Information & Ethics Committee on March 9th, 2026

[Nancy Bélanger]

To me, as I've said before, whether a communication is arranged in advance is somewhat irrelevant. It's the substance of the communication that matters. If someone lobbies you and has an ask of you, whether it's at the airport or in your office, the substance of the communication matters. That's what should be recorded and reported.

If people come to you and say to you that this is going to absolutely invade the registry and completely be a burden, then you should all be worried. That means it's happening, it's happening a lot and there's no transparency about it.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Actually, I worry about cases where it would appear that I am being lobbied as a parliamentarian by organizations I may not want to accept lobbying from. That's the situation that I'm worried about.

[Nancy Bélanger]

That's interesting because you can always reach out to my office and tell me that lobbying activity did not occur and I will be asking them to remove it. That is what I do now when I do my verifications. I pick 5% of oral reports completely randomly and I check with you. If you tell me that it never happened and you were never there, I go back and I get them to remove it if that didn't happen.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

For example, if they were to send an email to one of our offices and we receive it because we have inboxes, we are not in control of whether we've received that communication or not.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Currently, that would not be a requirement because it's only oral and arranged. In the future, if they actually communicated with your office with those emails, they would have to put in whoever they sent it to. If they didn't send it to you and they sent it to your staff, then your staff—if they're designated public office holders—would have to say that they sent it to you. That's what they're doing in B.C. now. You could ask them, if it's a concern.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Finally, let me come back to the question about the staff of the office of the Leader of the Opposition not currently existing as designated public office holders.

In your mind, does that mean there could be missing records filed because there is actually not a necessity right now to provide records of communications, as the members of the office of the Leader of the Opposition are not designated public office holders?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Currently, most of those who lobby assume that they are. There are a lot of monthly communication reports in the report. The problem is that they technically don't need to be, because they're not designated public office holders.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

It would be an assumption and voluntary—that's what you're saying—at the moment, as opposed to being required.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Yes. Right now, if people assume they are in.... We need to clarify whether....

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

Actually, I think that's a good manner of practice for all members of Parliament. Sometimes it gets lost with newer members of Parliament. Have your staff check the lobbyist registry on a monthly basis to see whether, in fact, there is a registered lobbying that's put to you when it's not, actually. That happens frequently.

[Nancy Bélanger]

You can register to have emails sent to you directly when your name pops up. You can actually fix it all up with your staff to have that done.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Now we go to Mr. Thériault for five minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner now have the power to issue orders.

Would your job be easier if you had the power to issue orders?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I have the power to order the production of documents and to subpoena witnesses.

As for ordering registration, that could be very worthwhile. Why not? It's a good idea.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

In recommendation 20, you recommend adding a clause that would give you the power to make regulations regarding the content of information disclosed in the lobbyist registry.

Why is this necessary?

[Nancy Bélanger]

The information in the registry has not been updated by regulation. The regulations in place are for pre-arranged meetings. That is set out in the regulations.

That said, they have not been touched since 2008. There are things I would like to change, but I don't have the power to do so. If I make recommendations, I have to do it through the government of the day, as opposed to through Parliament, for example.

I'm not asking for authorization without review, consideration or consultation. However, it would be worthwhile to be able to make recommendations on regulations without having to wait for a review of the Lobbying Act.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

In recommendation 17, you talk about mandatory training and administrative monetary penalties.

What amounts are you looking at?

[Nancy Bélanger]

In the provinces, it's $25,000. My colleague from British Columbia imposes them quite regularly, but it has never been higher than around $8,000. However, he has the authority to go up to $25,000.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

In what circumstances could he do so?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Very often, these are circumstances where there is an offence under the act, for example, communications that should have been registered but were not. That could be the case if someone is lobbying when prohibited, or if someone is spreading false information or is late.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Ultimately, would you go so far as to prohibit an individual from engaging in lobbying activities?

In what circumstances would you do that?

How long should these temporary bans last?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Again, this is under the authority of my colleagues, and it could be up to two years.

Personally, I have the authority to prohibit someone from lobbying, but only when the person has been found guilty of a criminal offence by the court. In the past, it has happened four times.

It would be in cases where someone didn't really want to comply with the act, meaning cases of negligence. It would probably have to be fairly severe cases.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Right now, your powers don't allow you to do that.

Is that correct?

[Nancy Bélanger]

That's correct. I send everything to the RCMP. I can't do anything.

For example, being late is an offence, but I don't refer people who are late to the RCMP. Right now, I accept it in the interest of transparency. I sometimes ask to meet with people who are late to ask them what is going on and why they are always late. That's it. There's not much more I can do.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Then it is the RCMP that acquires expertise.