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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It's not under $200. I can't accept it.
Madame Lapointe, go ahead.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Maybe next year you'll be eligible for the Canadiens pin. This year, how can I say it, you were no longer eligible at a certain point. It's a long story, the Canadiens pin.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Thurlow, you said earlier that you were here as someone with practical lobbying experience. For the benefit of the committee, could you share your experience and explain why you would be considered an expert witness for the review of the Lobbying Act?
Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual
In addition to representing registrants and giving them advice on the Lobbying Act, I am also a registrant. They say that someone who gives themselves legal advice has a fool for a client.
I've been working on this act since the introduction of the Federal Accountability Act in 2006. I've been working on this with many people in the profession, including charities, small businesses and the individuals seeking non-financial changes in public policy because they believe it's the right thing to do, and it's the moral thing to do.
I have had the opportunity to engage directly with both the lobbying commissioner's office and the conflict of interest commissioner's office to ensure compliance with both of those acts. I've been doing that in the private practice of law since 2006.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you very much.
I assume you have looked at the recommendations. You're confirming that for me, okay.
Regarding recommendation 1, do you think it's necessary to move to a method of registration by default?
Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual
I am not going to opine as to whether Parliament should do that or not. I think it creates a lot of problems, and it creates some of the problems Mr. Hardy referred to.
The current threshold is a strong one. We can have a debate about whether Ontario's system is better than Manitoba's system, which is better than Alberta's system. They all have slightly different thresholds. The new federal threshold is low. It's not horribly low, but it is creating a strain on small business. You have seen representatives from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business who have been here and have said that some of these requirements—the paper burden—are significant. That's something you need to be mindful of.
My recommendation isn't that the lobbying commissioner be allowed to pick some number and work from there. I think it should be Parliament that picks that number. You, through the democratic process, can build it into the act. You, through a recommendation of the committee, can give guidance. It shouldn't be only an officer of Parliament. It should have that parliamentary stamp of approval.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you very much.
You referenced SMEs. How could we strengthen the transparency of lobbying without discouraging legitimate citizen engagement? We talked earlier about everything related to the public, but also SMEs and non-profit organizations.
Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual
There are a lot of different questions in there.
In working to promote the lobbying registration system, the commissioner has done an able job of communicating to registrants, but the people who don't register may not register because they don't necessarily know they have an obligation to do so. That is a target for the lobbying commissioner. She has, herself, admitted at this committee that she struggles to engage with those who don't gravitate towards the registration model. That type of compliance information is essential to the functioning work of the act.
The work of this committee is also something that can be shared through constituents. I would love to see some data on who uses the registry of lobbyists. I suspect it's mostly people who are within one square mile of this building. The lobbying commissioner could probably adduce that data quite quickly. You should ask her the next time she's here, because I think that metadata would be really interesting to look at in order to see whether or not your constituents in Mississauga Centre or the province of Quebec—outside Hull-Gatineau, which is within one mile of here, of course—are using the registry themselves. It would make for a very interesting conversation about its utility.
I think it's an excellent tool, but I have very different interests from most of your constituents.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
It's very interesting to hear that. Yes, there could be data broken down by the origin. The retail sector does this.
Based on your experience, are there many people who share the same point of view as Mr. Conacher?
Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual
I'm not in a position to say how many people share Mr. Conacher's views. I'm sure there are a lot. His website has a lot of followers. I have contributed to Democracy Watch myself, mostly to get the newsletters. There are certainly lots of people who share those views.
Whether or not those views are the most important issue your constituents are facing on a day-to-day basis is, I think, an aspect for debate. If you go campaigning door to door, it might not rise up to that level. If you knock on Mr. Conacher's door, it would absolutely be the issue he talks about.
I think that's a better question for him.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.
Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Conacher, we have heard in committee that the Commissioner of Lobbying does not have immunity from prosecution, be it civil or criminal. That's a bit surprising since we thought that, in theory, all officers of Parliament had that immunity. Maybe it's just an oversight. I don't know.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on. What do you think? Should we grant that immunity to the Commissioner of Lobbying?
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
That's a pretty short comment. I was expecting more.
You agree with that. However, do you know why the act doesn't already provide for it?
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
No, it's not a problem. She's never been sued.
A bigger problem is the fact that, since 2018, she has let almost 20,000 lobbyists off the hook after violating the law.
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
Read her annual reports and you'll see. It's all in there. It's not made up. That's one of the most insulting things I've ever heard someone say to me.
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
You said, “made-up”. It's not made up. It's in her annual reports. If you read her annual reports, you'll see. She's let off 99.9% of lobbyists she's caught violating the law—almost 20,000 people since 2018.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Thurlow, you agree that the commissioner should have immunity, right? Yes. Okay.
Mr. Conacher, the commissioner also says that she should have some power to impose penalties, if only administrative penalties, such as training, licence suspension and perhaps monetary penalties. What do you think? Would it, in fact, be a good idea to grant her more powers to impose penalties?
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
Yes. All officers of Parliament should have those powers, but she needs not only to have the power but also to actually be mandated to impose a penalty for every violation.
She could have found those almost 20,000 lobbyists guilty of violating the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct and issued a public ruling that would have identified them and named and shamed them, and she didn't in any of those almost 20,000 cases of violations. If you give her the power to levy administrative monetary penalties, from her record she won't use it 99.9% of the time, so she should be required to issue a penalty in every single case of a violation.
Bloc
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
Why does she need to be required to do that, in order to penalize violations?
That's how you'll get more lobbyists registering on time and registering accurately: Have a penalty for not doing so. Right now, there's zero penalty.
Again, she could have named and shamed all of these. It's actually 19,822 lobbyists, according to her own annual report, who have violated the law since 2018. She could have named and shamed all of them, and she didn't name or shame any of them.
Give her the power to fine, but from her record, she's going to let 99.9% of them off without a fine. That's why she needs to be required. The penalties need to be mandatory.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Thurlow, I'll ask you the same question. Do you think she should be required to impose penalties or simply have the power to do so?
Founder, Thurlow Law, As an Individual
That's not how prosecutorial discretion works. Prosecutorial discretion exists to both preserve the resources of the investigator and ensure that they're not putting too much of a burden on the investigatee.
I am not going to offer an opinion as to whether or not they should have the authority to issue AMPs. I will say that I'm not sure AMPs work. I still get parking tickets. I know that I could get a parking ticket. I still get them. I really try to avoid them, but from time to time, it happens.
I think we also need to have an understanding of how the triage of priorities works. If it is one day late, is that different from two days late? Is that different from three days late? Yes, yes and yes.
With the meagre resources that the office of the commissioner has—