The committee’s hearings on the statutory review of the Lobbying Act have been dominated by a fundamental disagreement over the appropriate registration threshold. Multiple witnesses, including the Commissioner of Lobbying and representatives from Quebec and Ontario, argued that the current “significant part of duties” test is unworkable and should be eliminated or replaced with a clear, measurable standard. Academic witnesses and the Ontario Integrity Commissioner supported registration by default or a fixed-hour threshold, while industry groups such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Meat Council, and Imagine Canada warned that lowering the threshold to eight hours or adopting default registration would disproportionately burden small businesses, non-profits, and volunteer-run organizations. The Treasury Board Secretariat acknowledged the need for balance, noting that even leading jurisdictions like British Columbia include exceptions for small organizations.

A second recurring theme has been the adequacy of enforcement and compliance tools under the current Act. The Commissioner of Lobbying and the RCMP both testified that the current system relies too heavily on criminal penalties, which are difficult to apply to minor infractions. The Commissioner recommended a spectrum of administrative monetary penalties and temporary lobbying bans, a view supported by several academic and provincial witnesses. In contrast, Democracy Watch argued that enforcement has been “negligently bad,” alleging thousands of unaddressed violations, while other witnesses, including former MP Joe Jordan and the Government Relations Institute of Canada, maintained that the system is working well and cautioned against over-regulation that could chill legitimate democratic engagement.

The committee has also heard significant debate on the scope of the Act, particularly regarding communications that should be reportable. Witnesses disagreed on whether to expand reporting to include all communications with designated public office holders or only those that are oral and pre-arranged. The Commissioner of Lobbying and some academics supported broader reporting, while industry representatives argued this would create an administrative burden and capture unintended interactions. Concerns were also raised about gaps in the Act, including the failure to capture lobbying related to government contracts and the treatment of board members as employees, which witnesses warned could deter volunteer participation.

Outside the Lobbying Act review, the committee has dealt with several other matters that reflect ongoing tensions around transparency and accountability. The committee examined a potential conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, who testified that he voluntarily implemented a screen after a close contact received a job offer from Alto, the high-speed rail Crown corporation. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner confirmed there was no conflict because the minister has no authority over Alto. Separately, the committee debated motions related to the Prime Minister’s conflict of interest screen, with Conservative members seeking detailed quarterly reports on its application and Liberal members arguing the existing regime is sufficient. The committee also heard from the Information and Privacy Commissioners, who both called for modernized legislation and independent funding mechanisms, citing rising complaint volumes and institutional delays.