Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss a proposed plan by the federal and British Columbia governments to buy unsold condo units in B.C. using taxpayer money.

This meeting of the committee focused on the review of the Lobbying Act and also included a lengthy discussion about a proposed study on the trucking industry. The main speaker was Dylan Hanley from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), who spoke about how the current interpretation of the Lobbying Act affects sponsored travel for politicians and parliamentary internship programs. He argued that the rules are too strict and go against what Parliament intended, making it difficult for organizations like CIJA to offer valuable educational trips and internships. Mr. Hanley explained that CIJA's sponsored trips to Israel are educational and non-partisan, allowing politicians to learn about complex global issues. However, the Commissioner of Lobbying's interpretation treats these trips as gifts with a low value limit, effectively stopping them. He also discussed how parliamentary internship programs, which Parliament has supported, are also being hindered by the Commissioner's interpretation. He stressed the importance of transparency and public disclosure for these activities, rather than outright bans. Committee members asked Mr. Hanley questions about his concerns. Michael Barrett (Conservative) agreed that transparency is key and asked about the impact on other organizations. Linda Lapointe (Liberal) shared her positive experience on a CIJA trip and asked about the importance of transparent lobbying for community safety programs. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Bloc Québécois) raised concerns about the lack of transparency in lobbying investigations. After Mr. Hanley's testimony, Mr. Barsalou-Duval introduced a motion for the committee to study the links between the Liberal Party of Canada and the Canada Truck Operators Association (CTOA), an organization that supports a controversial trucking model called "Driver Inc." He detailed concerns about the CTOA's lobbying activities, its refusal to provide information, and its close ties to Liberal politicians and donors. He argued that this situation raises serious ethical and transparency questions that the committee should investigate. However, a motion to adjourn the debate on this topic was passed, effectively stopping the discussion. The committee then approved a small budget for a study related to the Minister of Finance and Alto, and voted on several amendments to a different main motion, which ultimately passed as amended. The details of this main motion and its amendments were not fully discussed in the transcript.

The committee met to discuss a possible conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, François-Philippe Champagne, and the high-speed rail project called Alto, where someone close to him works. Minister Champagne explained that he contacted the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner as soon as someone close to him received a job offer from Alto. He said the Commissioner's office told him there was no risk of a conflict of interest and that he didn't need to set up a special process to avoid conflicts. However, the Minister chose to put such a process, called a "screen," in place voluntarily, just to be extra careful. He argued that his actions, including voting on proposed laws related to Alto, were part of his general duties as a committee member and Minister, and therefore did not create a conflict. Opposition committee members questioned why the Minister voted on proposed laws that specifically helped the Alto project, even after he set up his voluntary screen. They were concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially since his spouse is an executive at Alto and there were reports of bonuses for Alto executives. They asked the Minister to share the letter he sent to the Prime Minister about his screen and the Commissioner's response, but he said it was up to the Commissioner to release those documents. Liberal committee members supported the Minister, praising his proactive approach and emphasizing that the Commissioner found no conflict. The Ethics Commissioner, Konrad von Finckenstein, confirmed that his office advised Minister Champagne that there was no conflict of interest. He explained that Alto is a government-owned company that reports to the Minister of Transport, not the Minister of Finance, and that the Minister of Finance has no power over Alto's staff decisions. The Commissioner stated that the Minister's connection to Alto was "too remote" to be a conflict. He also confirmed that his office did not require the Minister's screen and therefore did not publish it, and that his office's advice to Ministers is confidential unless the Minister chooses to make it public. During the meeting, committee members voted on a motion to ask the Minister to release the letter and ethics screen he mentioned, but the motion was defeated. The Commissioner also took the opportunity to suggest that the Conflict of Interest Act, the law that guides these matters, is outdated and needs to be updated to fit today's world.

This committee meeting was supposed to be about the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and a company called Alto, but it actually focused on two main topics: reviewing the proposed Lobbying Act and a motion about the Privacy Commissioner. The committee heard from two experts on lobbying, Maxime Boucher and Muhammad Ali, who shared their thoughts on how the proposed law should be changed. Maxime Boucher, a researcher, said that lobbying is a normal part of democracy, but it needs clear rules to ensure fairness and public trust. He suggested that the law should require lobbyists to share how much money they spend on lobbying efforts. Muhammad Ali, from the Government Relations Institute of Canada, argued that Canada already has strong lobbying rules. He was concerned that proposed changes would make it too hard for small businesses and everyday Canadians to talk to their elected officials. He specifically recommended keeping the rule that only sustained lobbying activity (more than 32 hours over four weeks) needs to be registered, instead of the proposed 8 hours. During the meeting, a committee member, Mr. Cooper, introduced a motion expressing concern that the Privacy Commissioner was not allowed to speak at another committee about a proposed surveillance law (Bill C-22). Other committee members from the Conservative party supported this motion, arguing that the Privacy Commissioner's input was crucial for protecting Canadians' privacy rights. However, Liberal committee members voted to stop the debate on this motion, saying it was not the right place or time to discuss it, and that the Privacy Commissioner had already provided written feedback to the other committee. After the debate on the motion was adjourned, the committee returned to discussing the Lobbying Act. Mr. Ali further explained his recommendations, including keeping the current rules for reporting oral communications that are arranged in advance and initiated by lobbyists, and not adopting a system where everyone has to register by default. He also suggested that the five-year ban on former public officials becoming lobbyists should be shortened. Another expert, W. Scott Thurlow, also spoke, agreeing that the five-year ban is too long and that Parliament, not the lobbying commissioner, should set clear rules for what counts as lobbying. Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch, however, argued that the current law has many loopholes that allow for secret and unethical lobbying, and that the commissioner should have more power to penalize violations.

This committee meeting was a continuation of the review of the Lobbying Act. The committee members heard from Brian Gear and Peter Ross of the Treasury Board Secretariat, who provided information about the act and the role of the Treasury Board. They discussed the balance between transparency in lobbying and the administrative burden it places on lobbyists. Key speakers included Brian Gear, who explained that the Treasury Board Secretariat supports the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for the Lobbying Act. He clarified that their role is to provide policy analysis and advice, not to administer or enforce the act, which is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Lobbying. Committee members asked about the adequacy of the current definition of lobbying, the distinction between in-house and consultant lobbyists, and ways to strengthen transparency while maintaining open dialogue with government officials. Committee members also raised concerns about the administrative burden on lobbyists and whether the act's regulations are too restrictive. They discussed the Commissioner of Lobbying's recommendations, such as default registration for in-house lobbyists and increased powers for her office, including immunity and administrative monetary penalties. The Treasury Board officials noted that Canada's lobbying regime is considered robust internationally but acknowledged opportunities for modernization. No decisions were made regarding changes to the Lobbying Act during this meeting. However, the committee agreed to invite the President of the Treasury Board and additional Treasury Board Secretariat officials to appear for further discussion on the Lobbying Act. The committee also passed a motion to undertake a study on the Privacy Act, with a maximum of eight meetings, and to invite all provincial and territorial privacy commissioners to testify. A separate motion was introduced to study a $200-million agreement between the Department of National Defence and Maritime Launch Services, with several ministers and company officials proposed as witnesses.

This meeting of the committee focused on reviewing the proposed law about lobbying. The committee heard from several experts and organizations about how the rules for lobbyists should work, especially concerning transparency and how easy it is for everyday people and smaller groups to talk to the government. Key speakers included legal experts Suzanne Sabourin and Jacques Shore, who both argued that while transparency is important, some proposed changes would make the rules too complicated. They worried that this would discourage people from engaging with the government. Christina Santini from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) also spoke, emphasizing that small business owners are concerned about being accidentally labeled as lobbyists just for talking to their local politicians about their businesses. She recommended keeping the old rule of 32 hours per month for lobbying activity, rather than the new 8-hour rule, and excluding time spent applying for government grants from counting as lobbying. Later, Kyle Larkin from the Canadian Meat Council and Jodene Baker from Imagine Canada also shared their views. Mr. Larkin expressed concerns that proposed changes, like counting volunteer board members as lobbyists or requiring disclosure of all funding, would create too much paperwork and discourage participation from non-profit groups. Ms. Baker agreed, highlighting that many non-profits have limited staff who juggle many tasks, and overly strict lobbying rules would take away from their ability to deliver services and provide valuable community insights to the government. Committee members asked about the balance between transparency and making it easy for people to talk to their elected officials. There was discussion about whether the Commissioner of Lobbying should have more power to make rules or if Parliament should be the one to decide these changes. The experts generally agreed that Parliament should set the rules and that current proposals risk making the system too burdensome, potentially reducing important public dialogue rather than improving it. No specific decisions were made, but the committee gathered diverse perspectives to consider for future changes to the lobbying law.

This committee meeting was primarily a continuation of a heated debate about a proposed motion and amendments regarding the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen and the transparency of its application. Conservative committee members Gabriel Hardy and Michael Cooper strongly argued for greater transparency, pushing for a sub-amendment that would require the Privy Council Office (PCO) to provide quarterly reports detailing every time an assessment was made about the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, including when it was decided *not* to apply the screen. They expressed concerns about potential conflicts of interest given the Prime Minister's investments and criticized what they saw as loopholes in the current screen and the administration of it by staff who report directly to the Prime Minister. They accused the Liberal committee members of resisting transparency and wasting time by blocking their efforts. Liberal committee members Fares Al Soud and Linda Lapointe opposed the sub-amendment, arguing that the existing system is rigorous and that the proposed changes would create unnecessary parallel processes. They stated that the committee should move on to other important work, such as studies on artificial intelligence and the Privacy Act, and accused the Conservative members of grandstanding and wasting the committee's time with lengthy speeches. Ms. Lapointe expressed confidence in the senior officials, Michael Sabia and Marc-André Blanchard, who administer the screen. The Bloc Québécois committee member, Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, expressed frustration with the ongoing partisan debate and the lack of progress, highlighting public cynicism about ethics in politics. She questioned why the Prime Minister's investments were only partially covered by the screen. No decisions were made on the sub-amendment, as the debate was adjourned. The Chair indicated that the next meeting would focus on the lobbying report.

The committee discussed scheduling a meeting with the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The committee had previously voted to invite both to appear during the week of May 25, 2026, to discuss the minister's connection to Alto and his claims of recusal from related decisions. However, the minister stated he could only appear on June 11, while the Ethics Commissioner confirmed availability for May 25. Key speakers included committee members Michael Barrett and Michael Cooper (Conservatives), and Leslie Church and Fares Al Soud (Liberals). Conservative members expressed strong disappointment and frustration that the minister was not honoring the committee's original request to appear on May 25, viewing it as an attempt to avoid accountability for alleged conflicts of interest related to Alto. They highlighted the importance of having both the minister and the Ethics Commissioner appear together to maintain the integrity of the study. Liberal members, particularly Ms. Church, argued that the minister was making efforts to be accountable by appearing at other committees and that scheduling changes are sometimes necessary due to state business. They suggested accepting the June 11 date for both appearances. After much debate, the committee agreed to reschedule the appearance of both the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for June 11. The committee also continued its discussion on a proposed law regarding the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen. A subamendment was passed to remove a section of an earlier amendment. Another amendment was proposed by Ms. Chagger, which led to further debate. Mr. Barrett then proposed a subamendment to Ms. Chagger's amendment, aiming to include information on when the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen was *not* applied, in addition to when it was. This subamendment was still under discussion when the meeting adjourned.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the budget plans for several offices, including the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Privacy Commissioner. Nancy Bélanger, the Commissioner of Lobbying, talked about her office's budget and the need for changes to the proposed law on lobbying to make it simpler and easier to follow. She also mentioned the challenges of the current funding model for agents of Parliament, saying it undermines their independence. Committee members questioned her about enforcement, audits, and the number of cases referred to the RCMP. Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, discussed his office's budget and the importance of protecting privacy in a world of rapidly changing technology. He highlighted a recent investigation into OpenAI's ChatGPT and the need for stronger privacy laws. He also mentioned the increase in complaints received by his office and the challenges of limited resources. Committee members asked about age verification on social media platforms, the use of AI in his office, and the balance between privacy and efficient government services. Overall, both commissioners emphasized the need for updated laws and resources to effectively carry out their mandates in a rapidly changing digital world. The committee approved the budget requests from the various offices, but the votes were carried on division, indicating some disagreement among committee members. No specific next steps were identified beyond the ongoing review of the proposed law and the Privacy Act.

The Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee met to discuss the budget for 2026-27 for several offices, including the Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Caroline Maynard, the Information Commissioner, spoke about her office's budget and the challenges of responding to the increasing number of access to information requests. She noted that many requests are not answered within the required time, and this is made worse by government spending cuts. She also talked about the need to update the Access to Information Act and make sure it strengthens the public's right to know. Konrad von Finckenstein, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, discussed his office's budget and the importance of maintaining public trust in government. He mentioned that the current conflict of interest law needs to be updated, including adding rules about apparent conflicts of interest.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the Lobbying Act. Witnesses included professors Ian Stedman and Lori Turnbull, who shared their expertise on public sector ethics and lobbying regulations. Stedman suggested simplifying the registration process for lobbyists and focusing on transparency in government decision-making. Turnbull emphasized the interconnectedness of the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Act, especially concerning public servants moving between government and the private sector. Inspector Frédéric Pincince from the RCMP explained the RCMP's role in investigating potential violations of the Lobbying Act, noting that most investigations are initiated following referrals from the Commissioner of Lobbying.

The committee began by continuing its review of the proposed law about lobbying. Two witnesses, Joe Jordan and Dan Hurley, shared their ideas on how to improve the law. Mr. Jordan, who has experience as a politician, staffer, and lobbyist, said Canada's lobbying rules are among the best globally but could be made even better. He suggested clarifying who counts as an "in-house lobbyist" and rethinking the five-year ban on former political staff from lobbying. Mr. Hurley, representing public affairs professionals, emphasized that the law needs to be clear, fair, and up-to-date to promote transparency. Both witnesses discussed specific recommendations. Mr. Jordan advised against expanding the list of senior government workers that lobbyists must report contact with, saying it would create too much paperwork without clear benefits. He also warned that changing rules about who starts a conversation could limit how committee members do their job. Mr. Hurley's group found that many people are confused by some parts of the law, which can make it hard to follow. They also worried that too many rules might discourage smaller groups and non-profits from talking to the government. However, the meeting then shifted dramatically to a different topic. A committee member, Michael Barrett, introduced a motion asking for detailed monthly reports from the government about how the Prime Minister's conflict of interest rules are being checked. The motion also requested all of the Prime Minister's international travel plans and meeting details since he took office. Conservative members argued this information was crucial for government accountability and transparency. Liberal committee members strongly disagreed with the motion, calling it unnecessary and a waste of time and resources. They argued that the Prime Minister already follows strict ethics rules, has a blind trust, and that government officials have already provided information to the committee on a regular basis. They also highlighted the importance of the Prime Minister's international travel for Canada's economy and global standing. The debate on this motion took up a significant portion of the meeting, with no decision reached. The Chair suspended the meeting, indicating the discussion would continue at a later time.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to continue debating a proposed law to study the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and a company called Alto. The committee wanted to investigate if the Minister had a conflict of interest, because his wife works at Alto, while he was involved in government decisions about the company. The committee had been debating this for over 14 hours already. Committee members discussed whether to invite executives from Alto, including the CEO, to testify. Some members felt it was important to hear from Alto to understand the situation fully. Other members argued that the Ethics Commissioner had already looked into the matter and found no conflict of interest, so it wasn't necessary to call Alto executives. They also worried that inviting Alto executives would turn the meeting into a discussion about the merits of the Alto project itself, which wasn't the committee's focus. After a very long debate, a vote was held to remove the Alto executives from the list of witnesses. The committee ultimately agreed to invite the Ethics Commissioner and the Minister of Finance to testify for one hour each, during the week of May 25th. The committee will study the Minister's actions and whether he properly removed himself from decisions related to Alto, given his wife's job there.