Lobbying in Ottawa reached an all-time high last year, with lobbyists securing more meetings with the Prime Minister’s Office than ever before. This surge represents a 19 per cent increase in interactions, prompting critical questions about the impact of lobbying activity on Canadian public policy. While lobbying can be a legitimate tool for representing public interests and informing decision-makers, it also carries the risk of granting disproportionate influence to private actors.
What is Lobbying?
At its core, lobbying highlights a delicate tension between access and influence. Lobbyists, particularly those representing powerful industries, are often able to engage with government officials far more frequently than average citizens. This disparity in access threatens to distort the democratic process by shifting influence away from the broader public and toward corporate entities. As lobbying reaches record levels, it is worth considering whether citizens perceive major decisions as being driven by corporate agendas or the public good.
The Liberal Context
The Liberal government, in particular, has come under scrutiny for its frequent interactions with lobbyists, especially from the oil and gas sector. For instance, the NDP drew attention to an Environmental Defence campaign which revealed that the Liberals met with oil and gas lobbyists over 1,000 times last year. While these findings raise concerns about the undue influence of these industries, the Liberal government has justified its actions, arguing that tackling climate challenges requires working with “the country’s largest emitters as well as environmental and non-profit groups.” Nevertheless, the frequency and depth of these interactions could suggest a narrowing of the government’s policy scope, where corporate interests are taking precedence over public interests.
The Conservative Context
The Conservative Party’s stance on lobbying is somewhat more nuanced. Indeed, opposing lobbying is a key part of their platform, with party leader Pierre Poilievre positioning himself as a champion of the working class, vowing to distance himself from business lobbyists. In The National Post, Poilievre declared that lobbyists should “go to the people first”. Despite this rhetoric, however, several registered lobbyists have attended his party events, including those representing oil and gas companies like Cenovus, Pharmascience Inc., and the Pembina Pipeline Corporation.
This contrast between rhetoric and reality invites a deeper analysis of the Conservative approach. While Poilievre may present himself as anti-lobbying, the presence of lobbyists at key party events suggests the influence of corporate interests remains significant. This raises questions about whether the party’s anti-lobbying stance is more of a political talking point than a substantive policy. Is Poilievre genuinely committed to reducing corporate influence, or are lobbyists simply finding new ways of gaining access?
The Problem of Unequal Access
Maxime Stedman, a lobbying expert, captures this complexity well when he argues that lobbying is not inherently problematic—the real issue is unequal access. This observation highlights the systemic problem with lobbying: when financial resources determine who has the ear of government officials, the democratic ideal of equal representation falters. The challenge is not just about regulating lobbying but ensuring that access to decision-makers is fair and equitable, regardless of wealth or influence.
Edited by Isabelle Monette
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by BC Institute of Technology