Evidence of meeting #46 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was privacy.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Boucher  Affiliated Researcher, Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Ali  Vice-President and Board Member, Government Relations Institute of Canada
Scott Thurlow  Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual
Conacher  Co-founder, Democracy Watch

5:20 p.m.

Affiliated Researcher, Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Maxime Boucher

Yes, for sure.

In the recommendation on sources of funding, I indicated that priority should be given to disclosing those sources in political activities. This is found in a host of other laws, such as in the United States, where companies have to provide information on the thresholds of their budgets for lobbying activities. That way, it's known to what extent they contributed.

Yes, in a system that offers registration by default, you could perhaps find thousands of communications, but at least you would also know how much money was spent on them and whether a company really put a lot of effort into them—

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Boucher, our time is up. Could you send us your recommendations in writing, whether they be in the form of a brief, letters or something else?

5:20 p.m.

Affiliated Researcher, Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Maxime Boucher

I had sent my speaking notes, but yes, absolutely, I'll send you that.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

I'm going to invite the witnesses to submit any further briefs that they may have to the committee. We are going to move on to the next panel after we suspend.

Mr. Ali and Mr. Boucher, thank you for your testimony today.

I apologize, as well, for the delay that happened, both in the vote and in the motion that was moved, but that is part of our business. We sometimes have to deal with that with witnesses.

I appreciate both of you being here. I'm going to suspend for a couple minutes until we move on to the next panel, thank you.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

Welcome back, everyone.

Before I introduce our witnesses, I will remind the witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you need interpretation, take a moment to prepare the earpiece and select the listening channel that you need. I'd also encourage you to listen to the end of the interpretation to make sure you have either a full question or a response.

Our witnesses for the second hour are, as an individual, W. Scott Thurlow, founder of Thurlow Law; and, from Democracy Watch, Duff Conacher, who is the co-founder.

Mr. Thurlow, you have up to five minutes to address the committee. Welcome back to committee, sir.

W. Scott Thurlow Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Scott Thurlow. It is an honour to be here to share my thoughts and experience with the committee as it reviews the Lobbying Act. My experience with the act is not academic. It's practical.

My clients believe in a culture of compliance. It is my view that the government relations industry, writ large, is one that aspires to comply and to be transparent. They are collectively responsible for their actions and believe in clear and transparent rules that govern lobbyist registration. Any implication otherwise is pure fiction and contributes to a litany of negative stereotypes.

I want to be as clear as possible. The Lobbying Act is designed to be a disclosure act. It places an obligation on individuals to disclose their activities for conspicuous public scrutiny through the registry, which is ably managed by the lobbying commissioner and her team. The registry itself is extremely easy to navigate. It is searchable, and anyone can quickly figure out who is being lobbied and on what issue. The commissioner's team deserves top marks for this excellent tool. Any changes to the Lobbying Act that this committee recommends should be viewed through the prism of increasing transparency and improving access to the information the registry provides.

My testimony today may sound very different from what you have heard from other practitioners. I am not here to quibble about the technical aspects of some of the more controversial recommendations. I have views on all of them, but the minutiae of the rules are not nearly as important as ensuring that the system can instill confidence in the general public that they can access the information they need to hold their elected officials to account.

There are two broader principles that I would like to delve into.

First, former Prime Minister Harper's government introduced the Federal Accountability Act, and with it came a five-year ban on registerable activities for a small group of individuals serving in the highest offices. I verily believe the current blanket prohibition on registrations for former designated public office holders is ruinously unfair to hundreds of public servants who, in many cases, are at the very beginning of their careers. The fact that the Prime Minister is treated the same way as a 20-something who has worked in a minister's office for a year is beyond absurd, so I agree with the lobbying commissioner when she recommends expanding the class of designated public office holders, provided that it comes with the concordant ability to reduce the current five-year limitation period on registrations and registerable communications. A five-year ban was draconian in 2006, and it remains so today.

A second topic worth flagging with this committee is the conflict of interest provisions found in the lobbyists' code of conduct. I have many opinions. I can assure you that there are a significant number of registrants who feel their constitutional freedoms have been imperilled by the most recent changes to the code of conduct. We have a bright-line test that was established by Mr. Conacher's good work at the Federal Court of Appeal, and that standard of preventing a fundraiser from lobbying the beneficiary of their work is appropriate and balanced. Campaigns are staffed by volunteers. That volunteer activity is essential to protecting our democracy. To say someone who is engaged in free speech, free assembly and protecting their democratic rights should be barred from registration afterwards is an affront to our charter values.

In its Figueroa decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that we must look beyond the words of the charter as it relates to our democratic rights. Section 3 must be interpreted to ensure the right of each citizen to meaningfully participate in the democratic process. This will mean different things to different people. In the case of Figueroa, it was to ensure that voters had access to information and to ensure an informed choice at the polls. I have seen many instances of registrants forgoing engaging in the democratic process because they thought it could limit their professional work. They wanted to campaign. They wanted to volunteer. They felt they couldn't. That doesn't sound like meaningful participation to me. The post facto prohibitions placed on lobbying in the code of conduct do not minimally impair our section 3 rights. In fact, they maximally impair them.

We can have reasonable limits on the constitutional rights of Canadians. I think it should be Parliament that does that, after careful consideration. It should not flow from guidance issued by an officer of Parliament. In the same vein, I think it's Parliament that should define what the significant part of duties test is, what the threshold for registration is and what that represents. That's what Ontario did in its statute with the 50-hour test. I think it's up to Parliament to set the limits on gifts and hospitality. I think you may see a trend here.

I have provided the committee with a series of recommendations in writing, and I would be pleased to expand on any of the thoughts laid out there in the questions from the members.

Thank you very much for your time.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

Thank you, Mr. Thurlow.

Mr. Conacher, I have your brief in my hand. It will likely go over five minutes. I really want to get the rounds of questions from the members in.

Go ahead. You have five minutes.

Duff Conacher Co-founder, Democracy Watch

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for this invitation to speak on one of Canada's most important democratic government laws, the Lobbying Act, and the lobbyists' code. This is the fifth or sixth time I've been here.

I will be presenting in English.

I practise my French a lot, but my speech includes a lot of technical terms.

I will very soon be filing with the committee a detailed brief of much-needed changes to the act and the code that I'm summarizing today to close the huge loopholes that allow for secret, unethical lobbying, and to make enforcement independent, timely, transparent, effective and accountable. The Commissioner of Lobbying's recommendations call for only half of the key loopholes to be closed. The commissioner ignores some of the biggest loopholes. Also, these loopholes make enforcement very ineffective.

I've read all of the written submissions filed with the committee. Many of the submissions argued for keeping loopholes open or requested that a new loophole be opened. The committee should disregard all of these requests.

Secret, unethical lobbying is a recipe for corruption, a recipe for a waste of the public's money and a recipe for other decisions that protect private interests and violate the public interest. It also facilitates foreign interference.

Canada's law allows for more secret, unethical lobbying than the U.S.' laws and several other countries' laws, as the OECD representatives noted in their testimony.

Overall, Canada's Lobbying Act and the lobbyists' code are loophole-filled, and the enforcement system is negligently bad. Combined with the federal political donation system, with its much too-high donation limits, it means that Canada still has a secret, corrupt favour-trading system that essentially legalizes bribery, with Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger and the RCMP covering up almost every violation.

Since January 2018, according to her annual reports, Commissioner Bélanger has let off, in secret, almost 20,000 violations of the act and the code involving an unknown number of lobbyists. She has not identified or penalized any of these law-breaking lobbyists, even though, despite what she has claimed before this committee, she could have found them all in violation of the code and named and shamed all of them, as a past commissioner did in one case. Overall, the commissioner and the RCMP have let off 99.9% of the lobbyists they have caught violating the act or the code. Only a few lobbyists have been investigated and only two have been charged—and one of those two was let off by the RCMP.

The commissioner and the RCMP are also illegally hiding their investigation records, and the Information Commissioner is investigating them both for violating the federal Access to Information Act.

A national survey in January 2025 found that more than 80% of Canadian voters want to know the details of all lobbying, and want lobbyists prohibited from fundraising, campaigning or doing other favours for politicians they lobby or will lobby.

To summarize briefly, the loopholes that need to be closed—almost all of which hide the extent of lobbying by big businesses—are as follows.

Unpaid lobbying is not required to be registered. The commissioner told this committee this is the biggest loophole in the act. However, bizarrely, she did not recommend closing this loophole. Toronto and Ottawa require disclosure of volunteer lobbying.

Up to eight hours a month of secret lobbying is allowed by each executive and employee at a business. While the commissioner's lowering the threshold from 32 hours down to eight hours was a long-overdue change, eight hours is still a lot of lobbying. A government lawyer told the RCMP some years ago that violations of any lobbying time threshold, like the current eight hours, will never be prosecuted.

Secret lobbying about the enforcement of a law or regulation, or for a tax credit, is allowed. Secret lobbying by business employees and executives for a government contract is allowed. Secret lobbying of political party officials is allowed, even though they can easily pass on the lobbyist's demand to the party leader.

Only oral, pre-arranged communications that lobbyists initiate are required to be disclosed, but who is actually doing the communicating is allowed to be kept secret. B.C. requires disclosure of all communications.

The amount spent on lobbying efforts is not required to be disclosed, unlike in the U.S. and other countries.

Lobbyists are allowed to secretly fundraise, campaign and do other favours for politicians they are lobbying.

The so-called five-year ban in the act on lobbying after leaving a public office position applies only to registered lobbyists. No one lobbying in ways that exploit the loopholes I just listed is required to register and disclose their lobbying. As a result, there is no five-year ban. Federal politicians and officials are allowed to leave office and start lobbying the next day, in secret and unregistered.

If someone can exploit a loophole so that they are not required to register their lobbying, then the few weak ethics rules in the lobbyists' code also don't apply to them, and they can do corrupting favours for the politicians they are lobbying or will lobby.

To stop unethical lobbying, the committee must call for the closing of the huge unethical lobbying loopholes that the committee, together with the commissioner, very unfortunately added to the lobbyists' code three years ago. These loopholes allow lobbyists to secretly fundraise and campaign for party leaders, politicians and parties and assist them in other ways, while lobbying them at the same time or soon afterwards. The loopholes essentially legalize bribery.

Finally—

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

I'm going to have to stop you there, because we are over five minutes.

If you need to address any of the other points in the questions that members are asking, Mr. Conacher, you can certainly do that. All committee members have your brief, and it's available to them to look at.

Mr. Hardy, we'll start with you. You have six minutes.

Again, witnesses, if you need the earbuds in, put them in.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Conacher, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has previously said before this committee that if a company takes steps to secure a contract, that's not lobbying. Lobbying is only when a company wants access to grants. The act already had a gap in that regard.

Today, let us take the example of a company executive who knows a minister or someone important and influential. The executive phones them up to inform them that they aren't within the eight-hour lobbying period and that they aren't a paid lobbyist. Would it be logical or acceptable for that call to not be considered lobbying?

5:35 p.m.

Co-founder, Democracy Watch

Duff Conacher

No, simply applying through the procurement process in which all submissions are recorded and shared with everyone who's bidding is not lobbying.

If you make any communications outside of that, you should be required to register. Only consultant lobbyists are currently required to register for lobbying for contracts. It should be extended to all organizations. It is one of the biggest loopholes in the act.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC

Indeed, it opens the door to quite a broad range of things. We heard a number of witnesses say—and this didn't really shock me, but I found it a bit illogical—that if an MP goes for a coffee with someone who starts talking to them about their reality, the MP would have to register that activity as lobbying. However, in my opinion, that person would only be informing the MP about the reality of a citizen. One of the suggestions that witnesses have made was that any act of lobbying should be registered.

When a citizen tells us about their reality, do you think that's lobbying, or is it just an activity that involves informing an MP of what's going on in their riding?

5:35 p.m.

Co-founder, Democracy Watch

Duff Conacher

If someone is communicating with you with regard to your decisions, then that's lobbying, and it should be registered.

The only exception should be if someone signs a petition or a letter-writing campaign through a website of an interest group. Then the interest group should have to register. The fact that the person just signed on to that letter-writing campaign or petition should not require them to be registered.

Otherwise, if you leave any loophole open for unpaid lobbying, like this issue of allowing business board members to be considered employees.... GRIC wants that. They also want, then, those people to be allowed to lobby for 32 hours without having to register. Lots of big businesses put former ministers on their boards, and then that minister spends 31 hours of the month on the phone lobbying, and they don't have to register. It never shows up. That's why GRIC wants that.

I wouldn't listen to anything that GRIC suggested. It was all self-interested and to keep things like this hidden.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC

I'm just trying to make a comparison, because I really want us to stick to lobbying activities. Lobbying exists, and it's important for us, the MPs, to know what's happening on the ground.

That said, I want to distinguish between a discussion with a coffee shop owner who is explaining their reality to me—which we are told should absolutely be registered, even if it adds to that owner's paperwork—and a discussion between a minister and the owner of a large company who is lobbying outside the eight-hour period.

I just want to be sure. It's clear in my mind, but I think allowing this discussion to take place would have a much more negative impact on society as a whole than asking every person who wants to have this kind of discussion to register, even if they're volunteers, working for free and trying to influence the government. I think that if we force every Canadian to record every discussion they have with an MP, they're clearly the ones who will suffer the most inconvenience.

5:40 p.m.

Co-founder, Democracy Watch

Duff Conacher

If you want to have that carved out, which B.C. has—small organizations, unless they are dedicated to advocacy, do not have to register—there's one thing I think you have to add to it.

What we're trying to track is favour trading. If that small business owner is discussing with you their situation, and they've donated to you, fundraised for you, campaigned for you, volunteered and helped you get elected, they should be required to register. We need to track that conflict of interest. Are you helping them more than other constituents? Are you giving them more access than other constituents?

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC

It's transparency.

5:40 p.m.

Co-founder, Democracy Watch

Duff Conacher

Even though that's a small business, that needs to be tracked.

It's not just about government decisions; it's about what you do in your job and what you spend your time doing as an individual MP.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC

In fact, we want transparency.

Mr. Thurlow, I would like you to tell me something. If someone is caught lobbying when they shouldn't, because they crossed the threshold or for some other reason, what happens?

5:40 p.m.

Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual

W. Scott Thurlow

It's going to be fact-dependent.

Just very quickly, I think your example is why we shouldn't have the automatic threshold for registration, because there are some small businesses.... Anyone who's interested in that can cross-reference their activities in the election cycle. They make a contribution that very conspicuously shows up in your own record. I think there are other tools there.

I've absolutely been involved with situations where, oops, you didn't quite register in time and enter into some kind of a compliance agreement. The goal should be to get the information into the registry as quickly as possible. The goal should not be to go after the made-up number of people who have transgressed the act in some way, shape or form. It should be to make sure that the information gets into the public domain as quickly as possible.

That would lead very nicely into the discussion about AMPs—the ticketing type of offences—and maybe that will help to allay some of the concerns that Mr. Conacher has in that regard. I'm not sure that they will work. I'm happy to have a more elaborate discussion about that enforcement mechanism.

Ultimately, the people I work with come with hat in hand. They say that they want to get their information into the registry as quickly as they possibly can and want help with compliance.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

Thank you, Mr. Thurlow.

Is that a Habs lapel pin on your jacket?

5:40 p.m.

Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

I like you even more now.

5:40 p.m.

Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

I was once promised a Habs lapel pin, but I never received it.

5:40 p.m.

Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual

W. Scott Thurlow

If it wasn't this committee, I would gladly give it you, but I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea.