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.
5 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
As I said, clinical psychologists have studied this. Read Dan Ariely or Robert Cialdini, who is the guru of influence. The number one way to influence someone is to do a favour for them or give them a gift.
That's why, when you're at a restaurant, your server gives you some mints. It increases the tip you give, on average. That's why all sorts of people send out envelopes with free fridge magnets. They've given you something and you feel you have to give something in return, so you make a donation.
5 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
It works because that's what humans do: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It's the golden rule. It works everywhere.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Conacher.
Thank you, Monsieur Villemure.
Mr. Barrett, you have five minutes.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks very much, Chair.
I just want to take the first part of my time and give notice of a motion. I'm not moving a motion.
I'm not splitting my time, Monsieur Villemure.
I'll submit it in both official languages, though I know that translation will capture it. The motion is as follows: “That the committee dedicate one of its remaining Access to Information and Privacy Systems study meetings to hear from the witnesses listed below in regard to the...hotel costs of up to $6,000 per night, associated with the Prime Minister's trip to London in September of 2022, that were made public through an Access to Information request; That the following witnesses be invited: [the Honourable] Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Frédéric Huot-Bolduc, Global Affairs; Davon Singh, Global Affairs; and Jason Kung, Global Affairs.”
I can transmit that to the clerk for ease of distribution.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
Just to be clear, you're putting that on notice.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
That's correct. I am not moving it.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you.
Go ahead. You have three minutes and 50 seconds left.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I want to circle back to the issue of money in politics. This is really important, because I think that perception becomes reality for a lot of folks.
Mr. Thurlow, you talked about the annual contribution limit for individuals. The limit is now $1,700. It reset on January 1, having gone up a whole $25 over the year previous.
That number is set, and the same legislation in which it was introduced included a ban on corporate donations. We've seen instances of corporations inviting employees to give donations to political entities and then reimbursing them for them, and those have resulted in compliance agreements or criminal charges. Those are the two options. Then your corporation takes the reputational risk and results of doing that.
Mr. Thurlow, do you think the existing framework with respect to that personal contribution limit and the counterbalancing consequence of criminal charges or potentially a compliance agreement with Elections Canada provides sufficient levels of transparency?
5:05 p.m.
Lawyer, Counsel on legislation, As an Individual
I think criminal charges are pretty serious.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Lawyer, Counsel on legislation, As an Individual
What the Commissioner of Canada Elections chooses to do to enforce the law and whether or not they involve law enforcement officials is an administrative discussion for them to have. Do I think a publicly transparent list of donors—which every one of you would have for the parties—is part of the transparency we aspire to so that we know who is giving what? Absolutely.
I don't have a view about what the best way is to enforce the criminal law limit.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Lawyer, Counsel on legislation, As an Individual
But when you balance the fact that contributions have to be made public and we have a public registry of lobbyists and then we have to list all of the communications we have with designated public office holders, I think you can draw those lines—and certainly Canadians can.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Sure.
I have just under [Technical difficulty—Editor] left, so I'd like to ask both organizations in the room if they think it would be beneficial to harmonize the number that is used in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members, that $200 gift limit, with the reception amount—not for a gift but for hospitality—and if that would that add clarity for the public, for the public office holders, for members of Parliament and for lobbyists.
5:05 p.m.
Lawyer, Counsel on legislation, As an Individual
I can go ahead if you like.
5:05 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
Harmonizing does make sense, but what you're not dealing with is the onus of reporting and keeping an eye on it and the administration attached to it. We had 400 activists in Ottawa last week, and we're really proud that they got to talk to their elected officials. The idea that we would chase around people to find out what they consumed is actually a really high burden. It makes more sense that it lies where it is right now, which is that you have to keep yourself in check. Then there's the process if you don't report as per the rules.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That concludes Mr. Barrett's time.
Ms. Vandenbeld, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's wonderful to be back on this committee as I was in a previous Parliament.
Mr. Thurlow, I was very concerned when you talked about a post factum limit on freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and democratic freedoms in the Charter of Rights. To me those things are fundamental in our democracy.
I know that, for instance, if Parliament were to pass legislation that contravened democratic rights, those in section 2 of the charter, there would be recourse to the courts. But when it's in a code and when it's an officer of Parliament, what recourse is there if individuals' rights are being broken?
