Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I think the first thing is that we shouldn't be providing a laundry list of examples of things that we have talked about anecdotally that are real, basic political engagement. If the test is that you shouldn't lobby the people who owe their job to you, we know what those rules are. It's the campaign manager. It's the person who flies the plane. It's those Prime Ministers' tours, the leaders' tours, for example. There's a very different impact and very different exposure, not to the one person but to the entire team.

I think the original rule 8 from 12 years ago was far easier to understand than what we have two iterations later. Ironically, it has been clarified twice to make it more easily understandable.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

So we should lean into that precision language from before.

I'm going to move from there to CLC and Ms. Vipond and Mr. Luff.

We saw in the last municipal election in Toronto that voter turnout was at its lowest level ever. It was the same thing with the provincial election in Ontario. There was also a low voter turnout, as our colleagues know, in 2021 across the country.

What is the impact when we look at something like this trawler effect of volunteers and that looseness you have referenced with your 3.5 million members across the country? Are we going to make it less accessible for individuals to be part of the democratic process, and what risk does that put on representation overall of our citizenship and their rights?

[Siobhán Vipond]

I agree with you that participation is extremely important. You're right that we see this cooling off happening, where people aren't participating because maybe they don't think they have influence on politics. It's something we take quite seriously when we talk to our members, because in the same way when they vote on their collective agreements we need them to participate in that, we need them to participate in all types of politics so that their voice is there.

What we have in front of us I don't think is going to change whether people participate or not, except to say that if this goes through, when we're talking about rules 4 and 6, our members may get confused. If they're thinking of running for leadership roles like mine, then they can't participate in these volunteer politics because we're being told we have to choose between the two of them. That's unfair. People should be allowed to participate in politics. That is our democracy.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Okay.

I'll lean in again. We talked about gold standards. Rather than gold standards, how do we measure up compared with other countries? Do you have any thoughts on that?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

It depends on your test. Mr. Conacher is 100% correct when he says the U.S. system has different and more stringent disclosure laws. Their lobbying system is run by the IRS. They have a different set of resources from the lobbying commissioner, who I think has 30 employees. I can't remember exactly what it is.

Part of the reason why there is public disclosure in the United States is that the IRS gets their tax returns and they can tell what they're spending money on. Through the legislation, they have made the decision that Americans have the right to know who's spending kajillions of dollars. In Canada, we just don't let them contribute money. It's individual Canadians who make those contributions, not large corporations.

For those of you who are worried about Citizens United, it's not here, I can assure you of that. Our contribution limits are very low by comparison. In fact, in the United States, under Citizens United, they don't exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thurlow.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Saks.

I do agree with Ms. Saks that this has been a fascinating discussion today.

We are going to start our next round of questioning, starting with Mr. Kurek for five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Yes, it has been fascinating.

What I find particularly interesting is the different perspectives represented here, but I think there's agreement on the need for precision and the need for the rules. In the case of lobbyists, and certainly as a member of Parliament and in my work with the Ethics Commissioner on all of the disclosures and whatnot that MPs go through, precision is absolutely fundamental.

In the about four and a half minutes I have I would like to provide the opportunity to all of the witnesses—and I'll go in the same order I did before—to suggest maybe some language as to what this precision you're looking for should be.

I'll start with the CLC.

[Siobhán Vipond]

It's as we've put in front of you. I would also argue about phrases like “frequent and extensive”—and one of the witnesses has said exactly how they interpret that. If our political activity is “frequent and extensive”, what does that mean? Does that mean I did it twice in one weekend? Does that mean I did it the last two elections? That is very hard to interpret. As Mr. Thurlow has said, until there is a complaint, we actually won't get a test for it. Then that's when we don't know what we're supposed to be doing, because we want to be complying with these rules.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Okay.

Mr. Thurlow.

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I'm going to flip the question around and state that the Supreme Court of Canada says that you and I have the right to meaningfully participate in the democratic process. In the case of Mr. Figueroa, he was a communist, and he wasn't getting a lot of money—yes, I figured that would be what would happen—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[W. Scott Thurlow]

He wasn't getting any money under the per-vote subsidy because of the rules that applied to the number of parties that had to be filed. So he advanced his constitutional right under section 3 and said that money is what's going to allow you to meaningfully participate in the process by learning more about his party, the Communist Party of Canada. That meaningful participation is going to be different for every Canadian until you tell them what they can't do. This code of conduct specifically tells Canada what they can't do. I think that violates both the letter and the spirit of section 3.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Thurlow.

Mr. Conacher, we've been talking about precision. Do you have any suggestions as to what precision should look like?

[Duff Conacher]

The precision is there in the gifts and hospitality rule, and that's fine. In terms of rule 6 and the definition of “other political work”, yes, the terms need to be defined. They shouldn't be left the way they are, because they're going to allow for unlimited fundraising while lobbying. What does “near-full-time” mean? What does “frequent and/or extensive interaction” mean?

The rule for low-level political activity should be that you are allowed to canvass and distribute leaflets a couple of times during an election campaign without having to sit out from lobbying afterwards. For fundraising, if you do any of it you should have to sit out for four years. For being in a campaign office, you should have to sit out for low-level right through the next election, and for the upper level even longer.

That's the way to ensure equal opportunity for equal and meaningful participation and influence, which is what the Supreme Court of Canada actually said. It's not just meaningful participation; it's equal opportunity for everyone, every citizen, to participate and have influence at an equal level. That's one person, one vote, with no one allowed to do more than any other person if they are then going to try to influence. That's why you have the cooling-off period that lasts at least until the next election—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

[Duff Conacher]

—for any significant campaigning and any fundraising.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I have one more question that I hope to get in. I have about a minute left.

This is in terms of the whole conversation around ministerial staff and that cooling-off period versus...you know, the Prime Minister five years or a low-level staffer. Perhaps you could take 10 seconds each to answer this, starting with the CLC. When it comes to precision, do you have recommendations on what that should look like?

[Siobhán Vipond]

Not at this time. I can leave it to Mr. Thurlow.

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I would just use the things that we use to distinguish them right now, such as their rank—EX-4, -5, -6 or whatever—their pay and their length of service. Right now most of the designated public office holders are banned from lobbying for longer than they served. That seems a little off.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Okay.

You have about 10 seconds, Mr. Conacher.

[Duff Conacher]

Are you talking about the cooling-off period in the act?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Yes.

[Duff Conacher]

It should be a sliding scale. It should be based on your power and it should be specific to who you could lobby. You might be a low-level staffer who is a great friend of the Prime Minister's. It doesn't much matter that you're low-level. It's [Technical difficulty—Editor] and it should be based on relationships and personalized on a case-by-case basis, with a sliding scale from one to five years.