Information & Ethics Committee on June 4th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 45 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 its statutory review of the Lobbying Act.

Before I introduce our witnesses, I will remind them, as I always do, that committee members may ask questions in French and English. If you need interpretation, take a moment to prepare the earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance, in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions. In some cases, there is a bit of a delay with interpretation. Just wait until the interpreters are finished.

For our first hour today, I'd like to welcome, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Brian Gear, executive director of policy, planning and performance, priorities and planning sector; and Peter Ross, director, policy, planning and liaison, priorities and planning sector.

Welcome, both of you, to committee.

I believe Mr. Gear is going to provide the opening statement of up to five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Brian Gear, Executive Director, Policy, Planning and Performance, Priorities and Planning Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure for me and my colleague Peter Ross to join the committee to contribute to the review of the Lobbying Act.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has been closely monitoring the committee's important and timely work. We welcome the different perspectives and recommendations on the Lobbying Act that have been shared with the committee by the Commissioner of Lobbying, her provincial counterparts, expert witnesses, and stakeholders from the private sector and civil society.

I would like to begin by speaking to the mandate of the President of the Treasury Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat.

As members know, the President of the Treasury Board is the minister responsible for the Lobbying Act. That means the president is responsible for bringing forward any amendments to the act or its regulations on behalf of the government. The Treasury Board Secretariat supports the president in fulfilling these responsibilities. This includes providing policy analysis and advice on any recommendations to update the act.

The TBS is not responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Lobbying Act or for providing expert guidance on the act. The Commissioner of Lobbying is responsible for administering and overseeing compliance with the Lobbying Act. She also has the mandate to interpret the act and to provide guidance on its application. Because of this, I am limited in my ability to comment on matters that fall under the mandate of the commissioner, such as how to comply with the Lobbying Act in certain situations.

The Lobbying Act ensures that Canadians know who is lobbying their elected representatives and other government officials, and on what topics. The act works alongside the other parts of the integrity framework, such as the Conflict of Interest Act, to uphold public trust in government decisions.

While the act came into force in 2008, federal lobbying has been regulated since 1989. The purpose of the federal lobbying regime has always been to advance two important public interests: the transparency of lobbying activities on the one hand, and free and open access to government on the other.

In this regard, the governing principles set out in the Lobbying Act's preamble affirm that the public has a right to know who is engaged in lobbying activities and that lobbying is a legitimate activity that should not be impeded. That is why the act's core registration and reporting rules are intended to ensure transparency without creating undue administrative burden.

The committee has heard a diverse range of views on how to ensure that the Lobbying Act continues to meet its objectives. The TBS is closely examining the recommendations that have been shared by the commissioner, stakeholders and experts. The government also looks forward to receiving the committee's report resulting from this review of the Lobbying Act.

I would like to thank the committee once again for inviting us here today. We're happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Gear.

We're going to start our first six-minute round with Mr. Barrett.

Go ahead, sir.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Does the government believe that the current definition of lobbying is adequate based on the activities in the year 2026?

[Brian Gear]

The Lobbying Act is a fairly robust framework in the way that it has been set up. There is probably a reason that there has not been a significant change made to the legislation since 2008. Obviously, there have been a number of changes with respect to the expectations of Canadians around transparency, technologies and the use of social media, which certainly would necessitate considering updates that could be made to the act. However, overall, the Lobbying Act, along with the other parts of the integrity framework that are in place, is relatively sound.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

What changes are your department and the government making to improve transparency both on access to information and on lobbying communications?

[Brian Gear]

I know there are consultations under way on the Access to Information Act that are being undertaken by another part of the Treasury Board Secretariat right now. They're looking to modernize the act in that respect.

In terms of lobbying communications, we are obviously watching very closely the review that's being undertaken by the committee, and we certainly look forward to any advice on how the act can be modernized.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

How does the Treasury Board assess compliance and enforcement challenges as the act currently exists?

[Brian Gear]

We're not responsible for the enforcement of the act or for compliance. We certainly rely on the commissioner, as the committee has heard, in terms of her take on how the act has been enforced to date and on any challenges that she faces in that regard.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

So the assessment or opinion of the commissioner is accepted wholly by the minister and by the department.

[Brian Gear]

No, I would not say that. I would say that the input the commissioner has provided is obviously extremely valuable. We value the opinions and information that she has shared in terms of how she sees the administration of the act.

One thing to know about the Lobbying Act, as I pointed out in my opening statement, is that there are trade-offs to be made in terms of transparency and access to public office holders and the administrative burden that is caused by it. Obviously, a decision needs to be made on what the appropriate trade-off is between those two principles in terms of the right approach.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

What gaps do you think exist in the reporting requirements that limit public confidence in this as an effective tool to ensure transparency in government?

[Brian Gear]

A lot of the issues that have been raised by the witnesses who have come in front of the committee indicate that there is the potential for increased transparency in a number of different regards. With a lot of the questions about the treatment of in-house lobbyists versus consulting lobbyists, I think there are some questions to re-examine to see whether the rationale that was in place in 2008, when the legislation was originally brought in, is still valid in today's world.

Again, we certainly would value the advice of the committee. We have benefited from hearing the testimony of the witnesses in this review to help educate us on what the right approach would be going forward.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Is the Treasury Board Secretariat of the opinion that the administrative burden on consulting firms and lobbyists who are subject to the act is now too onerous for them?

[Brian Gear]

Obviously, administrative burden is a key consideration in terms of what needs to be done. Ultimately, the appropriate balance between transparency and the administrative burden is a policy decision.

We are taking note of what different stakeholder groups are saying about the administrative burden they face, as well as what they anticipate facing if some of the commissioner's recommendations are to be accepted and implemented.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Has the TBS changed its position on the administrative burden since the last time a review was undertaken?

[Brian Gear]

It's hard for me to comment on what the position of TBS was at the time of the last review. That was 14 years ago. I wasn't in the chair at that time.

What I will say is that administrative burden is an important consideration in a lot of the work the Treasury Board Secretariat is currently undertaking. Obviously, the President of the Treasury Board has been leading a regulatory red tape review, for example, looking at ways to make things easier for business in a number of different regards. That's definitely a priority for the department and for the president, and something that we will take into consideration.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses and thank them very much for being with us today.

I will now turn to them.

Can you explain why the act makes a distinction between in-house and consultant lobbyists?

What factors should the committee bear in mind when considering whether to adopt a default registration model or stick to the current framework?

[Brian Gear]

Thank you for the question.

The distinction is related to the responsibility that in-house lobbyists have to corporations and businesses.

We are one of the few regimes in the world that include in-house lobbyists in a lobbying regime, so we have gone a lot farther than most regimes that look only at consultant lobbyists.

The reason there are some distinctions is that within the whole population of in-house lobbyists, there are a lot of different types of people. For example, we could be talking about small business owners, we could be talking about heads of charitable organizations or we could be talking about CEOs of major corporations and major multinational corporations.

One of the beauties of the Lobbying Act is that it has such a broad scope, and it's very comprehensive in its reach in terms of capturing both in-house and consultant lobbyists. There are roughly 9,000 consultants currently registered within the current regime, which is very significant, I would say, but it's hard to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach for all of the lobbyists within that population. That's why the approach in the legislation was adopted the way it was.

Absolutely, it's time to take a look at it to see how it works and whether there are opportunities for improvement within the current circumstances, but overall, I think that explains the rationale behind the approach that's been part of the legislation.

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

Earlier, my colleague talked about transparency. How can we strengthen the transparency of the regime while preserving an open and effective dialogue between public policy-makers and stakeholders?

[Brian Gear]

Those two principles, transparency and access to government officials, are very important. Those are the foundations of the act.

In terms of some of the recommendations that have been put forward, there are opportunities for increasing transparency, and they need to be looked at carefully to understand what all the different considerations and implications would be. For example, a lot of the recommendations that have been put forward by the commissioner have effects on each other, and they compound the different impacts that would be hitting the lobbyist population. We would definitely need to carefully consider what the cumulative effect of the administrative burden would be in moving forward in certain regards if we wanted to try to increase transparency.

The other thing is that we need to be very mindful of what the value of additional measures would be for increasing transparency, looking at that information carefully to see, as the saying in English goes, whether the juice is worth the squeeze. Would the value of that additional information really be worth the cost of implementation and the potential administrative burden for lobbyists?

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

In your opinion, what elements of the current regime are working well and should be preserved as part of this modernization?

[Brian Gear]

That's a good question.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, appeared before this committee recently to discuss its observations on the regime in Canada.

The OECD was very complimentary about the lobbying regime we have in place when they were comparing it to other regimes in other jurisdictions.

Overall, as I said, we have a fairly robust regime. It is very comprehensive in terms of its scope and the reporting that is done. I believe the commissioner reported that roughly 30,000 communication reports were filed last year, which provide a lot of transparency.

There's a lot being accomplished that is very helpful for transparency, but there are always opportunities for improvement, and this review is very timely to help look at what those opportunities may be.