The committee met to study Canada’s Lobbying Act, hearing from four witnesses: Maxime Boucher, an academic researcher; Muhammad Ali, representing the Government Relations Institute of Canada; W. Scott Thurlow, a lawyer specializing in lobbying compliance; and Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.
Maxime Boucher, an affiliated researcher at the University of Ottawa, argued that lobbying is normal in a pluralistic democracy but must be regulated to ensure transparency and integrity. He noted that lobbying strategies target the executive branch and key parliamentary actors, and he highlighted a significant limitation: the current system tracks communications but not the amounts spent on lobbying. Boucher supported the lobbying commissioner’s recommendation to improve disclosure of lobbying funding sources, calling it a proportionate way to shed light on resource imbalances without disrupting the act.
Muhammad Ali, representing the Government Relations Institute of Canada, stated that Canada already has one of the world’s most transparent lobbying regimes but acknowledged room for improvement. He recommended that the term “significant part of duties” be defined in legislation, restoring the threshold to 32 hours over four weeks, and that only oral, arranged communications initiated by lobbyists remain reportable, to avoid flooding the registry with low-value filings. Ali disagreed with expanding reporting to all communications or adopting registration by default, arguing these would burden small businesses and reduce meaningful transparency.
W. Scott Thurlow, a lawyer and registrant, emphasized that the Lobbying Act is a disclosure tool and that the registry is effective. He argued that the current five-year ban on lobbying for former designated public office holders is unfairly broad, especially for junior staff, and recommended a sliding scale tied to the election cycle. Thurlow also criticized recent changes to the lobbyists’ code of conduct, saying they imperil constitutional freedoms by discouraging volunteers from campaigning, and he urged Parliament to define key terms like “significant part of duties” and gift limits, rather than leaving them to an officer of Parliament.
Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, called the Lobbying Act and its code “loophole-filled” and enforcement “negligently bad,” alleging that the commissioner has let off almost 20,000 violations since 2018 without naming or penalizing anyone. He urged closing loopholes for unpaid lobbying, lobbying about contracts or enforcement, and communications that are not oral and pre-arranged, and he recommended mandatory penalties for violations. Conacher disagreed with Ali and Thurlow, arguing that their proposals would keep lobbying hidden, and he supported requiring disclosure of all communications, as in British Columbia, with a carve-out for small organizations unless they have done favours for politicians.
The committee also debated a motion by Michael Cooper to report concern that the Liberal government silenced the Privacy Commissioner by denying him witness status during clause-by-clause study of Bill C-22 at the public safety committee. Conservative members argued the bill has serious privacy implications and that the commissioner’s testimony was needed, while Liberal members countered that the commissioner had already submitted a brief and that it is not normal practice for commissioners to appear during clause-by-clause, and they moved to adjourn the debate. A separate motion by Xavier Barsalou-Duval to study links between the Liberal Party and the Canada Truck Operators Association was put on notice.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.