Evidence of meeting #38 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 lobbying.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Can you define “best”? Are we in the two best, the three best, the twenty best, the hundred best? Are we with Zimbabwe or the European Union?
As an Individual
“Top tier” is the phrase that the OECD used in their report. I have the link to the report; I can provide it. I don't have their absolute definition, but they listed.... It's very detailed.
They're evaluating the framework, and the framework is very good. What I'm trying to say is that, in practice, sometimes things fall through the cracks.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I would like to ask you another question. Time is quite a rare commodity when you are in the second opposition party.
You said it: It takes resources. Right now, there's a whole floor in the Prime Minister's building that does nothing but manage his conflicts of interest. It's not an accusation, it's normal. He is someone who, because of his past life in the business world, knows so many people that there is a presumption of lobbying wherever he goes. So it's important to handle it correctly. We assume he does it, but there's not really any evidence.
Do you feel that the weight of the checking done by the office of the Prime Minister is such that the Commisioner of Lobbying might lack resources for his other tasks?
As an Individual
If you're going to bring DGs into the tent, they won't have enough resources, for sure. There probably are ways to target compliance. I talked about dual reporting. Maybe you could have dual reporting in certain offices if you think.... Clearly, as you go up the pyramid, you would assume that the decision-making going on at that level is closer to the decision, and if you're going to focus limited resources, that might be a way to do it.
I rarely agree with Duff Conacher, but the idea of taking another look at the dual reporting system.... At certain ministries—you know them as well as I do—that are closer to the action than others, like Finance and certainly Public Works and Procurement, you could implement limited dual reporting—
Liberal
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you very much.
My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.
We are hearing a lot of interesting things here. The first thing, on which we are in agreement, is that lobbying is actually very important. Often, the people representing their interests know much more about them than the lawmakers, whether members of Parliament or not. So it is important for us to be in contact with those with a deep knowledge of their industries and their interests.
Mr. Jordan, I am going to go back to what you said about the OECD. Their representatives were here just last week. They told us that we were in the best group and that everything was wonderful. However, we asked them the clearest of questions: We check all the theoretical boxes, but are we that good in practice? They said that it was something they could not evaluate. So we are super in theory, but clearly, there are limits and some things happen.
You said earlier that legislation is in place and that, for example, someone who gained knowledge of an industry before taking up a position of influence, or even after, would not be supposed to use it. However, we see quite interesting things happening. One might say that there is a lot of potential conflict of interest.
When I see what is happening now, I question myself. I want to be very clear: What would be the most effective way, involving less paperwork, to monitor real lobbying? By that I mean efforts to influence decision-makers to take taxpayers' money and put it towards very specific interests. I do not mean fully explaining one's knowledge of an industry, shall we say, so that the decision-makers can make the best possible decisions for the public.
As an Individual
That's a big question.
I'm going to default to my testimony from 2014. Actually, I'll go back to 2008. I said that one problem I saw with this bill was the definition of lobbying. You could side-swipe a semi-truck through some of the loopholes there.
A better definition might be “people who communicate with decision-makers to affect outcomes”. If that's the definition of what lobbying is, a lot of this trying to get at it indirectly, which is a lot of what we're seeing.... I'm not faulting the commissioner, as the commissioner is working with the tools that are in her tool box, but if we could introduce clarity to what the rules are, we'd have a better chance of finding out whether or not somebody is on the wrong side of them.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Lobbying is on one side and we know that ethics is somewhere on the other side. To establish a balance, should we not require lobbies to be very clear as to their intentions and to provide for quite severe penalties for those who lobby inappropriately?
In the Maritimes, a wind farm project linked with family members of former Liberal lawmakers and ministers received subsidies whereas a private project did not. Was the problem with the lobbying or the ethics?
So we should certainly have much stronger legislation on ethics and somewhat broader legislation on lobbying, which would allow people to at least explain to the government how best to spend taxpayers' money.
As an Individual
They shouldn't be at odds. I don't want to be part of a profession that, somehow, ethics are outside of. I've long advocated that the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Ethics Commissioner should be the same person, but barring that, I think that at least there should be some kind of harmonization in what the rules are, because that's a little confusing.
Since this act became law in 2008, there have been four people convicted under it. Among the reasons that that's a low number is that the rules are so complicated. There is the act, and there are advisory opinions. I'm sure that in the briefs, you'd find people complaining about the 32 hours going to eight hours. That's a significant change. It wasn't made through an advisory opinion. It wasn't made through this committee. It wasn't made through the legislature. It wasn't made through Parliament. However, she has no other option. The complex nature of it, I think, hurts its enforcement, and adding more layers to that doesn't help.
Liberal
Liberal
Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to both of our witnesses today.
A lot of my questions have been answered, but I have a question on recommendation three, which is about making communications about government contracts registerable for in-house lobbyists, with exclusions for established procurement processes. Can this be done in a way that improves transparency without creating an unworkable burden, particularly for smaller organizations?
Perhaps Mr. Jordan could answer this question, and then Mr. Hurley can afterward.
As an Individual
That wasn't one I highlighted, but I'll say this. One of the things I struggle with when we talk about in-house organizations and their interactions with government is that government is one of the biggest consumers in the country. I don't know what you spend on goods and services every year. Is it $30 billion?
I would like to understand the difference between sales and lobbying, because if I have a company that makes widgets, and I want to convince the government that they should buy the “incredible Jordan widget”, is that lobbying or is that me, as an entrepreneur, trying to put food on my family's table?
It's about the lack of definition, which is joined at the hip with a lack of clear objectives, when you go down these roads. I've been in this business for over 20 years, and I still have a hard time understanding it.
Board Director and Treasurer, Public Affairs Association of Canada
I'll just add to that. It goes back to what we were talking about around clarity, especially for organizations in the non-profit social sector that depend on funding from government. In part of the role, you have the formal process, whether for RFPs or through, say, the Canada Council of the Arts. There's a formal process there, but every organization has the challenge of building awareness of the mission and purpose of their organization. They meet with all of you and with your colleagues to make you and them aware of what they do. Maybe that's not the intent of the meeting or that first engagement, but it might be later on when they make a case for funding.
Clarity around that is really important, especially if you are looking to engage more organizations that will be required to lobby. Providing more clarity to that, with as clear a process as possible of how they are to comply with their reporting in those instances, is really key as the act moves forward.
Liberal
Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON
How do you see the other levels of government asking for things from the government, like infrastructure and things they need? How does that fit into lobbying?
As an Individual
The provincial governments are exempt from the act, as are indigenous communities. They thought of that when they put it together. You're right that there's a tremendous amount of activity that isn't captured, but clearly they've decided that it's not in the public interest to capture and report on it.
The act has a very narrow list of entities that are completely exempt from the act, so they don't have to go through all those steps. Having said that, a lot of the provinces are mirroring the federal legislation.
This is not to pump their tires, but I'll tell you something about our Commissioner of Lobbying's office. One, their computer system works, and I don't say that lightly and I don't say that to joke. Their computer system works, and it works well. Two, the provinces have copied a lot of what they do so that there's a lot of similarity. If I register at a province or federally, it's making my life easier to do that. They also focus on compliance and not prosecution. When they get involved, their objective is to make sure you understand the rules so they can get you into compliance. They don't come in swinging and trying to cause people grief. They take a nicer approach, and I think it's a better approach.
Liberal
Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON
I was going to ask for your top three recommendations that could make this act better, but I don't think you can do that in 20 seconds. Maybe if you're going to do a submission, you could make some recommendations for us.
Thank you so much for your time.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Linda Lapointe
On behalf of the members, I thank you for joining us and for your presentations.
I am now going to suspend the session.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'd like to welcome everybody to the second hour, including, from Lobbyisme Québec, Jean-François Routhier, the Commissioner of Lobbying, and, from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, Cathryn Motherwell, who is the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario.
Welcome back to the committee, Ms. Motherwell. It wasn't that long ago that you were here.
Mr. Routhier, you have the floor for five minutes.
Jean-François Routhier Commissioner of Lobbying, Lobbyisme Québec
Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for your invitation.
As Commissioner of Lobbying in Quebec, it is a pleasure for me to speak to you today to inform your thoughts on reforming the federal Lobbying Act.
I will speak in French, but I can take questions in both official languages.
I would first like to emphasize the importance of the work you are doing. Revising an act on lobbying is a demanding exercise. It is not always a popular one, but it is critical, given the current state of the world, which shows us how essential the role of institutions that watch over public integrity really is. I encourage you to carry out your work with the aim of finding the outcome that best provides the citizens we all serve with the transparency to which they have the right.
I would also like to acknowledge the determination of the federal commissioner in developing her legislation. Modernizing a legislative framework is a delicate exercise where a balance must be found between the requirement for transparency and the need to provide the public with adequate information.
Unfortunately, I will not have the time to comment on each of the commissioner's recommendations. So my remarks will be limited to expressing support for some of her structural approaches that we see as essential to make any modern framework for lobbying effective.
The first issue is about the compliance threshold, particularly the notion of “significant part”, which the commissioner wished to replace with registration by default.
In Quebec, the notion of “significant part” has been criticized for a number of years, particularly by the commissioner of lobbying. In its recent report, the Gallant Commission defined it as a critical issue in terms of transparency and public integrity. It was actually the key point in its recommendation number 25, which calls for the reform of Quebec's lobbying program. On February 17, 2026, the recommendation led to a motion in the National Assembly that was passed unanimously, recognizing the need for an in-depth review of Quebec's legislation, and specifically for the need to eliminate the minimum activity threshold it contains.
For us, the situation is clear: Any threshold in applying the legislation that is based on time, on intensity, or on the frequency of communications is almost impossible to apply, to verify and to ensure compliance. It creates a permanent grey area that distracts from the transparency desired and unduly complicates the way in which the legislation is enforced.
The requirement for transparency, in our opinion, should be determined by the appropriateness of communications designed to influence. The people to whom they are made and the subjects broached are better indicators than an arbitrary measure of how intense the communications are.
As a result, in our judgment, it would be a major mistake to enshrine the concept of accumulated hours in the legislation. In our view, Canadians and Quebeckers deserve honest deliberation and a considered solution to this genuine problem of applying the act.
The second issue I would like to raise is about the lack of control over lobbying done by companies seeking contracts with the federal government, particularly contracts awarded with no competition.
Experience shows that lobbying activities frequently go on prior to and parallel with public contracting processes. They have a significant impact in contracts being awarded with no competition.
Currently, those influencing communications completely escape the federal legislation. Although the federal system is sometimes presented as one of the best in the world, there is too often no mention of this clear shortcoming. It prevents the public from seeing any transparency in the influence used in these activities, at a time when the awarding of public contracts certainly costs several billions of dollars every year. This lack of process is a major issue in our view and it must be corrected.
I will emphasize one last aspect of the federal commissioner's proposals. This is to strengthen the range of powers and penalties at her disposal. Our experience shows, as the OECD confirmed when they were here, that a system that relies almost exclusively on investigations and criminal penalties is not only ineffective and somewhat of a disincentive, it is also cumbersome and expensive. Proportional administrative powers that can be nimbly applied are essential in ensuring consistency and correcting deficiencies quickly. This credible and authoritative oversight is an approach we hold to firmly.
It is therefore essential to provide the commissioner with genuine powers to investigate and to impose penalties. But they will be effective only if they are accompanied by a change in the responsibility to be assumed by the companies and organizations for whom lobbying is done. In that spirit, we feel that it is essential that obligations and penalties must fall to the entities and not to the individuals acting on their behalf.
In summary, as the OECD's 2022 report on Quebec's legislation stated, our position is that effective reform should first eliminate arbitrary thresholds, increase responsibility for organizations and provide regulators with a wide range of powers specifically designed to foster transparency and compliance. We have provided you with a number of recommendations and conclusions in that light.
These recommendations go far beyond the context of Quebec and I hope they will also be useful to you in your deliberations.
Thank you for your attention; I look forward to your questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Routhier.
Commissioner Motherwell, we're going to you next. You have five minutes to address the committee. Please start.
Cathryn Motherwell Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario
Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.
I am pleased to appear with my colleague from Quebec, Commissioner Routhier. My remarks today will parallel his in that I'm going to be speaking to Ontario's legislation and the experience with the Lobbyists Registration Act. I will also be speaking to some of the recommendations that Commissioner Bélanger has made regarding the Lobbying Act in order to highlight the similarities between the Ontario and federal systems.
In the interest of time, I'll make brief remarks on the following topics: the registration threshold for the in-house lobbyist category, the need to ensure conduct rules apply to all types of lobbyists, and additional compliance measures or penalties.
The Ontario legislation appoints the Integrity Commissioner as the lobbyist registrar. I am independent and non-partisan. My office maintains a public record of lobbyists who are lobbying the Ontario government. The registry currently has more than 4,000 registrations. These reflect the work of 3,800 lobbyists and approximately 2,500 businesses and organizations.
As with the federal legislation, registration is required for consultant lobbyists, who represent clients, and for in-house lobbyists, who work for for-profit and not-for-profit entities that engage in lobbying. Ontario does not require monthly communication reports, and the act provides me with investigative powers. If I find a contravention, I can impose a limited number of penalties.
Commissioner Bélanger's first submission to this committee addresses the registration threshold for in-house lobbyists. In Ontario, there is a 50-hour registration threshold.
It works like this. The senior officer of a business or organization is required to register when the combined number of hours that employees or paid directors and officers spend lobbying Ontario public office holders reaches 50 hours in a 12-month period. The 50-hour threshold came into effect following legislative amendments in 2016 in Ontario. Before that, the threshold mirrored the current federal legislation—significant part of duties. When Ontario switched to the 50-hour threshold, it resulted in a steady increase in the number of in-house registrations. There are now 50% more in-house registrations than we saw in 2016.
I am of the view that having more registrations means more transparency on who is lobbying government and about what. As you know, this is a cornerstone of lobbying regulation. In fact, in 2021, my predecessor, J. David Wake, called for a further reduction in the registration threshold in Ontario.
As you will appreciate, with 50 hours, it's anything below that level. A lot of lobbying can take place in 49 hours. Forty-nine hours of lobbying, without any requirement to register, runs counter to the goal of transparency. By way of comparison, consultant lobbyists are required to register when they make even one phone call, email or request for a meeting. That's why I echo Commissioner Wake's recommendation to reduce the threshold further in Ontario.
I also support Commissioner Bélanger's recommendation to eliminate the “significant part of duties” registration threshold federally. She also recommended that the federal code of conduct apply to all lobbyists and senior officers. Ontario does not have a lobbyists' code of conduct, but we do have an important conduct requirement in the act that prohibits any consultant or in-house lobbyist from placing a public officer holder in a real or potential conflict of interest.
If lobbying regulation includes rules of conduct, like a conflict of interest rule or a gift offering rule, it should apply consistently to all individuals who are lobbying or who are directing the lobbying activity. My office has also recommended amendments to the Ontario legislation to strengthen and make consistent the provisions related to the conduct of lobbyists.
Finally, Commissioner Bélanger also recommended amendments to allow for a range of additional compliance measures, including mandatory training, administrative monetary penalties and temporary prohibitions on lobbying.
In Ontario, if I find that someone has breached the act, there are two penalties I can impose. I can name them publicly or prohibit them from lobbying for up to two years, or I can do both. It's worth noting that in the almost 10 years of investigations, the Ontario registrar has issued one prohibition on lobbying and named 11 lobbyists for contraventions of the act.
In closing, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased, like my colleague from Quebec, to answer any questions you may have.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Commissioner Motherwell.
We will now start the first round of questions.
Mr. Hardy, from the Conservative Party, you can start. You have the floor for six minutes.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.
I have a lot of questions because I see this as a highly important topic.
We know that lobbying is necessary. As members of Parliament, we do not know everything about every industry. So there must be a balance. In one respect, we have the people who represent the industry well and come to explain that industry's specific needs. In another respect, it's basically a job needing great professional skill to be able to understand the structure and the documentation. This means that they have to deal with a very intricate process if they eventually want to be able to access public money.
I have a question that is likely for you, Mr. Routhier. In Quebec, 99% of companies are small and medium. In Canada, it's 98%. In a way, do you find that the legislation has become so complex that SMEs simply give up the idea of talking to the government, because it is way too complicated for them? That means that just 1% of very rich companies derive any benefit from lobbying.
Do you find that the paperwork has become just too heavy?