Information & Ethics Committee on June 8th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead, you have five minutes, and then we're going to go to Mr. Chang after that.

We're getting to close to where we should be for the first hour, so I'm going to go with Mr. Cooper, and then Mr. Chang. I'm going to also invite Mr. Boucher and Mr. Ali to stick around if they want to for part of the second hour, as we switch over. Maybe there are some additional questions. If you're capable of doing that, then I'll invite you to do that as well, but we'll see where we get here.

Okay, Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Ali, you stated in your opening statement that Canada has one of the most transparent lobbying registration regimes in the world. I think that's probably true, but it's not to say that it is fully transparent or is at where it should be at. I would note that in the case of what is reportable in terms of lobbying activities, it applies only to oral communications arranged in advance and initiated by a lobbyist. What is transparent about that?

[Muhammad Ali]

The reason that we recommend not to have everything filed—for example, letters and emails—is that you, as the elected official, or a government official in the minister's office, should have the right to ask, “Do I want to meet with this person or not?” I say that because, if you were to file, send letters or emails, as in one example—

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

I understand what you're saying, but it's very narrow. It's only oral communications, not written or other communications. It's only when it's initiated by the lobbyist—not someone else—and only when it is, of course, to a designated public office holder.

In other words, what is allowed is secret lobbying. If the lobbying occurs on a street corner, as opposed to in the member of Parliament's office, and if it was initiated by no one, then it's not reportable, and therefore it's secret.

[Muhammad Ali]

For that example of the street, technically the office...the location is simply a question of saying, “We would like to meet, and we can meet here at this moment. Let's chat.” That is an arranged meeting.

Our point is that you are choosing to arrange this meeting. You could still, if someone bumps into you, say, “Actually I don't want to talk to you,” and then move away. You should have the authority to say, “I don't want to engage and meet with you as a lobbyist.”

Whether it's in the office, on the street, at the airport or wherever, as long as you said, “Yep, let's meet. Let's chat,” you've acknowledged that this is an arranged meeting that you are going to have. You could have it at that moment, or you can have it three days later or at some other time.

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

Your recommendation is just to leave it as is, and what I'm putting to you is that this leaves a lot of room for a lot of lobbying that goes on under the radar. I would submit that this is a problem.

Similarly, with respect to registration by default, which is the recommendation of the Lobbying Commissioner, you stated that this would create a burden, particularly for small businesses that engage in a small number of lobbying activities.

There's a very simple solution, and that is to create an exemption. Why not provide a general rule of registration by default with a narrow carve-out, just as is the case in the British Columbia legislation?

[Muhammad Ali]

That's a great question. I would say that we are open to having a discussion. I think consultation is important to industry.

What makes sense to achieve an effective area that creates those exemptions? Organizations, like small businesses, that simply want to talk to their local MP for some basic help on an issue related to the CRA, or whatever it may be, should be allowed to speak to them without being captured by that registry.

Is there a world in which we find that exceptions can be created? We currently believe that, from an hours perspective, this can help determine sustained lobbying. The hours that are allocated include the preparation for it, requesting the meeting, the meeting itself and even a post-meeting debrief. That all fits within the hours allocation.

Any exemption should have some clarity about what that structure of meetings is, which is why we've recommended a return to the status quo, and then we're open to having discussions if the committee recommends changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

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

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ali, your submission includes recommendations regarding post-employment including a cooling-off period for former designated public office holders.

Could you outline the changes you're proposing and the rationale behind them?

[Muhammad Ali]

Our recommendation is that, at the very minimum, we should reduce the hours to fit the parliamentary election cycle of four years. That would bring it closer to international and provincial standards. Most of those cases are actually between six months and two years. We are still at a very high standard.

Part of it is also that the ban itself can be a detriment for experienced private sector individuals to working in government or in the offices of MPs, which could then be captured at some point by the ban. Part of it is also to better align...so that there's clarity with the election cycle. That would also reduce the challenges on the post-employment side.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Based on your review of other jurisdictions, how do they deal with the cooling-off period for former public office holders?

[Muhammad Ali]

Some use two years. I believe the U.K. operates on a two-year cycle in which you cannot meet with ministers or the Prime Minister's office.

There are some provincial examples where the department in which you worked and the Premier's office are restricted. This is because you actually worked with them; you know the policy; and you know the department officials, so achieving that cooling-off period is important. There are different examples in Canada and internationally.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you.

In your submission, you recommend that the proposed amendment to subsections 7(3) and 7(6) of the Lobbying Act apply to paid in-house lobbyists, but not to individuals serving on boards in a volunteer capacity.

Could you elaborate on this distinction?

[Muhammad Ali]

Yes.

Paid board directors are currently required to file as consultant lobbyists, so it's a separate registry entirely. Our recommendation is, for simplicity and transparency, for everyone to be in one registry. If you work for company XYZ, and you're a director who's paid to be on the board, you should be registered as if you're an employee because your advocacy directly benefits that company.

Anyone who's looking at the registry would have to seek a board member to find out whether that board member has registered, so it provides a bit more synergy by incorporating it into one registry.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

From your perspective, how can Parliament ensure that the act promotes transparency and accountability while avoiding unintended consequences that could discourage volunteer participation?

[Muhammad Ali]

I think an important part is to talk to industry. We're happy to collaborate and identify ways to improve it.

I think the Lobbying Act itself has some of our recommendations to help tighten things up so that less has to be left to interpretation by the commissioner, and it can be more black and white within the law, where it should be.

Examples include having a clear definition for “significant part of duties” and “undertaking”—what happens when you need to register for lobbying? There are recommendations that we think could tighten up with some changes by Parliament.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

In your submission, you recommend maintaining the current requirements set forth in sections 6 and 9, and sections 7 and 10 of the Lobbyists Registration Regulations.

Could you explain the rationale for preserving those provisions in their current form?

[Muhammad Ali]

Are you referring to the registrations by default?

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Yes.

[Muhammad Ali]

In terms of the registrations by default, as I was sharing earlier, our view is that there should still be some threshold for organizations that don't fall within the sustained Lobbying Act; they're simply reaching out for help.

The time allocations are for preparation, securing the meeting, debriefing and the meeting itself. Most meetings typically are about 30 minutes, so most of the time, what's allocated is not just being in meetings; it is the preparation that goes into it.

Currently, the interpretation is for eight hours. One meeting could be about eight hours with a combination of preparation, the meeting, a debrief and maybe a follow-up because you say, “Hey, I actually need more information. Come back to me.” In that scenario, you've already achieved over eight hours, so that's unfair to small organizations.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Chang.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Boucher, thank you for being here today.

I'd like to get your opinion on something we haven't really talked about yet.

In its definition of lobbying activities, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development proposes to include all attempts to influence public opinion. Among other things, I can see that this includes grassroots communications, which involve asking the public to write to MPs to influence them on such and such a decision or bill. I would like to know what you think about grassroots communications like that.

Should we pay particular attention to that kind of activity in the definition of lobbying activities?

[Maxime Boucher]

Thank you very much for your question, which is important and complex.

We're talking about direct and indirect lobbying. Of course, when the lobbying isn't with public servants or elected officials, it's indirect lobbying, because it goes through grassroots communication, for example.

From my perspective as a researcher, I believe it can be good to know that election campaigns go beyond political institutions and are conducted externally in society.

It can also be good for the registration records to have information, for example, on the strategies deployed and on the fact that appeals have been made to the public. However, that's still very limited if there isn't any information on the money or efforts that have been invested in those strategies. The same goes for the number of communications.

Certainly, if people know the number of communications that are informal or very formal—organized, as we talked about—but they don't know how much money was invested in them, it's hard to know the impact and the extent to which the company contributed to those strategies and did so seriously. I would say that, yes, it's important to have that information, but that's only one part of it.

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

How could all the information be obtained? Are there conditions or a mechanism that have to be put in place?