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.