Information & Ethics Committee on April 30th, 2026

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

The Prime Minister is appointing former business associates, for example, the new CEO of the Defence Investment Agency. That puts the former business associates in a position to lobby on behalf of associates without documenting interactions. When they're done their term, they go back to business. What do you need to be put in place so that you can investigate how these deals are happening while the people are in office?

[Frédéric Pincince]

Again, it's up to the determination of this committee to make some recommendation to increase the parameters that we currently have in the Lobbying Act.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Are there even any concerns that foreign interests are influencing the government and public office holders without that transparency needed?

[Frédéric Pincince]

Again, my answer would be that those parameters would need to be determined by this committee to try to determine exactly what we want to be captured into the Lobbying Act. We really look at the situation. We will assess the evidence that we have, and we will make a determination whether we can lay charges in relation to a potential offence.

There is a lot of communication right now that might not be captured within the Lobbying Act. It is not an offence if it is not.... If it doesn't meet those criteria, as I mentioned earlier.... Is it for payment? Is it in relation to subject matter? There could be a lot of communication. If it does not meet these criteria, it will not be an offence under the act.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Should there be tools or parameters for the RCMP and our security agencies to proactively initiate reviews and investigate cases of unreported lobbying or foreign entities using leverage to influence public office holders?

[Frédéric Pincince]

Again, if it's the will of this committee to determine that this is something that would increase transparency, if this is included now in the Lobbying Act as an offence, at that point, the RCMP will be happy to investigate.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Have you seen any evidence that there is currently a functioning foreign lobbyist registry that you could act upon?

[Frédéric Pincince]

I would not have any information in that regard.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Next, we go to Mr. Kelloway for five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Recommendation number 18 refers to situations where the Commissioner of Lobbying believes a matter may be addressed by another appropriate authority, such as a provincial lobby regulator. Are you able to comment on that? What are your views on that?

[Frédéric Pincince]

This is not really my area of expertise. We really focus on the investigation at the federal level. If there's a more efficient way there to refer matters to other instances, this is not a situation that we've encountered.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

That's fair.

What is the typical length of a post-conviction lobbying ban?

[Frédéric Pincince]

I would say the Commissioner of Lobbying does have the power. Once we have an investigation, once an individual has been convicted, the Commissioner of Lobbying has the ability at that point to issue another ban from lobbying. I'm not extremely familiar with it, but I believe we could be looking at potentially one year. I'm speculating here.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

I married into a police family. I know that there are certain things you can't say, but you can talk in generalities, so I can appreciate that.

Earlier on you talked about the relationship with Commissioner of Lobbying and said that you have a good relationship. I'm not asking you to give specifics, but can you walk through what happens if there is a disagreement or if you have a difference of opinion? Could you give us a sense of that kind of discussion? I think it helps inform either what recommendations would be upheld here or what amendments would be made. How is that sorted out? Can you give us a glimpse without giving us an actual example with names?

[Frédéric Pincince]

I believe there's mutual respect between our two offices. We have to operate within different standards when it comes down to the level or threshold of proof of evidence that we require.

The lobbying commissioner will look at a matter and, as per the act, the moment that she forms her grounds to believe that there is a potential violation of the offence, the file will be referred to the RCMP to investigate.

Now, when we look at it, where we sometimes may differ is on the assessment of the circumstances. Then again, at this stage, the RCMP does have the information in relation to the specifics of the offence. At that point, this is what forms the basis of our conclusion.

Again, I believe that we each operate within our own limitations when it comes to the act. As it comes to our investigation, we have to evaluate what it is, and we have to function within some of the terminology and the notion. To give an example that was mentioned earlier, the significant part of the duties is an area that we have to navigate. I know that the act allows for the Commissioner of Lobbying to provide some interpretation bulletins.

Again, in the context of the investigation, we have to assess everything. Interpretation bulletins do provide some parameters for lobbyists to operate; however, when it comes down to the application of the law, we have to function specifically as it relates to what is contained in the act. Right now the act does not speak to 20%. That is in interpretation bulletins that are not statutory instruments and, as such, are not binding in court.

We have to operate within what is a significant part of the duties, to provide an example, which could be very challenging and complex to do.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Very much in a similar vein, on the importance of police independence, when issues of lobbying come out, surprise, surprise, on all sides there are political issues. We're in a political atmosphere here. I think this kind of builds on your previous statements, but can you add some colour to it?

How do you maintain that integrity and independence to ensure that these are the facts and the evidence and it's not necessarily spin that may come out of Ottawa from any particular party?

[Frédéric Pincince]

We do take any allegations very seriously. We take a measured approach into each specific case. We look at the elements and the evidence before us, and we will make a determination at that point. These investigations are conducted in private. That information is contained within the investigative team, and we ensure that the information is protected to protect the integrity of the investigation. At the same time, in some situations, we consider the potential repercussions on an innocent person.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Hardy, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

These are really interesting discussions.

In recent years, there have been a number of scandals. I'm thinking of the SNC‑Lavalin scandal involving the Liberal government. I think you were at a meeting on that at the time. There was also the Liberal scandal involving ArriveCAN and the green slush fund, or Fonds vert.

Could you give us an example of the consequences of these scandals?

In fact, you intervened and conducted an investigation. Have there been any consequences? I'm talking about the ArriveCAN scandal, where about $450 million, I think, was spent on a four-person company in a basement.

Was there any repayment?

When did the consequences occur?

[Frédéric Pincince]

In fact, the consequences can vary depending on how cases are resolved. Administrative measures can be used by the government to recover funds that may have been obtained in a way that did not comply with a contract. At that point, the RCMP investigates from a different perspective. We're really trying to determine whether there is an offence under the Criminal Code, whether in relation to the act or otherwise. So our approach is different. We don't operate—

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

Thank you for that. I'm sorry to interrupt, and it's really not meant to be disrespectful, but I'd like an example.

In my case, people in my riding ask me all the time what's going on. There are a lot of theories. You'll see where I'm going with this.

We asked you some questions earlier. I also understand that there are processes that have to be followed. However, we're often told here that it's up to the committee to decide how the RCMP can intervene.

I'll give you an example. The committee has just completed the review of the Conflict of Interest Act. We submitted the report, but the Liberals didn't accept all the recommendations. The Liberals control parliamentary committees. We're in a bit of a loop. We propose things, and they're not accepted. If they are not accepted, the committee doesn't change the act. If the act doesn't change, you can't intervene. So we're going around in circles.

I'm just trying to figure out how we could give you powers.

On your end, could you analyze the situation and, when you think you need to intervene, tell the commissioner that you won't wait for her to call, but that you'll step in right away?

Right now, you're always required to wait for those who are committing wrongdoing to give you permission to investigate them.

[Frédéric Pincince]

In some situations, we conduct an investigation. Generally, we look at situations that are in the public interest. We assess them and determine whether the allegations meet the minimum threshold required to initiate an investigation.

In other cases, investigations are conducted either by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada or by other government bodies.

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

Do you have any concrete examples?

Could you give us a concrete example of a situation in recent years and that led to a result, an example where the public was told not to worry, that it wasn't political in nature and that the laws were applied?

[Frédéric Pincince]

Again, in our investigations, we use the tools set out in the Criminal Code to determine whether there is sufficient evidence.

For example, an increase in costs for a given project isn't necessarily criminal. A situation where public funds have been mismanaged isn't necessarily criminal. There are mechanisms available to the government in certain situations involving non-criminal behaviour that allow it to recover funds.

As for us, we deal primarily with criminal investigations. We rely on the evidence required by the Criminal Code. We try to determine whether the threshold is met and whether there is sufficient evidence to lay charges. Again, we have to operate within the constraints we're subject to.