Information & Ethics Committee on April 30th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 39 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 12, 2026, section 14.1 of the Lobbying Act, and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, the committee is resuming the statutory review of the Lobbying Act.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses for the first hour today. As individuals, we have Ian Stedman, associate professor, school of public policy and administration, York University; and Lori Turnbull, professor, faculty of management, Dalhousie University.

Mr. Stedman, I'm going to start with you. You have up to five minutes. It's good to see you in person. Go ahead.

[Ian Stedman, Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, As an Individual]

That's wonderful. Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. Let me start by thanking you for inviting me to contribute to this review of the act.

As has been noted by several of you and your guests, a serious review of the Lobbying Act is long overdue. Hopefully this process will be very productive for all of you. There's a lot more attention being paid to issues of ethics and influence than I think many of us would like, and it has become impossible to look the other way lately.

I know there are some new members, so I will tell you a bit about me. I'm a former employee of the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, where, from 2010 to 2015, my role was to administer the Members' Integrity Act and to backfill in other mandates. As Commissioner Motherwell noted in her appearance, that office also handles lobbyist registration, disclosures of wrongdoing and public service ethics. Everything is under one roof, you might say.

Because of my professional experience, I'm often called upon now to comment in the media about public sector ethics and accountability. I should note that my perspectives are very much informed by my experience sitting in the room and doing the administrative work on the administrative side. I believe in fulsome transparency because I want to encourage public trust and good-faith civic engagement. I believe that if information is available to the public, they might just consume it in ways that help us to protect our democracy. I'm a bit of an optimist in that sense.

For my opening statement, I'll make a series of quick recommendations, most building on the recommendations of others who have appeared before you. First, though, I want to situate my remarks by saying that, to me, a lobbyist registry is not simply about weeding out the bad actors by forcing them to make their engagements visible. It is about giving us the tools we need to better understand how governments make decisions. This includes who influences those decisions and how.

To echo Commissioner Bélanger, I'll say that I think we focus too much on who gets paid to influence and how much time they spend trying to influence as being indicators for who should have to register. I encourage you, as legislators, to trust that the commissioner's office will use its expertise to find ways to lessen the administrative burden of registering and reporting, and to focus your efforts on putting rules in place that strive, first and foremost, for what is right and what serves the regime's ultimate goals.

I teach public sector ethics at York University, and I tell my students that a policy line has been drawn, separating lobbying from the idea of registerable lobbying. This is always a bit confusing for them. I tell them that just because you aren't required to register doesn't mean that you aren't, in fact, lobbying.

As you might imagine, I fully support the commissioner's recommendation number one to do away with the “significant part of duties” threshold. Keep it simple. Figure out any specific exceptions that you want. Worry less about inconveniencing people, and put rules in place that serve the purposes of the act.

I'd also like to note my support for making sure that the designated public office holder designation is doing the work we want it to do. The regime's goal is to capture communications that are being made in an effort to influence those who themselves hold power or who occupy positions of influence. Just because you are not appointed under subsection 128(1) of the Public Service Employment Act does not mean you are not in a position of influence or power. I would strongly encourage the committee to make clear recommendations about how wide this net should be cast.

Similarly, Commissioner Bélanger's 12th recommendation pushes back against the idea that registerable communications should only be those that were arranged in advance. I can't tell you how many times I've had a casual conversation with an MP or policy adviser at the airport or at a conference. I get to choose whether I approach them and press them on a policy issue or not. If I'm someone who works in the policy world and who has an employer, then I should know the lobbying rules. This committee shouldn't have any sympathy for me having to file a quick report after a communication if that's how I choose to engage during those kinds of impromptu encounters.

In terms of penalties and other compliance measures, my answer is that, yes, changes are needed. It's harmful for public trust in her office that Commissioner Bélanger has to be so secretive about her investigations and that she has to refer to a peace officer when she believes that a person has committed an offence. Have her office survey other jurisdictions and provide you with a comparative analysis of what is being done across the country and in other Commonwealth states. I would strongly encourage you to suggest amendments to the act to allow for a range of additional compliance measures, which I know you've heard from almost everyone.

Finally, I want to return to my experience in Ontario, where everything is under one roof. I realize that conflicts of interest, lobbying and whistle-blowing are all separate offices at the federal level, but it is impossible to deny that they can have a lot of overlap on some files. I know we like these offices to have operational independence, and I know it can be controversial to make big changes to them, but I would encourage this committee to speak with the Ontario office about its experience administering multiple mandates under the wide ethics and accountability umbrella. Is it beneficial? What are the challenges? Are there greater efficiencies to be gained?

If you're going to give consideration to Commissioner Bélanger's request that a new funding mechanism recognizing and reinforcing the independence of her office be established, then I would encourage you to also think about how a new funding mechanism could be used to help improve structural independence and operational effectiveness across accountability offices.

I saw that the idea of combining offices was briefly mentioned in last week's conflict of interest report. I imagine a larger study would be in tow, but that's probably something you can get away with recommending in your report.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Stedman.

Dr. Turnbull, you have five minutes.

[Professor Lori Turnbull, Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for having me. I was with you back in October to talk about the Conflict of Interest Act. It's really nice to be back with you in this room again.

I've studied public sector and political ethics for a long time. These two pieces of legislation—the Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act—are interconnected. They are integral parts of the ethics regime, which is aimed at ensuring transparency and ethical decision-making for Canadians, and at regulating the relationship between government and actors looking to engage with and influence government. I have a specific interest in the post-employment rules in place for public office holders when they leave government.

I've listened to the testimony of Ms. Bélanger, the Commissioner of Lobbying, and read her recommendations. I understand her desire to move to a system of registration by default so that all lobbying activity is captured by the Lobbying Act. This would enhance transparency and compliance. I don't believe there would be any unintended consequences in the form of suppressing lobbying activities or creating undue burden for organizations, since compliance with reporting requirements is not too onerous, even for a small organization.

I also agree with her recommendation that monthly reports should include all communications, not just those arranged in advance and initiated by a lobbyist.

I know we're going to talk about Ms. Bélanger's recommendations in more detail. I will just make one additional comment for now, which has been on my mind regarding this whole thing.

The Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act are entwined, and they work toward mutual purposes relating to ethics and transparency. As we undertake a review of the Lobbying Act, it's also important to note that we're in a period of change and reflection within Canada's public service more broadly. As you know, there are reductions happening through early retirements and job cuts. There's also a simultaneous effort to bring in new talent, new expertise and new people. As we grapple with the kinds of issues we're grappling with now—trade diversification, economic growth, AI and all sorts of things—we're obviously in a period of a lot of change. It's completely understandable and appropriate that we want a public service that can respond to those kinds of challenges. We need to move as the world is moving.

There have been media reports of heavy recruitment from the banking and financial sectors, including to the Major Projects Office. I have flagged that this has already created, and will continue to create, heightened awareness of the circumstances around these appointments. Will such appointees be captured under the Conflict of Interest Act or the Lobbying Act, and what are the implications either way?

Let me say that I don't think we should adopt practices that make it difficult for a public service to recruit such expertise. I think the opposite, actually. We need a public service that is nimble, fit for purpose and able to respond to the challenges we have. I don't think we should be allergic to finding ways to draw in the right people. It would be a shame if we were.

The moment we're in right now invites a narrow look at the Lobbying Act as it is and what we might need to change in terms of loophole-closing and whether we want to cast a broader net or a net that catches more things. Yes, we might want to look at that. We also need to think about what the broader conversation is regarding the relationship between government and business, how government wants to recruit people, what sorts of obligations we want to put on them and whether all of this meets the goals we have.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Dr. Turnbull.

We will begin the first round of questions.

Mr. Hardy, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Turnbull and Mr. Stedman, your remarks are very much in line with what we're asking for here, on both sides. You spoke about transparency and accountability. You say that we're more than ready to study everything that's currently going on.

I'm going to tell you about a situation, and I'd like you to tell me whether you think it's lobbying. As you just said, Ms. Turnbull, everything is interconnected when it comes to lobbying and conflict of interest.

The Prime Minister's economic adviser is paid by the party. That means he isn't subject to the Lobbying Act. He's also the head of a large corporation that has investments everywhere; those investments are interconnected in many fields.

That person directly advises the Prime Minister without being subject to an act. Do you think that could be some form of lobbying?

My question is for both of you, Ms. Turnbull and Mr. Stedman.

[Lori Turnbull]

From what I understand, the person is working for the Prime Minister. He is an adviser. He has investments. If he's lobbying, what is he lobbying for?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

When it comes to helping the companies in which this person has invested, helping them to perform better thanks to public decisions made with taxpayers' money, do you think that constitutes lobbying?

[Lori Turnbull]

Well, if he's trying to make representations to the government on behalf of something else or someone else, then that's lobbying.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Stedman, would you like to add anything?

[Ian Stedman]

I would contribute the perspective that if he is being asked for his opinion on a specific topic that just so happens to be related to the company that he was known to be associated with before being hired on as an adviser, that wouldn't qualify as lobbying because he's being asked directly for his particular input on that topic. Now, if it's outside of the purview of what the advisory role is, and it could benefit those companies, then, yes, I agree; that would be lobbying.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

I get the impression that it's sometimes a struggle to draw the line between lobbying and the sharing of interests. For example, I'm thinking of situations where a person suggests to a company that it should move toward a particular industry. If it turns out that the person giving their opinion has shares or investments in that industry, they're influencing a decision in a way that suits them.

Lobbying is often described as something a bit shady. That said, it's understood that we need to hear from people who represent industries.

As members of Parliament, we don't know everything about everything. It's important to have people come talk to us about the challenges in a given industry and how we can help that industry. It helps us make informed decisions. That, I think, is fine.

However, as soon as major decisions in the country align with specific interests and someone is playing both sides, that would potentially be a problem, in your opinion.

Have I understood you correctly?

[Ian Stedman]

I definitely think it's a fine line, but you're never going to be behind those closed doors to know what that conversation is. You're speculating that perhaps the conversation sometimes veers left and veers right and doesn't stay centred. It's a fair speculation. It's your job as an opposition MP to ask those questions, but I'm not so sure that you look at this....

Prime ministers and ministers have advisers, and those advisers have expertise in the areas in which advice is needed. They have that expertise because they have histories in those areas or current engagements in those areas.

The question is, do they stay on point? Do they stay centred on the actual project?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

That's the problem. You said so at the outset. There are a lot of changes happening right now, and we have to adapt to them. That means the legislation has to be adjusted so that it can deal with this reality.

However, from the moment we try to show transparency, we have to be able to get it. If there are hidden discussions, if we don't really understand what's going on or if there's the appearance of a conflict—whether it's a conflict related to lobbying or a conflict of interest—shouldn't we have more mechanisms to be able to understand how decisions are made?

Should we at least avoid putting ourselves in a situation where the public could tell us that this isn't acceptable at all and that they don't want decisions to be influenced by large groups with money?

I'm sure you understand where I'm going with this. How can that famous line be redefined?

How can we be both transparent and structured enough to protect Canadians' interests through Canadians' money?

[Lori Turnbull]

I'm just listening to the rest of the interpretation before I jump in.

Yes, the transparency piece is really what we're trying to get at with the Lobbying Act. I start from the perspective that people are acting in a way that is ethical, and lobbying is an ethical activity. It is completely healthy in a democracy for people outside of government to want to influence government and to want to inform government about how their policies and their decisions would affect people. I think that's the essence of lobbying. It's okay to want to influence government. In fact, it's better if people want to try to influence government. We have a healthier democracy that way.

The point of the lobbying rules is to make sure that people understand what sorts of opinions are coming to the government and to make sure that the space around the government is not secret, so that we know when we see a government taking a position and going a certain way, we have an understanding of who's spoken to them about this, whether they have been heavily lobbied by one side or another. If there's a sense that maybe the decision was directed in an undue way by somebody who's had more access to the government, perhaps, than you would think they did, we want to make sure that it's not a secret. It's about shining a light on all of it so that people understand.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

We could even go back retroactively and check who these people were meeting with, based on what interests, before they took office. We could try to understand what kind of decision these people would make with taxpayers' money, with Canadians' money, if we knew how many people had lobbied them before.

Is that right?

In your publication, you talk about prior or retroactive disclosure. You discuss the possibility of finding out what lobbying had taken place before the person took office.

Did you address this in that publication?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Please provide a very quick response, Mr. Stedman.

You can also come back to this question later, Mr. Hardy.

[Ian Stedman]

I don't think we want to put the onus on the members. What you could get to here, as a pragmatic solution, is to ask the commissioner to put out an advisory opinion explaining that, even if you are hired as an adviser to the Prime Minister, “This is where the line is drawn. This is what is lobbying, and this is what is not lobbying. If you are lobbying, you must register.” An advisory opinion would be very helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Stedman and Ms. Turnbull. Welcome.

Thank you for coming to testify before the committee as part of this very important study.

Mr. Stedman, in your opening remarks, you said that, currently, anyone who is paid to lobby must register. You also said that it's possible to lobby without being paid.

Given Commissioner Bélanger's recommendations, how would you like people to register as lobbyists?

[Ian Stedman]

I am not as concerned about who is getting paid to influence as I am about who is influencing. The point I was trying to make is that, if we overly concern ourselves with who is getting paid and how many hours they're trying to influence, then we're losing, I think, what the point of the act is. The point is to have transparency so that we can understand who is influencing.

I believe that Commissioner Bélanger made some recommendations about how people would register: For example, if you're a member of a board, should you be registering as a consultant or as part of the organization? Those are interesting recommendations that I'm sure you're all considering.

I don't think that being paid a salary per se should be a defining factor for whether you're required to register. There are all sorts of people who advocate on behalf of organizations, with all sorts of different ways of being compensated or quid pro quo. I think that's probably a conversation you need to have, while looking at specific examples in front of you.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You mentioned the possibility that, during an impromptu meeting at the airport, someone might be tempted to exert influence.

Would you report that meeting as an act of lobbying?

[Ian Stedman]

If I were at an airport, standing in line beside an MP—it has happened before—and I asked them a question about a policy issue relevant to my employer or to someone with whom I had an exchange of benefit for some reason, I would think that I would be required to register. That's an attempt to influence a policy issue. If I say, “How are the kids?”, I don't think I need to register. Absolutely, yes, when we say, “Let's reduce the threshold.” I think that's what we're saying.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Stedman.

Ms. Turnbull, you piqued my curiosity earlier. You talked about public servants and the fact that there should be reform. Some have offered to take early retirement. You also talked about new people and new responsibilities.

I would like to have more details on that. Is it about offering more training?

[Lori Turnbull]

I think that, in this moment, the public service is in real need of reform, and it's one of the only times over the past, I don't know, 30 years or maybe even more than that, that we're not engaged in a formal reform exercise of the public service.

We're not doing Blueprint 2020 right now. We're not doing La Relève. We're not doing any of those things. We're in a moment when the government deeply needs specific things from the public service, and we're not in a conversation in a formal way that is led by the clerk about what we need the public service to be doing.

These cuts are happening, and they're quite significant. Everybody's being affected by that, even the people who are staying. Even the people who manage to hold on to their jobs are still affected by this broader piece. There are people losing their jobs. There are SERLO competitions. When people win, they know that they had to compete against their colleagues, and they feel kind of awful. If you make them SERLO, maybe they feel that it means you don't trust them, so we're teeing the public service up for quite a crisis in confidence here and, at the same time, we're not giving any clear direction about what we want this organization to do.

I think, at the same time, the fact that the government is making these significant cuts indicates that it wants something different from the public service. The government is looking for specific skills, and I think the public service members need to hear how they fit into the government's agenda. “What do you want us to do? How can we be helpful? How can we fit into this?”

I think part of the answer to that is that the Prime Minister is clearly looking for people who have expertise in finance, economics and AI, in growth and that sort of thing, so it's fine to be.... For me, it's okay to be bringing people in from the outside because I think that makes for a more robust public service, but I also think that questions need to be answered about how you take a permanent public service and plug it into the implementation of the government's agenda. That's exactly what the public service is supposed to do, so what's our plan for that?

I think we might be at a point now where we need to be thinking about what kinds of rules might apply. If there's going to be a lot of recruitment.... There's potentially a revolving-door situation where you've got people coming in from banks for a year or two years, and then they're going to go back out. They have all kinds of information about what the government's doing, how decisions are being made and who the powerful people are. They're going to go back out. What rules are going to apply to them? If the answer is none because they're not caught in the Conflict of Interest Act because they're not public office holders, then you're going to get people saying, “Well, why am I caught in this? That person was much closer to the centre of power than I was, and they don't have to obey any kind of post-employment rules.” They can go back to their bank and do what they want.

We're setting ourselves up for a problem if we don't address those things. It doesn't have to be a problem, and if I sound like I'm saying we shouldn't be recruiting from the banking side, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that we need to be mindful about it, because we do have rules that govern that door that people go in and out of when they're moving from their expertise in and out of government.