Changes to lobbying rules could spell end to 50 years of free trips to Israel for Canadian MPs, senators

Open this photo in gallery:

Changes to lobbying rules could spell an end to 50 years of free trips to Israel for Canadian MPs and senators.

The Ottawa-based Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), which funds the trips, says it is the group hardest hit by revisions to a code governing those who try to influence public officials.

The organization and its predecessor, the Canada-Israel Committee, have sponsored trips to Israel for federal politicians since 1973. The group estimates it has sent about 800 members of Parliament and senators to Israel over that period.

“We do not take the position that CIJA was intentionally targeted in this process. Nor do we believe there is any animus towards Israel,” said Shimon Fogel, the group’s CEO. “But regardless of intent, the effect remains the same: CIJA’s program has been disproportionately impacted by the change.”

New rules for the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct went into effect on July 1 that restrict registered lobbyists in Ottawa from lobbying MPs or senators who accept free trips from them. The revision means sponsored travel is now explicitly included in the definition of gifts from lobbyists that are subject to strict dollar limits of $40 apiece and $200 total per year.

Eighteen staff at the CIJA are registered lobbyists in Ottawa, and the organization speaks to elected officials and civil servants about everything from combatting antisemitism to Canada-Israel relations.

It’s also among the top funders of foreign trips for MPs. In 2022 the CIJA and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada were two of the biggest sponsors of such travel. The Jewish group spent more than $92,000 on transport, accommodation and gifts for parliamentarians that year, according to a report released by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The Taipei office spent more than $62,000.

Many lobbying activities going unreported under current federal rules, watchdog says

Unlike the CIJA, however, the Taipei office is not a registered lobby group and is unaffected by the code changes. It is the de facto embassy in Canada for Taiwan, the democratic, self-governed territory adjacent to the People’s Republic of China, and its officials are accredited as foreign representatives in Canada, according to the Department of Global Affairs’ list of diplomatic, consular and other representatives in Canada.

Mr. Fogel said his group believes travel is the most effective way for parliamentarians to gain insight.

“The Middle East is perhaps the most complex region in the world. And, Israel, both in terms of its development as a modern state and the reality of its having been born into conflict since its establishment in 1948, cannot be understood through a perusal of media headlines from 10,000 kilometres away,” he said.

“To understand its size, its character, the nature of the challenges – all of it – requires an up-close and intimate experience,” he argues. “Understanding those things is essential if one wants to understand the nature of the Jewish community in Canada. Israel is central to Jewish identity and the connections between the Jewish people and the Jewish state are fundamental to an appreciation of the Jewish lived experience.”

Other registered lobbyists hit by the rule changes include international development groups such as Results Canada.

Chris Dendys, executive director for Results Canada, estimated that since 2006, about 50 MPs and senators have accompanied the organization’s educational delegations to low-income countries in an effort to provide parliamentarians with first hand experience of “both the challenges and also the solutions” related to easing global poverty

“At present, it appears we have no choice but to stop our parliamentary delegations,” Ms. Dendys said.

Lobbying commissioner Nancy Bélanger defended the new rules. “Given the significant costs of sponsored travel, which typically include transportation as well as meal and accommodation costs, providing such travel to an official (and possibly to their guest(s)) could reasonably be seen to create a sense of obligation on the part of that official, even where such sponsored travel would otherwise serve a legitimate purpose,” she wrote in a letter to MPs this spring.

John Brassard, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons ethics committee, wrote a note to the lobbying commissioner in March strongly recommending against the rule changes. He was speaking for the committee.

In an interview, the MP pushed back against the notion that sponsored travel amounts to junkets, arguing that “decision-making and evidence-gathering leads to good policy. These aren’t vacations. These are first-thing-in-the-morning, to late-at-night experiences where you’re touring the country, you’re meeting with other politicians,” he said. “It’s non-stop.”

Results Canada’s Ms. Dendys said the point of bringing parliamentarians on trips is to “educate, build champions and to reinforce parliamentarians’ support for global development,” adding the presence of a Canadian parliamentarian often opens doors for local organizations to talk to key decision makers.

Duff Conacher, co-founder of the watchdog group Democracy Watch, supports the rule changes to address what he called “a form of legalized bribery.” He said if MPs want to travel for educational purposes they should create a travel fund and empower the Auditor-General to scrutinize trip spending.

“As studies by psychologists around the world have shown, all gifts and favours essentially buy influence, and so lobbyists and lobby groups never should have been allowed to give MPs, senators and their staff and families the costly gift of sponsored travel.”