Information & Ethics Committee on April 30th, 2026

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

I'll end with a very simple question.

I have a great deal of respect for your profession. In fact, I have a lot of friends who practise it as well.

Do you think that, at some point, we focus too much on the letter of the law—on technicalities—and that we should be held to a higher ethical standard than what the law requires? You say, for example, that we can't really go there, or that such and such a person may have committed a breach, but that the breach isn't criminal.

Shouldn't we, in a way, legislate more when it comes to ethical principles that should form the basis of our laws, instead of getting hung up on technicalities that ultimately prevent us from laying charges?

[Frédéric Pincince]

Yes. I'm not a lawyer, but if I look at the act that governs ethical breaches, the Conflict of Interest Act, it's not Parliament's intention to criminalize some of these behaviours.

When the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has reason to believe that there has been a violation of the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament, he must suspend his investigation and refer the matter to the police. That's when we conduct an investigation.

From our perspective, once again, we have to operate within certain constraints. Naturally, the process takes more time. We don't have enforcement powers. We have to conduct investigations, proceed step by step and meet the required criteria at each stage of the investigation, from the initial assessment through to the conclusion. We have to operate within those constraints.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Pincince.

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Nathan, you have five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to Frédéric Pincince from the RCMP for being here today.

Why, in the last 15 or 16 years, out of about 30 cases that have been referred to the RCMP, were only six individuals charged with offences under the Lobbying Act? I think that was between 2009 and last year.

[Frédéric Pincince]

Yes, there were several investigations. Again, we looked at all of those matters. There have been some challenges with some of the notions within the legislation. As I mentioned earlier, the “significant part of duties” could be very difficult to quantify.

While there are interpretation bulletins mentioned in the Lobbying Act, as I said, those are not statutory instruments, and they're not binding. We have to operate within the way the legislation is written. It could be challenging for us to meet that threshold to be able to lay charges in this situation.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

When the commissioner suspends her investigation because she has referred the case to the RCMP and the RCMP subsequently closes the file without charging, there is effectively a regulatory vacuum where neither office can act meaningfully.

How frequently does this scenario occur? In your view, what institutional reforms would prevent accountability from falling through the gap entirely?

[Frédéric Pincince]

The legislation could include some parameters in which information could be shared with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, but it would need to be examined to ensure that information, the capacity to share information with her office, would respect the other legislation that's in place, like the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act and so on.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Bill C-8, which is now before Parliament, requires the critical infrastructure sector to implement cybersecurity programs and mandatory incident reporting.

Reflecting on a broader legislative philosophy that graduated compliance tools are more effective than relying solely on criminal enforcement, does the RCMP believe a similar graduated approach, which could potentially include the commissioner having access to more administrative penalties, mandatory training and temporary bans before criminal referral, would provide better compliance outcomes in a lobbying context?

[Frédéric Pincince]

Personally, I feel that, yes, there could be some value to examining the options to provide more options for the Commissioner of Lobbying to have more discretion in which matters should be investigated by her office and which matters should be referred to the RCMP.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Have you made these recommendations already? I know the report came out, but I am wondering if you were able to give this input.

[Frédéric Pincince]

As for recommendations, as these are mostly formed from our experience in these investigations, I think the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying would be better suited to provide recommendations based on information and the result of my investigation when it comes down to the specific offences in question.

I believe that her office is better suited to provide the recommendations, but again, I was happy to share our experience as it pertains to our investigations.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

What are some of the reasonable grounds that the commissioner considers before she refers something to the RCMP, grounds that you think are fair?

[Frédéric Pincince]

I would say essentially, “ What is the definition of the communication? In that situation, did the communication meet the requirement of the legislation?” If it did, and there's an offence that's been established at that point, she will refer the matter.

To give an example, specifically, if someone has been lobbying and there's evidence to support that someone has been lobbying, and they were subject to a ban, at that point, if she finds grounds to believe that there's a violation under that section, she will refer the matter to us. We will make our own assessment of that information, and if we agree, we will launch an investigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Nathan.

Inspector, I want to thank you for your appearance on this very important study in front of the committee today. I also want to thank you on behalf of the committee and Canadians for your service to our nation. I appreciate your being here today. Thank you so much.

Before we go, I will advise the committee that you will be receiving notices for next week's meetings. We'll be dealing with the main estimates. We have the Information Commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner coming on Monday. The Privacy Commissioner and the lobbying commissioner are both coming on Thursday.

With no other business in front of us, this meeting is adjourned.