Information & Ethics Committee on June 1st, 2026

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Similarly, with regard to consultant lobbyists versus in-house lobbyists, should we impose the same obligations on both? Are there distinctions to be made, once again?

[Kyle Larkin]

Are you talking about consultant lobbyists?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes. I'm talking, for example, about a consultant lobbying firm that has several clients and is lobbying the government. They are full-time lobbyists, as you say. That's all they do, but they do it for various clients. Versus an in-house lobbyist who works for a company and does the same kind of lobbying but has only one client, their employer.

Should we distinguish between the two situations? Should the obligations be the same for both?

[Kyle Larkin]

I've been on both. I've been a consultant lobbyist, and I've been an in-house lobbyist. I would say that the registration details and the registration requirements right now are very similar, and I would keep what is currently built.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

From the outset, I would like to clarify that lobbying is important. As I have often said here, we, the members of Parliament, don't know everything, and we obviously need to have people who inform us about the different industries. The best people to do this are those who represent these industries and work with them every day.

We also talked about our SMEs. In Quebec, the vast majority of businesses, or 99%, are SMEs; in Canada, it's 98%. These are people who have other things to do than come chat with us. They need to work. We're clear about that.

Earlier, you said something that really stuck with me. You said that we needed more transparency and better accountability, and that your lobbying profession had a somewhat bad reputation. People view it somewhat negatively.

Don't you think, then, that there should be as much transparency as possible given that people are losing trust in the work that you do? People say that you're trying to give yourself an advantage. It seems to me that anything we can do to improve your reputation, ultimately, should be part of the equation, since your work is important.

[Kyle Larkin]

I think there are two answers to your question. I don't think that further regulation necessarily equals a more positive outlook of the lobbying profession. What we continue to see on social media, media, TV shows or movies will continue to happen. We'll continue to have shows like House of Cards, which depicts a lobbyist in a very negative light—someone who is really bending rules and doing other unlawful activities.

To answer the question you posed, as I said at the start of my testimony, lobbying in Canada is already one of the most regulated professions, not only within our country but also even internationally. I touched on the lobbying ban, the five versus four years. When you go through the lobby registry, you can see the subject matters. You can see who was lobbied on what date and on what subject. I believe there is a great amount of transparency and accountability that the current act and code have right now.

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

Do you think that the Commissioner of Lobbying's recommendations focus on what is already working well or is she trying to address the problems of the former structure that she has seen over time? I think the old structure dates back to 2012, so it goes back quite a while. She's able to see new ways of operating and to say which mistakes could have been prevented, precisely by having a somewhat broader coverage.

I get the impression that what you're saying is that everything should stay as it is. If it's effective and going well, it's not a problem. However, I think that what the commissioner is trying to do is to prevent problems that have occurred over the past 12, 13 or 14 years from happening again.

Do you think that's what she is trying to do or does she just want to give herself more powers?

[Kyle Larkin]

Yes and no. As I said earlier, to my knowledge there is no case that led from the 32-hour interpretation of the Lobbying Act to an eight-hour interpretation of the Lobbying Act. What I see nationally is, really, a race among commissioners as to who can make it the furthest on regulations and law. British Columbia went the furthest. I think the federal law is trying to catch up to that. That doesn't mean that the law and regulations they passed in British Columbia are correct.

In my opinion, those are overburdensome for both public office holders and lobbyists, as well as for small and medium-sized enterprises in that province. I see it as a bit of a race among them as to who can make it the farthest.

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

I agree with you: We want to make things simple and efficient. No matter what a government oversees, it should be simple and effective. Most of the time, the government should get out of the way to let people make money, follow their life mission, and work hard without being forced to fill out endless paperwork. We're all in agreement on that.

However, I sometimes get the impression that the argument comes back to people having other things to do with their time. Now, if their goal, ultimately, is to lobby and influence the government to change decisions, it doesn't matter whether these people work full-time, part-time or as volunteers. Whether their time is paid or not, the goal is the same.

Don't you think we should still cover these activities?

[Kyle Larkin]

I totally agree with you. I think that paid professional lobbyists should have to register, especially when they're engaging in lobbying activities. I disagree a bit with the question on the volunteerism side of things, especially for a volunteer board of directors. They are just individuals who are passionate about their industry, who likely got involved in their provincial association and then in their national association. All of a sudden, they find themselves in Ottawa and thrown into a meeting with a member of Parliament.

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

I may be playing devil's advocate here, but I wonder, if the goal is the same, what difference does it make whether or not someone is being paid?

[Kyle Larkin]

I would say that volunteer board members, volunteer directors on boards of directors, are very much spokespeople for the association, while paid lobbyists think of every different angle, in which “You can change legislation here or there” or “Maybe this member of Parliament will be a champion. Maybe this senator will be a champion.” They think about these things on a day-to-day basis. Board directors, folks who just fly into Ottawa, are really there just as spokespeople: “This is what's impacting my industry, and this is what the Government of Canada could potentially do to help us.”

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

Then, you think—

Is my speaking time already over, Mr. Chair? It goes by quickly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, it's already done. That was your third turn.

I know you're passionate. I love your passion. You're a little over time every time, but that's okay.

Mr. Malette, you have five minutes. Go ahead.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Chair. My first question is for Dr. Baker, and then I will have another question for Mr. Larkin.

Dr. Baker, first off, thank you very much for all you've done and continue to do on behalf of non-profits and charities. It's a field that I'm quite familiar with, having been involved in journalism for three decades and having chronicled the amazing work done by those agencies.

We've heard a lot of discussion today regarding the “significant part of the duties” threshold. In your estimation, Dr. Baker, have non-profits and charities reported difficulties in complying with the lobbying commissioner's recent changes in this regard?

[Jodene Baker]

I don't think this is about difficulty in following compliance. What it gets to is that piece around what are we focusing transparency requirements on and whether it is on sustained significant lobbying versus occasional interactions. With the lowering to eight hours, charities and non-profits are becoming more and more concerned about what activities fall under that.

I've heard reference today to running into an MP while you're out and about. There were comments around how, if you are asking for a change in policy or programs, your goal is then lobbying, your goal is change. In the charitable sector, when many EDs or staff encounter an MP, they get asked by that MP, “Tell me what you're seeing on the ground” or “Tell me what's going on.” Their response might naturally include things that start to reference how this program might need to change or how it would be helpful if this policy had an amendment. I don't know if you characterize that as a sustained lobbying effort or if, as I mentioned in my statement, that is a normal part of a charity fulfilling its mission.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Okay.

Further to that, when the lobbying commissioner changed that interpretation of the “significant part of the duties” threshold from 32 to eight, do you know whether any consultations or engagement were made with non-profits, charities or small businesses to assess...?

[Jodene Baker]

Not to my knowledge.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

You hadn't heard. I would take it that you're one to know if there had been any such consultation.

[Jodene Baker]

Yes. We were not aware of any.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

All right. Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Larkin.

Witnesses before this committee, Mr. Larkin, have described the B.C. lobbying act as the gold standard. However, based on your testimony today, it sounds as though you have some areas of concern, given your experience. Could you please highlight some of the challenges or issues you've encountered with the B.C. lobbying act that we should consider as a committee?

[Kyle Larkin]

It's a gold standard for some but certainly not the gold standard for most. Having been a lobbyist in B.C. in years past—I'm not currently a lobbyist in B.C., for the record—I found it quite onerous representing various associations in that province. As I said, most communications—not just oral and arranged—require communications reports in the province. Sending out a tweet that says “Minister X, please do X”, or sending out a meeting request that never receives a response...all of those types of items require a communications report. When I was a consultant lobbyist sending out meeting requests to, let's say, 50 different MLAs in British Columbia, I thought that having to put in a communication report for all 50—despite my receiving a response on only five of them—was a step too far. It's not that it prevented transparency; I think that it gets in the way of transparency.

If we have too many communications reports for the public, the media and parliamentarians to look through, then we get past the level of transparency at which there's so much paperwork in front of individuals that they give up on looking through the paperwork. That's where the B.C. registry and requirements went to, and I would really warn parliamentarians here not to go in that direction.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Finally, I know you've touched on this to some extent, but could you explain to this committee why you believe a distinction between in-house and consultant lobbyists is necessary or not?

[Kyle Larkin]

I do think it's necessary. The role of an in-house lobbyist is certainly different from one as a consultant lobbyist. As a consultant lobbyist, you have clients who you're lobbying for on a regular basis. With in-house registrations, you may be a registered association, but you may lobby only on a one-off basis, maybe once a month or once every now and then. You're still a registered entity. You have the list of employees on your registration listed as to who may participate in those lobbying activities. This is versus a consultant lobbyist registration, in which your role as a consultant is very much understanding the politics of the day and how things operate in the House of Commons or in the other chamber, as well as really advising clients and connecting clients with designated public office holders.