Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

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

Mr. Conacher, I believe we have different descriptions of ethical lobbying. Nevertheless, I thank you.

Ms. Vipond, Mr. Conacher talked about four years. You said 12 months. Convince me.

[Siobhán Vipond]

I think we're looking at what is being proposed and saying that two years for the higher level that's being proposed makes sense, because we're going from four to two, but that including all of the other positions is too wide.

Democracy means involvement. It means not just showing up for voting. It means talking to officials. The best thing about going door to door is you hear from people who maybe don't share your views. You can talk about the issues and people supporting good candidates. That's what they should do.

When we look at these limits, this idea that you can't have the job of lobbying because you are involved in a democratic process, we think, is absolutely false.

What is being proposed is the two years for the higher...we're saying, okay, but you have to exclude that lower part of it, because there should be no exclusion on lobbying. That, in essence, is the Lobbying Act, and that is just talking to officials to convince them of the important changes that workers want to see.

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

What would be the dangers of implementing your position?

[Siobhán Vipond]

I think there are rules in place, so I don't think the dangers are there.

We understand and agree with looking at this legislation and making sure that people are covered by it. It's these two parts of this legislation that we think are reaching too far and are going to have a negative impact on the work, especially when I speak to leaders who are in the labour movement and who have been elected to represent their members.

That's why we want to, hopefully, have some opinions in which it's addressed that these two are not reflective of what's going to help and, quite honestly, are going to cause some constitutional issues.

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

I see.

You have spoken at length about rules 4 and 6.

Are there other parts that are problematic? If so, what would you suggest?

[Siobhán Vipond]

Currently, no. We're only here, saying that we want to see four and six addressed. We think that having oversight to ensure that there are ethics that exist in those rules...we're comfortable with that.

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

As you know, one can follow a rule while being unethical.

[Siobhán Vipond]

Absolutely, but I also think well of people. I think people come to the table for the right reasons.

Those rules need to exist. It can't be a free-for-all, but it cannot hinder people's constitutional rights.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Merci, Monsieur Villemure.

Mr. Green, you have six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Welcome to all of our guests. It's great to have our familiar faces and friends here from the Labour Congress. I appreciate you joining us today.

I have to share with you that I am a bit torn on this particular issue. I'll declare my bias in that I don't see the Labour Congress as being a lobbyist in the same sense of the term as the private sector, for-profit and pay-to-play-type scenarios. I don't see workers and citizens electing and sending people to come and fight for workers' issues being the same as professional lobbyists whose only objective is to have clients and make money.

My first question is to Ms. Vipond. Do you see all lobbying as being the same, or, in your perspective, ought there be a consideration—or, perhaps a precision, as our friend Mr. Thurlow has suggested—that might provide clarity around different types of lobbying?

[Siobhán Vipond]

Yes, I agree with you that not all lobbyists are the same. I am sitting here because there are three million-odd workers who support the CLC, but the reality is that the lobbyist registry registers me as a lobbyist. That means I'm covered by those rules, but it doesn't negate my rights and the role I play in the union movement.

Currently, what's in front of us when we look at these rules is that we're going to fall under that. If that was not the intention, then someone needs to go back to change where that's coming from.

The reality is those rules are clear. I hope it's clear from our testimony—we know these rules because we follow them—that we are going to get swept up in this. If that's not the intention, I think that's something you need to take on.

For us, of course not all lobbyists are the same, but the rules are laid out and we have to follow them.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have couple of things, reflecting on Mr. Conacher's comments around American-style financing. I abhor this notion of Citizens United and this libertarian notion of freedom that would put a corporation as a person and allow it to act and run roughshod, given its access to capital, over democratic systems. I consider it to be a significant flag.

In your consideration of this, was there any reflection on how providing a more significant per-vote subsidy might provide the kind of levelled playing field that some of the critics of this particular piece of legislation might have? Has that been a thought?

[Siobhán Vipond]

I don't think it's exactly the way you're saying it.

We did look at this to see what it was going to mean for our organization, and I think you're well-versed on the type of work we do.

“Lobbyist” can be used as a dirty word, to be quite honest. It can be used to dismiss your ideas, but that's not why we're here. We don't think anything that is outlined in rule 4 or rule 6 is going to improve what needs to be improved in terms of the purpose of transparency and efficacy. That's why we really think there needs to be attention to it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Conacher, you heard my question about the per-vote subsidies.

I have a keen interest in taking money out of politics. I don't happen to believe that all lobbyists are created equal. I think that there is a lobbying sector—an industry of lobbying. You only have to look at critical issues around pharmacare, subsidies to oil and gas, or a whole host of issues. The people who show up are the ones who have the deepest pockets. They show up the most frequently.

In your opinion, will returning to a healthy per-vote subsidy by the public financing within our electoral systems help head off some of the critiques that you've raise here today in terms of this American-style, Citizens United scenario?

[Duff Conacher]

No.

I mean, it would help make our political finance system more democratic, but our lobbying system would still be unethical if these rules go forward as they are now.

I'm not sure about the Canadian congress's comments today, because they—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Conacher, I'm going to reclaim my time, sir. Thank you very much.

I will state, though, to your benefit, that I am keenly interested in getting the disclosure from Goldblatt. I know there's a balance we have as a committee between protecting what ought to be an independent officer of Parliament and our parliamentary privileges to be able to send for documents.

For the good and welfare of this committee—I'll say it on the record right now, Mr. Conacher, so you know I'm in favour of this—I would encourage the thought or the reconsideration by the officer for us to be able review that document to have a better understanding of what they're putting their charter claim on. I will be looking to pursue that at a later time.

Rounding up my last line of questioning here, I'm going to go back to the Labour Congress.

In her testimony to this committee, the Commissioner of Lobbying stated she did not know what an ideal solution might be in regard to rules around hospitality, but she'd be happy to hear what solutions the committee might suggest.

What solutions do you have?

[Siobhán Vipond]

The solution that we are putting in front of you is the existing rule. It is that you have to monitor yourself and you know what the limit is. We're not trying to figure out what you're consuming at different events. We're not trying to figure out if you can come or not.

These are not extravagant events, but they have a cost to them, so we think the onus should be on you. That is what we're proposing.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

I apologize; I was clarifying something with the clerk.

We are going to proceed to our second round of questioning. To start, we're going to go to Mr. Kurek.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for participating in what is an important discussion. I think everyone would agree that surrounding any lobbying we need a system that is accountable and that is transparent so that ultimately Canadians can trust the process. As was stated, there has been an erosion of trust in the process, and certainly one could get into extensive political conversations around that.

I did want to speak specifically about the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, so I'm going to go around the room and ask about the consultation process. The commissioner talked a lot about that consultation process. I'll go to each person, and I'm just wondering if in 15 seconds they can comment on their experience with the commissioner's consultations.

I'll start with the Canadian Labour Congress.

[Mike Luff, National Representative, Political Action Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

First, I would say there were appropriate consultations, in our opinion. I think there were three rounds of consultations in total. There were no obstacles to making submissions or presentations.

The one thing that was frustrating was that as the code was updated there was no reason or justification for that update. We didn't know her justification for a lot of these changes until her appearance before you last week.

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

I appreciate that.

Mr. Thurlow, would you care to comment?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

Sure. It was definitely a robust consultation, in the same way that my 10-year-old tries to consult with me when she wants to stay up a little later. We didn't get what we wanted, but that doesn't mean that the consultation wasn't robust.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!