want to see in the legislation, and we trust that you're gathering that from all your constituents and that you are going to turn around and make sure that our legislation is in a position that it best represents all of this.

This idea that there's all this buying-off happening is mischaracterizing the problem. There absolutely needs to be transparency and honesty. But limiting our ability to represent our members and limiting our right to be active in our democracy—which includes leaflet dropping, sometimes going door to door, which, I think, we should encourage people to do—quite honestly will limit our ability to represent our members and to run for office in our unions, especially when we look at federal unions that are under this jurisdiction.

That's why we're here to say that this is going too far. It's going to be limiting, and it's going to have a real, negative effect on our right to work and our right to represent our union members.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Given that members of Parliament make almost $190,000, more if they have extra roles in Parliament, do you think the general public would think that we'd be influenced by $40 or $80 a year, going to receptions for lobbyists?

[Siobhán Vipond]

Listen, I think this is one of those things you read and say, “This cannot be what was meant”. If you've ever held an event at any hotel anywhere, you're not getting the breakfast coffee for $40. I don't think that was the intention, which is why we want to raise awareness of it, because it is absolutely ridiculous. Also, the way it's written is that you're turning it so that it's our responsibility to monitor what you're doing. That shouldn't be for our organizations to do. That's why you're covered under your rules, so that you are following them and you are being good public office holders.

Asking us to monitor to make sure, because somehow one reception where you're in front of our members is suddenly going to turn it.... If that were true, I would hope that we had all the labour laws in the world that we wanted to see in Canada.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Very good.

I'm almost out of time. Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.

Next on the list is Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Villemure, you have six minutes.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Conacher, my comments will be for you first.

Before entering politics, I worked for 25 years as an ethicist with government. In addition to suggesting Canadians storm Parliament, you said some very harsh things.

First, do you believe that any donation, contribution or association necessarily means influence?

Second, do you think being influenced is a negative thing?

[Duff Conacher]

All donations imply accountability.... I'm sorry, but I'm listening to the translation, and that didn't really make sense to me.

Is it that donations imply accountability or donations imply unethical influence?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Villemure, I’ll stop your time if you want to ask your question again.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Does any involvement, any association or any donation, whatever it may be, necessarily mean that there is influence or that you are beholden to the person?

[Duff Conacher]

Well, it does, according to tests worldwide by clinical psychologists of tens of thousands of people from every culture. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—it's the golden rule. Small gifts have influence. They've tested tens of thousands of people.

What do you do in that case if you want an egalitarian system, and it's the Supreme Court of Canada that has set out an egalitarian model? One of the key principles is a substantively equal opportunity for substantively equal participation and influence in all political processes. What you do is you limit anyone who can afford to give more than what an average person can give. An average donation over the last five years to political parties is $75. Canadians have said that's the best indication we have of what people can afford.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

In one of the questions…

[Duff Conacher]

If it's more than that, you're allowing wealthy people to give more than an average person can give.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Conacher, I know sometimes it's difficult when you're on Zoom, but Mr. Villemure had a question that he wanted to pose again.

We'll go to Mr. Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You seem to have many biases, suggesting that you do not support lobbying. You can answer with a yes or no.

[Duff Conacher]

We're in favour of ethical lobbying. The 27 citizen groups that have called for the changes have proposed a reasonable alternative, which is that significant political activity or any fundraising should face a long cooling-off period. However, a bit of the canvassing and volunteering should be allowed without any cooling-off period.

That's a reasonable alternative that protects government integrity, that will prevent unethical lobbying and that will be an egalitarian system that upholds its fundamental, democratic principle of “one person, one vote” by not allowing any one person, lobbyist or lobbying group to have more influence than any average voter.

If you're going to go to a different system than that, it is unethical and it's violating that fundamental “one person, one vote” system by allowing wealthy interests to have more influence because they can give more and are here in Ottawa, wining and dining you, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Monsieur Villemure.