Information & Ethics Committee on June 1st, 2026

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

You say that to me as if the commissioners were ill-intentioned in the way they carry out their mandate. The commissioner's job is to ensure neutrality. They also need to ensure that as an officer of Parliament, they can operate without taking sides. In that context, commissioners need to have greater power, precisely to strike that balance. What you're telling us is that we should actually take away some of their powers.

[Jacques Shore]

Mr. Hardy, I have great respect for the work of all the commissioners in the lobbying sector. I think they play a very important role.

If they decide to push the envelope as far as they can...because it's their job to say what, to them, is the perfect world.

For us, as we hear the examples.... Where we find ourselves in difficulty is that we would then be diminishing the engagement of individuals, companies and organizations with the government, and that's not what we want.

In the case of the examples given—

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

You think that the commissioners' approach, since they work for their institution, is to do everything they can to further their own interests, not necessarily to be there for the right reasons. However, right from the start, you said that we should trust institutions, despite all the scandals we've seen.

[Jacques Shore]

This is where you and I may differ. I don't think we have such scandals out there that are—

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

In Nova Scotia, the company Maritime Launch Services rents land from the provincial government for $13,500 and then subleases it to the federal government for $20 million per year. Isn't that a scandal?

[Jacques Shore]

There's no question, Mr. Hardy, that it's not perfect, but I think we are at a point at which suspecting all of these sinister activities or illegal activities....

It is to be hoped that they are found through other mechanisms and other means, absolutely, but it doesn't mean, in the examples given by Christina Santini or Mr. Al Soud, in which someone walks into a coffee shop and suddenly has to—

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

No, but that doesn't exist.

We're talking about eight hours, not zero.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I apologize, Mr. Hardy, but your time is up.

Mr. Chang, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Santini, do the current lobbying rules place a disproportionate burden on small businesses and business associations as compared with large organizations with dedicated government relations teams?

[Christina Santini]

Absolutely. It can create a disproportionate burden when compared with larger corporations, because large corporations can hire law firms, consultancies, etc. If a small business suddenly has an issue, or they're filling in an application form for a G and C, they don't have a dedicated team to do it. As I said, most of our members have nine employees or fewer. It's the business owner who's completing those forms, looking into the issue, researching it, trying to figure out compliance, asking for reconsideration on a decision or trying to let their MP know that this issue or this policy doesn't make sense for their kind of business and that this is why it should change.

Yes, some may say they're advocating. From a business owner's perspective, they're trying to share their views about their business. Ultimately, is eight hours too much? When it comes to the G and C forms and when it comes to the applications, yes, because those are time-consuming. I'm sure you've reviewed Canada summer jobs applications and other grant applications that may have come your way or that your office has helped constituents with. They take time. Carving that out will help, but business owners can quickly get to eight hours, or they can quickly start asking themselves if it covers them. A higher threshold might mean that they don't have to stress out about it.

Again, let's consult on what that threshold could be. We can sometimes face members suddenly having an issue with CBSA and importation fees. They're not regularly lobbying, but suddenly they're spending a lot of time on a financially related question. That's just one of the things. You want to ensure that these individuals feel that they can reach out to their MPs and that they're not suddenly going to have to face AMPs or whatever repercussions the office of the lobbying commissioner might be considering when they were really trying to express themselves.

The other thing is that whatever changes are made in the code, remember this when it comes to small business owners: educate first. That would be one of the key things. Right now we're trying to make sure our members have the information they need and know which resources to get so that they can be compliant with the law. Fundamentally, they don't want to break the law. A higher threshold will help them be compliant if they ever raise such an issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Chang, I've stopped your time. Mr. Shore has something to add to Ms. Santini's response. If you want to give him that opportunity, you can.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm certain that your microphone has to be a little closer to your mouth. We're having trouble hearing you.

I'll start your time. I think you do want to give Mr. Shore an opportunity to answer the question.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Shore, go ahead.

[Jacques Shore]

Thank you, Mr. Chang.

I agree completely with what Ms. Santini just said. I also want to say that companies, organizations and multinationals understand all the work that has to go into registering and the efforts that are made to make sure that everything they do with government is transparent. It's part of the cost of doing business with government.

That's another part we have to think about when we're trying to look at where we put the obligation—on individuals, small organizations or these tiny companies that are just trying to get through the month and pay the bills that they need to pay. It's a big difference. It's never been an issue for me, when I'm dealing with any of those corporations that I deal with, for them to understand that it's simply the cost of doing business with government.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Shore.

You stated the following in your brief:

Granting the Commissioner of Lobbying independent regulation-making authority would constitute a significant institutional overreach, blurring the line between enforcement and law-making in a manner that is seriously inconsistent with foundational principles of Canadian administrative law.

As a member of Parliament, I found that a bit concerning. I want to give you an opportunity to expand on this statement.

[Jacques Shore]

Thank you very much.

Absolutely—

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

If you run out of time, I would appreciate a written response, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have one minute.

[Jacques Shore]

Thank you again, Mr. Chang.

It's a question of the fact that, in these circumstances, it is.... Respectfully, this is a Commissioner of Lobbying who works hard, and I know that she has significant responsibilities, so I applaud her. However, at the same time, I also recognize the deep roots in common law and in administrative law that those who are involved in enforcing legislation do not make the regulations. I believe it is extremely important for that to be addressed by the Governor in Council and through consultations within government. You wouldn't expect someone to create new rules on their own and then, essentially, enforce them.

The kinds of issues we're talking about do have significant dollars-and-cents values, aside from the fact that they may very well reduce the amount of conversation, communication, with government. This is even more the case when we're looking at these issues. This is why I say that it cannot be left to a commissioner of lobbying, as it wouldn't be left to other commissioners to take on rules and responsibilities that they simply wish to take on without engaging properly with the legislature or with the appropriate elected officials who are involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Shore. That concludes the time for this first panel.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of you for appearing. As always, if there's something you think about on the way home that you feel you should have said today, or if you have a question that perhaps wasn't answered, feel free to submit that to the clerk in both official languages.

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes and—

[Jacques Shore]

Thank you. It was truly a privilege to be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

We're going to suspend. We'll come back for the next panel in a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Welcome back for the second hour.

Before I introduce our witnesses, I want to remind them that committee members may ask questions in English and French. We try to give interpretation a bit of time, so take a moment to listen completely to what is being said before you respond.

For the second hour today, I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

As an individual present before us, we have Kyle Larkin, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Meat Council.

Online, we have Jodene Baker, vice-president of research, advocacy and external relations for Imagine Canada.

Mr. Larkin, welcome to committee again. I think you were here a few years back for a lobbying study. You have up to five minutes for your opening statement. Go ahead, sir.