Information & Ethics Committee on June 1st, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 44 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.

Before I introduce the witnesses, I'd like to remind you that committee members may ask questions in either English or French. If you need interpretation, take a moment to listen to the entirety of the question before responding, because sometimes that affects the time allotted for questions. I try to be as fair as I can. If there is a question that needs to be answered, I'll extend the time if I have to.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for today. As individuals, we have Jacques J.M. Shore, who is a partner at Gowling WLG, and Suzanne Sabourin, legal counsel at Gowling WLG.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we have Christina Santini, who is the director of national affairs.

I want to welcome you all to committee.

Ms. Sabourin, you have five minutes for an opening statement.

[Suzanne Sabourin, Legal Counsel, Gowling WLG, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

It is an honour to address you as part of the very important statutory review of the Lobbying Act. I'm accompanied by my colleague Jacques Shore. My testimony today represents my own point of view, and not that of my law firm, my clients or any third party.

I was a salaried lobbyist and I am now a consultant lobbyist. As a public law attorney, I advise businesses and non-profit organizations on lobbying laws at the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal levels.

I work at the intersection of conflicts of interest, ethics, election lobbying and the connections between the Lobbying Act and the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act.

The scope of the Lobbying Act is very broad. The changes proposed by the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada must be evaluated to balance genuine transparency with accessibility, openness and the democratic participation intended by the act.

I will now talk about the proposed changes.

First, I have no objection to default registration being the standard established by law. In my view, any change to the registration threshold must be made by Parliament, not through an administrative directive from the commissioner.

The changes made in 2023 to the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct raise similar concerns. The code treats sponsorship of public forums in the same way as the rules on low-value gifts and low-value hospitality, which risks stifling legitimate dialogue. I must admit that I have taken an in-depth look at the subject over the past two years.

These limits would hinder the essential dialogue in public forums where various stakeholders from the public, private, academic and community sectors debate policy. Rather than limiting undue influence, the rather strict limits risk reducing transparency.

In my opinion, the right approach would be to prioritize transparency through responsible and clear standards, while avoiding restrictions on legitimate engagement, provided that everything is disclosed under simple guidelines and following public consultation. The exclusion provided for in the act concerning briefs submitted to parliamentary committees offers a model to follow.

Second, the reforms impose a heavy administrative burden that affects all stakeholders, not just large companies with multiple lobbying mandates. It is not enough to deal with the compliance officers of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada or with the compliance officers of Carrefour Lobby Québec, and so on, to complete and submit a declaration to the public registry. Compliance requires an ongoing monitoring process to account for internal changes, update disclosures and reconcile disclosures with monthly communication reports in the prescribed format and by deadlines prescribed by the act.

All my clients recognize the importance of the Lobbying Act and comply with it.

As Imagine Canada's brief states, the non-profit sector includes more than 170,000 charities and non-profit organizations, many of which engage with government regarding grants and contributions as part of their work. The reforms must include a reasonable de minimis threshold to avoid imposing disproportionate compliance burdens on routine administrative interactions. Otherwise, organizations would be subject to the same registration and reporting obligations as those seeking to obtain major government contracts or policy changes. This would create an incongruous result that would not reflect the relative importance of the underlying activity.

Third, several reforms raise questions of procedural fairness and limits on administrative power.

British Columbia's Lobbyists Transparency Act is a model for additional compliance measures as it sets out clear procedural steps, legal protections for the administrative process, public guidelines and a timeline for judicial review.

Furthermore, granting the commissioner independent regulatory authority is incompatible with parliamentary accountability and the fundamental principles of Canadian administrative law. As you know, those who enforce the law should not also make it.

Lastly, several of the reforms would create a super-registry that would encompass too many things and obscure important interactions for public accountability rather than clarify them, which could harm democratic governance rather than strengthen it.

For example, including director generals as designated public office holders would significantly broaden the disclosure framework and post-employment restrictions, which would dilute the targeted oversight of senior officials.

Requiring monthly communication reports for all lobbying with public office holders, such as a Crown minister, whether oral, written, informal or pre-arranged, is fundamentally impractical. This eliminates room for reasonable judgment by office holders who are elected, appointed and recruited precisely because they are expected to exercise informed discretionary power in the public interest, and in doing so, it risks overwhelming the system with low-value disclosures that obscure significant regulatory activity.

Lastly, requiring the disclosure of all lobbyists present at meetings imposes a heavy compliance burden while diverting attention from the main lobbying officials. As our report points out, a system that tracks everything tracks nothing particularly significant. The current system has struck the right balance.

With that, I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Sabourin. Your statement was a little over five minutes. I'll therefore ask Mr. Shore if he can shorten his remarks a bit and maybe stick to three minutes.

[Jacques Shore, partner, Gowling WLG, As an Individual]

I'll see if it's possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Shore, go ahead with your statement, please.

[Jacques Shore]

Thank you very much. I made sure that I tightened as much as possible in terms of the points.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You need to tighten it a little more.

[Jacques Shore]

I'll talk quickly. How's that?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you. We have copies of your declarations.

[Jacques Shore]

I've added a bit more.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

It is truly a great privilege to be here before you this afternoon.

For three decades, I have emphasized the importance of transparency in dealing with government. Throughout my professional practice of law, I've had the honour of working with elected parliamentarians and with appointed public office holders both as legal counsel to government and in representing my clients on matters of law and public policy as legal counsel in addition to advising clients on their legal obligations under Canada's lobbying regimes.

I also note that I previously appeared before a parliamentary subcommittee in October 1994, when proposed amendments to that lobbyist registration framework were under consideration. I drew on my experience with a number of things that I had done in government and in my early days of practice. There's no question that, while many years have passed, new and innovative ideas for government remain important, and my deep commitment to the foundational principles of transparency in our democratic process remains the same.

Let me begin with a preliminary observation concerning solicitor-client privilege. This issue arises in relation to several of the commissioner's recommendations pertaining to expanded disclosure obligations, including those concerning the disclosure of funding arrangements that support lobbying activities and reporting communications with designated public office holders regarding the awarding of contracts. Canada's lobbying framework has long recognized the critical role of legal counsel and the protection of confidential communications. It is essential to recall that solicitor-client privilege exists to protect the client, not the lawyer.

When a client consents to disclosure, the issue does not arise; however, in the absence of such consent, compelled disclosure will undermine the privilege itself. This risk and the slippery slope of interfering with this recognized historical privilege should be carefully considered.

In that context, I would suggest that the committee consider a mechanism similar to the one that exists in Quebec, allowing, on an exceptional basis, for a temporary deferral of public disclosure in cases involving highly sensitive or commercially confidential information in which premature disclosure could result in significant harm. This type of deferral should be limited to cases in which there really is an important, legitimate public and economic interest involved that should not be jeopardized.

More broadly, I would submit that our lobbying regime should reflect a baseline level of trust in the integrity and judgment of public office holders and those speaking to government. A system premised on excessive disclosure because of an underlying or perceived mistrust may discourage engagement and, in so doing, undermine the public benefit and the very democratic process it seeks to protect.

It is also important to view the lobbying regime within the broader framework of accountability measures, including conflict of interest rules applicable to public office holders and those who deal with government officials to advance legitimate objectives and nation-building exercises. I want to emphasize that transparency is one component of a larger system of integrity and should not be treated as an absolute. Inculcating a common purpose to do good in the context of economic growth and nation building should also be viewed as a key societal goal.

I would also emphasize the importance of respecting institutional roles. In our report, we put it very clearly. While I certainly respect the Commissioner of Lobbying, she should not be granted the opportunity to create independent regulation-making authority. This is essentially up to Parliament and up to the Governor in Council to address; otherwise, it would be inconsistent with Canadian administrative law.

Finally, I would vigorously caution that this exercise should not lead to the expansion of the categories of designated public office holders. I respectfully believe such expansion will impose unnecessary burdens and will discourage important interaction and valuable dialogue with officials to test or to consider new ideas before raising them further at more senior or political levels of government. It may also extend to post-employment restrictions to individuals in ways that would discourage people from wishing to work in government, especially those who intend to engage in public service not for their full careers but for limited periods of time.

That said, thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Shore.

I'll ensure that you get a participation ribbon for that one, because you're under five minutes, which is perfect. Thank you.

Ms. Santini from the CFIB, go ahead with your opening statement.

[Christina Santini, Director, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I sincerely thank the committee for this kind invitation.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, represents more than 103,000 small and medium-sized business owners across all sectors of the economy and in all regions of Canada. More than 52% of our members have nine employees or fewer. This means that these are truly smaller businesses.

Small business owners work an average of 54 hours a week and wear many hats, managing staff, sales and finances while serving their communities as your local shops, your local service providers and your local employers. They are remunerated by their business either as an employee or as a shareholder.

In July 2025, the Commissioner of Lobbying issued an interpretation bulletin, which lowered the registration threshold for organizations and corporations from 32 hours per month to eight hours in any rolling four-week period. The new threshold and proposals to move toward registration by default that would encompass all planned and unplanned written or oral registrable activity is concerning.

Why? These changes risk unintentionally capturing ordinary small business owners as lobbyists. From time to time, a small business owner contacts their federal MP or minister to raise concerns and make recommendations relating to policies that affect their business, or they apply for financial supports in relation to their business. They now need to register if they and/or their employees have collectively spent more than eight hours researching, drafting and sending these communications.

We are already hearing from business owners who are surprised to learn that writing to their MPs or applying for support programs could require them to register. They do not see themselves as lobbyists. They are simply trying to run their business. They believe they are raising concerns as constituents about government policy that affects their business.

One practical measure that would help reduce red tape on small businesses would be to exclude time spent applying for grants, contributions and other financial benefits from the registration threshold, particularly when there is a public, rules-based, transparent process. Applying to such programs is not an attempt to influence decisions. It is participation in a process created by government.

While we support the idea of transparency, we also caution about how it is sought. Thus, CFIB recommends not pursuing registration by default and legislating the threshold—specifically, the former 32-hour threshold. Changes to this threshold should be reviewed and debated by the House of Commons and the Senate and not left to the purview of the commissioner.

Further, a requirement should be that only planned communications organized for the purpose of influencing policy and procurement decisions are reported—not unintended or haphazard meetings at a community barbecue, for example, that weren't planned but where certain topics may be raised. We also support the suggestion of excluding the time spent preparing and submitting requests for grants and contributions when they're part of a government process.

We would also suggest or recommend that clarity be provided to stakeholders so they could properly assess the potential impacts of some of the other recommendations made by the Commissioner of Lobbying. For example, how would “grassroots lobbying” be defined and what would it include: surveys, petitions, letters or communiqués?

We are regularly told that MPs want to hear directly from small business owners in their ridings. These changes and the associated administrative burden risk discouraging that engagement. Consequently, those with the time and the resources to navigate administrative requirements will be heard. Others may opt to be silent. Transparency should shed the light on organized lobbying, not create barriers between small business owners and their elected representatives.

Thank you. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Santini.

Before we begin, I'm going to ask members to direct their questions to a specific person so that there's no delay.

We're going to start with you, Mr. Cooper, for six minutes. Go ahead, sir.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to direct my questions to Madame Sabourin or Mr. Shore, whoever wishes to answer.

I've read your fairly comprehensive brief. I want to ask you some questions about recommendation 12 of the lobbying commissioner with respect to reporting.

You state in your brief that “the current framework [that] focuses reporting requirements on oral and arranged communications...appropriately balances transparency objectives with the practical realities of governance” and that the recommendations of the lobbying commissioner with respect to reporting are “fundamentally impractical”. You said that in your brief, and you said that in your testimony today.

Now, the lobbying commissioner has made a number of recommendations around reporting, but in recommendation 12 specifically it looks pretty straightforward to me.

It is simply that “communications...oral [and] written” would be captured and that what would need to be registered is that a communication in respect of what, in substance, is lobbying took place, as opposed to “who initiated” it—whether it be the lobbyist or a public office holder. For a public office holder who initiates the communication, what is burdensome about having to report that?

[Suzanne Sabourin]

It's not the fact that a public office holder initiates the communication. We are arguing that when you lump in the fact that the communication does not need to be pre-arranged or does not need to be organized, it creates a lot of difficulties. First, I think you all know that the definition of lobbying is rather wide. It's that you're denying the office holder, whether it be a public office holder or the designated public office holder, exercising his or her own discretion to determine if this is lobbying, and then you complicate the matter in terms of what interactions.... A simple meeting at a barbecue—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

There are a few pieces to this, so let's start with the first piece, which is who initiated it. Do you think it is reasonable to require that it be reported on if, for example, what in substance amounts to lobbying is initiated by a public office holder, yes or no?

[Suzanne Sabourin]

Go ahead, Mr. Shore.

[Jacques Shore]

It really gets down to what the role and the duty of a public office holder is. A lot of that also has to do with being able to gather information, weigh issues and understand what they are. If you start creating a real formality to the engagement with the public, I think it adds new layers to it. That public officer, very generally.... It's not a designated public office holder, but let's say it's someone at the DG level. Those are important positions—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

It seems to me to be rather an artificial test on which to base whether to report or not report who initiated the communication. It seems to me that what is material is not who initiated the communication but what the substance of the communication is. Is that not fair?

[Jacques Shore]

My sense is that it is important who initiates the communication for a particular purpose. Under the Lobbying Act, those individuals or those who wish to engage to communicate.... Remember, the previous act made reference to “influence”, and that was deleted to simply make it “communicate”. I think that's strong enough in terms of who out there is communicating or addressing issues with government officials for a particular purpose. That's where I would draw the line.

I also tend to think, as someone who worked in government before, that I would not want to find myself having to think that I have to set out every conversation I have in a day, when I'm reaching out to someone in the public to talk to them about something I'm working on to help me engage in policy.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Let's face it: Lobbyists are sophisticated. They know the lay of the land. They know Ottawa. They know where to find public office holders. Why, for example, should a lobbyist get a free pass from registering or reporting a communication with a public office holder at a reception or at an airport lounge? Lobbying is lobbying.

[Jacques Shore]

Mr. Cooper, this is where perhaps, with great respect, I disagree. Not all lobbyists are sophisticated professionals. Lobbyists are those who are identified as having communication with the government. That could be the person who basically meets for the first time someone who wants to address an issue that comes up with a small business they have or whatever. They're not a lobbyist, but they're bringing up particular issues of importance to them.

It's interesting. On occasion—rarely, but often enough—I find myself, when I'm representing a client's issue that may deal with a policy, a change in legislation or whatever...but I'm a lawyer who has that obligation in the context of lobbying. There's a difference as to who it is. I don't think we should make it difficult for them by imagining that they are so sophisticated that they'll know exactly what to do. This may make them quiet so that they don't engage in the conversation, because they know they have to do something, but they just don't know what.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Shore and Mr. Cooper,

Before I go to Madame Lapointe.... You're all experienced. You've probably been at committees before. You know the members are fighting for their time for five or six minutes, so sometimes they cut you off. There's no disrespect intended with that. They're trying to make their point as well.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses.

Everything you've been saying so far is very interesting. Basically, it's not that simple to have the perfect definition to define what a lobbyist is or to know when one is engaging in lobbying. We're talking about small and medium enterprises. People do want to talk to their MPs about problems they're facing, but they wonder whether or not they are engaging in lobbying. I understand very well what you're saying. I was an entrepreneur before going into politics. It's a nuance that's difficult to grasp.

I've looked at both of your résumés and biographies, and I must say, they're impressive. It's very important for our committee to receive witnesses and experts, in particular.

Could you help the committee understand how your experience with the Lobbying Act and lobbying in general truly enables you to testify as experts today?

[Suzanne Sabourin]

I'll answer first.

It's obvious that I wasn't born yesterday. I started my career in the field of government relations at the time when Prime Minister Mulroney introduced the first Lobbyists Registration Act. I received briefing sessions from his office.

Over the years, as a salaried lobbyist and as a consultant lobbyist, I've always worked on the files. Now, I must say that I'm fortunate to work with several stakeholders in the private sector as well as with members of what is called civil society, that is, members of the non-profit sector. Every day, I work on lobbying issues at the federal, provincial, municipal, or territorial level.

As I've stated to you, we're beginning to look at the implications of the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act. This is my experience; this is my practice. It's what I live and hear every day. I think constantly about these subjects. I communicate frequently with compliance officers across Canada, including those at the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, to try to break down issues, understand complex issues, and come up with potential solutions when there's a problem to solve. That's my job.