Evidence of meeting #58 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was thurlow.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Conacher and Mr. Kurek.
Mr. Zuberi, you're next for five minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
We heard a really interesting analysis, and for me a little bit shocking, from Mr. Conacher that it's possible for somebody to give unlimited funds, pretty much, to an elected official with this current version.
Mr. Thurlow, do you agree with that analysis? As a lawyer, do you agree with that analysis of this current version of the code?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
On this point, how do you read this? I understand that it's normal that there are differences of opinion, but I'd like to understand your position. What is your position with respect to that question?
4:50 p.m.
Lawyer, Counsel on legislation, As an Individual
I think a very good balance was struck in the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Democracy Watch and Campbell. It has been stretched by subsequent commissioners.
I think the best approach for these types of things is for Parliament to say what those limits are and for Parliament to say that election contributions by individuals “shall” be limited to $1,650. There's no wiggle room there. That's the limit.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I would say that the challenge around that is that $1,650 today is different from $1,650 tomorrow.
4:50 p.m.
Lawyer, Counsel on legislation, As an Individual
That's why there's an inflation adjustment variable in the Canada Elections Act that actually allows for that. It used to be $1,500. Now it's a little bit more.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Exactly.
We heard an interesting point from Mr. Green about how in the past there was a subsidy per vote.
Mr. Thurlow, in your view, if that were restored to what it was in the past, do think that would help mitigate some of the concerns we're talking about with respect to lobbying?
4:50 p.m.
Lawyer, Counsel on legislation, As an Individual
I don't know if it will deal with the lobbying issue, but I certainly think it will talk about access to meaningfully participate in the electoral process. It was a political decision. There are different philosophies about how public financing should happen. If you make a contribution, you're eligible for a tax receipt. These per-vote subsidies don't necessarily flow the same way to the same parties, because there's a critical mass associated with them.
Even poor Mr. Figueroa, who would get only so many votes under the subsidy, wouldn't be able to buy an ad in the Edmonton Journal with that money, because he just wouldn't have enough—although the Fort Saskatchewan Pennysaver would still be able to sell him an ad.
The per-vote subsidy is an equalizer, but still, the way money is used in elections, you get much more value when you can compound that money and get a better ad buy.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I would suggest that the per-vote subsidy replenishes a war chest, which is necessary in elections. Thus, one doesn't have to seek to replenish it as thoroughly if there is a per-vote subsidy.
I'd like to hear from the CLC representatives. What is your view on that particular question?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
Yes, I think you're absolutely right. We agree that getting big money out of politics makes a lot of sense. That's why it's individually funded. That subsidy would help to do that.
What that subsidy would not do is negate the need for volunteers. Elections would still need volunteers. They would still need people to take the phones, knock on doors, etc. That means these rules would still have a negative effect on people like me and other leaders in the labour movement from having to choose between whether we want to be representing our members or be volunteers in elections.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Given that CLC does lobbying, don't you think that those who are officially lobbyists within CLC could just stand out, not be involved in the elections, and the rest of the group would be involved? Isn't that a workaround for your concern?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
I don't believe the Constitution should be worked around. I do think it covers everybody.
Yes, I'm here talking and giving you personal stories about what it would mean to me, but I'm not alone in that. There are lots of people who hold office in the labour movement and also want to participate in politics. I think saying that these individuals are not allowed to have the constitutional right to do both is really problematic. What we're suggesting in front of you isn't gutting this to a point that it would mean we wouldn't have good rules around lobbying in Canada.
I think what we're suggesting to you would allow us to ensure that we're not penalizing those like me who want to be involved in the political process, but also want to represent members and get good legislation for workers.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I just want to note that I will be ceding my two and a half minutes to Mr. Villemure as we continue our work, our good co-operation, here.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I didn't force you into that did I, Matt?
It's just like Mr. Thurlow did on Valentine's Day.
Mr. Villemure, you have five minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Many thanks to Mr. Green as well.
Mr. Conacher, you have made recommendations, some of which I find radical. Still, I’m interested in your opinion.
Without getting into extremes—you know, the review is unlikely to go to extremes—what would be absolutely necessary to put into the code?
4:55 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Well, regarding more change to the current code, currently if you are involved in significant campaigning or any fundraising, then you have to sit out past the next election to match the five-year cooling-off period after you leave public office before becoming a registered lobbyist. As a lobbyist, if you are involved in significant campaigning or any fundraising that therefore causes an appearance of a conflict of interest, you should have to sit out past the next election. That's what the rule is now.
There's no reason to change it at all, unless you want to allow unethical lobbying to become rampant. There's nothing in the current proposal for rule 6, or in what we're proposing, which is to allow for low-level political activity—a bit of canvassing and volunteering during campaigns with no cooling-off period.... That would allow everyone to do a little bit, as much as an average voter does—but no more, because if you're doing more, then you're buying influence and it becomes unethical.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Do you think these measures would somehow prevent secret lobbying, as you call it?
4:55 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
No. Secret lobbying will only be stopped when the act is changed to close all of the many loopholes that allow for secret lobbying.
Mr. Thurlow had said earlier today that if someone did secret lobbying it would be illegal. That's not true at all. If you're not paid to lobby, then you don't have to register. If you're lobbying about the enforcement of law and lobbying the agency that enforces the law, then you don't have to register. If you're a business employee and you're lobbying for less than 20% of your time, then you're not listed in the registry. You can violate the lobbyists' code as much as you want, because it doesn't apply to you.
There are huge loopholes. If you're lobbying about contracts—as you asked about earlier—you don't have to register. I'm not sure what he's talking about, that lobbying secretly is illegal. Lobbying secretly is legal in many ways. It's very easy as a contract lobbyist or a consultant lobbyist to just say, “Put my contract to say I'm paid for giving you strategic advice, but I'm lobbying for free.” Then you can never be prosecuted, because you're not being paid to lobby. There are huge loopholes, and those have to be closed to end secret lobbying.
The code needs to be strengthened to stop unethical lobbying.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
That is very interesting.
Tell me something. If all the recommendations you think are needed to make lobbying “ethical” are not implemented, does that make the lobbying illegitimate?
February 14th, 2023 / 4:55 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Yes, if this rule sticks and other political work goes through as is, I believe it actually violates the Charter of Rights of the 17.2 million voters in Canada who are not paid lobbyists. They have a right under the Supreme Court's several rulings, to democracy, to democratic good government and to have confidence in the appearance of integrity of every political process. That's what the Supreme Court has said.
Why would anyone have confidence if you are allowing lobbyists to raise...? It's not give, as the previous member had posed my statement as saying that someone could give someone thousands of dollars of funds. Of course, Scott Thurlow would disagree with that, but that's not what I said.
What I said was that if rule 6 and other political work definitions go through as is, someone will be able to raise tens of thousands of dollars for a cabinet minister or the minister's party that they are lobbying, and lobby them at the same time.
Why would any member of the public have confidence in policy-making at the federal level if that's legal?
5 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Very interesting. Thank you.
I want to go back to the first question I asked you, because I found your answer very intriguing.
In your opinion, anything someone receives automatically influences them, or makes them feel beholden, whether it’s an invitation to an event where a meal is provided or anything else. That person is automatically being influenced.
Is that right?
5 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Yes. Clinical psychologists have tested tens of thousands of people worldwide and all humans have been influenced by even small gifts or favours. If someone does you a favour, you feel a sense of obligation—unconsciously, actually—to return the favour.
Doctors were given free samples of drugs by pharmaceutical companies. The doctors didn't use the free samples; they gave them to patients. It doesn't save the doctor anything. It doesn't really do anything for the doctor. Doctors were studied and they all said that those free samples didn't affect how they prescribe drugs at all.
In fact, it affected all of them. It changed their prescribing practices. They started prescribing the drugs that they were given free samples of, even though the free samples didn't do anything for them.