Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[W. Scott Thurlow]

That is the million-dollar question.

The code of conduct is not a statutory instrument. There is no jeopardy attached to violating the code of conduct, other than reputational damage if there's an investigation and report. We could seek an injunction or make an application under the federal court rules to say this instrument violates the charter, but that's not cheap and there's no guarantee it would even be heard, because it's not a statutory instrument.

The thing with charter rights is that they have to be jeopardized and, as I clearly said in my earlier testimony, this is about the principle as much as it is about what's actually being limited. My democratic right is not being limited. It's about what happens after I use my democratic right. That is going to encourage me not to do the thing, under sections 3, 2(b) or 2(d).

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Essentially, that's why you said it is ex post facto.

The fact is, I had 200 or 300 volunteers in my last campaign. I live in Ottawa. A few of those young people might then go on to get a job in one of the firms here in town. Does it not set up two different standards, where 199 of my 200 volunteers can come to my Friday drop-in and tell me what they think about the most recent legislation, but that one is not able to do that? Does it not set up two standards for people who...because everyone who wants to can volunteer on a campaign? It's not some exclusive thing only certain people can do.

What is your view on that?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I strongly agree with your position and I'll take it one step further.

What happens if you're doing all this wonderful canvassing, then you get a job offer? These young people, who have been politically active, have met other people through the campaign. They may not be able to take that job, now. I think that's a “few and far between” example, but it enters into the calculus of young people when they start being very involved in these campaigns.

I think you're right. There is an asymmetry there, potentially. You also want to communicate with your constituents. The test turns into the payment.

This goes back to Mr. Conacher's volunteer lobbying. Volunteer lobbying is not a thing that exists. Volunteer lobbying is free speech. A retired executive who isn't being paid for what they're doing is lending their expertise. They don't benefit from it. If they're getting paid, they benefit from it. We can prove or determine that. Did you get a cheque for doing this work? If yes, that's why the nexus of payment exists in the act. We can actually prove they're doing it.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

One would call that advocacy, if it's not paid.

This is something very worrying to me, because we are seeing a decline in political participation.

Before politics, I did a lot of work internationally on democratic development. One thing Canada was known for, as a global best practice, particularly for political financing.... We have moved away from limits, because there will always be loopholes and workarounds in codified limits. In terms of international best practices, moving toward transparency allows the public to see what is going on. It then becomes self-regulating.

You mentioned something similar to that. I wouldn't mind if others could also weigh in, but, Mr. Thurlow—

[W. Scott Thurlow]

Sunshine is the best medicine.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We heard that.

[Siobhán Vipond]

I believe this being known is really important, but we have to be very worried about people getting caught up in this and not being allowed to participate.

If the standards are there and people have to follow them, every time someone says something happened and someone got caught, it means that, in essence, those rules were working, because we know it's happening. Most of us have access to Google to find out this information.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Thurlow, you mentioned the fear of an investigation also being a limiting—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Vandenbeld, your time is up.

Thank you.

We have one more round. We have two five-minute interventions for both the Conservatives and the Liberals, then two and a half minutes for Mr. Villemure and Mr. Green.

I believe Mr. Dalton is next, for five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Dalton.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm just going to a comment you made, Mr. Thurlow: that there are no real teeth in this code. Actually, the commissioner also said it. It's just reputational damage.

This might not be received well by all the members here, but when you have a Prime Minister who has had three breaches of the ethics code, of ethics, and when we have all sorts of violations happening, the general public, they mix everything up, so there is a real deterioration in respect from the public towards politicians, which I think is well deserved as far as politicians go, from what we're seeing in this government.

We need to raise that bar, obviously. It starts from the top. Unfortunately, it's failing at the top, and it's going all the way through.

Can you give me some examples of where so far there have been contraventions that might be pushing this code? Can you give us some examples of what we've seen? I'll open that up to Mr. Conacher, too, or whoever.

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I believe that Mr. Carson was sentenced under the act.

I understand your frustration. I think the way that I would respond to your question is by saying that a reputational hit for people who are in the business of being an advocate is damning. It will make it impossible for them to make a living. It will be impossible for them to do the things they want to do. If you're a solicitor and you've been found to be in contravention of this, why would anybody else hire you to do that work?

I think the absence of investigations is not necessarily proof that there is a problem. There have been files that have been referred to the RCMP. There absolutely have been reports that have been tabled in Parliament.

You tell me: You are the elected official. If you knew that someone had been in violation of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, would you be so ready to have your name appear in the public registry as having met with them?

[Duff Conacher]

The former Commissioner of Lobbying, Karen Shepherd, who used to disclose in a chart the cases that came before her, found more than a hundred lobbyists guilty of violating the lobbyists' code, but she let them all off. She didn't issue a report to Parliament. She let them off with having to write an essay and, as a result, did not name them. There are more than a hundred lobbyists out there who have violated the code, some of them probably still lobbying. They were never named. No one even knows that.

With regard to the new commissioner, she is not publishing her summaries of her rulings on issues that she has investigated. She's hiding that information. She took down the old chart that the old commissioner, Shepherd, had up. We can't even tell whether she's doing her job properly and whether she's letting everyone off the hook even though they violated the code. We don't even know how many cases there are.

Their enforcement is pretty weak. They follow the media. They're not requiring communications from ministers to be disclosed to them so that they can determine whether people are lobbying who shouldn't be. They aren't really doing audits. They never have. There is probably a one-in–a-thousand chance of getting caught if you're violating the rules, but we really don't know, because it's all being hidden by current Commissioner Bélanger.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you for the comment.

Again, Mr. Conacher, you mentioned a sliding scale, which is quite interesting. Going case-by-case and one to five years, is that manageable? Can you elaborate a bit on that?

Maybe I'll also ask Ms. Vipond for some comments on how she might see a sliding scale, if that is at all appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have to stay on time on this. We have one minute left.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Okay.

You have 30 seconds each.

[Duff Conacher]

Yes. It has to be manageable to be fair. It would be an administrative burden on the commissioner, but the blanket five-year cooling-off period was extended to all MPs and their staff because of the scandal involving a former MP back in 2010. It shouldn't have been extended to everybody as the same five-year blanket rule. It doesn't make sense. It's unfair.

A sliding scale would be fair. It would take a lot of work, but it would be fair. People should have the right to go out and be a lobbyist if they haven't really done much...if they were a backbench MP and on no committees, or a low-level staff person there temporarily, not known to be anybody in the government.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

That's great. Thank you very much.

I have just a few moments here, Ms. Vipond.

[Siobhán Vipond]

The one size fits all doesn't work here. It absolutely could be a sliding scale. It doesn't need to be done individual by individual. It could be done category by category. Everybody has that kind of access, the time they served, etc. That would make it more fair for people who are looking for employment past their positions within government.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Ms. Saks, go ahead for five minutes.

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

I yield my time to Ms. Vandenbeld.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Oh, it's Ms. Vandenbeld. I'm sorry; that's my mistake.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

See, now that I'm back on this committee, I just can't stop.

Thank you.

I want to pick up on my last question. You mentioned, Mr. Thurlow, that somebody who might go canvassing just a couple of times clearly doesn't fall under this, but, because it's vague, they may suddenly say to themselves, “Well, maybe I will”, or worse yet, this person ends up under investigation.

I'm thinking again about this 22-year-old who worked on my campaign. They were interested in politics and took political science. Then, within a year or so, they got an offer from one of the local government relations firms. They're thrilled, but they end up under investigation because somebody complained about seeing them going door to door for me one time a year before. That young person then has to answer questions, maybe has to get a lawyer and potentially has their name dragged through. The employer backs right off and says, “Oh no. There's an investigation here. I'm not going to hire this person. We'll call you back in three months.”

Is this what we're talking about? Is this what we're facing? To me, that would create an incredible chill for a lot of young people who are interested in politics and who want a career where they make a difference in politics either through elected office or through government relations.

I'd like to ask Mr. Thurlow to answer first, but then I'll go to Mike and Siobáhn.

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I know first-hand of anecdotal examples where exactly that has happened, where people wanted to participate and chose not to for fear of something happening to them on a pecuniary basis in the future.

The obverse also happens. That places a limit on the skill that public servants are able to recruit as well. Don't only think about the individual who's a lobbyist; think about whom we want to attract into the public service. Whom do we want to be learning how to be politicians and becoming politicians in the future?

These are skills that are learned as they happen.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Go ahead, Ms. Vipond.