Advocate Warns BC Lobbying Law Changes Would Increase Corruption Risk

A committee of MLAs that reviewed British Columbia’s lobbying rules has recommended removing limits on wining and dining public office holders and allowing it to be kept secret when they are promised gifts.

The NDP, Conservative and Independent MLAs on the special committee that reviewed the Lobbyists Transparency Act recommended 24 changes they say are “intended to reduce administrative workload while maintaining transparency and simplifying reporting requirements to encourage democratic participation.”

But Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher says the committee missed an opportunity to strengthen the province’s anti-corruption law and its recommendations would increase the risk of corruption.

“The committee’s recommendations ignore huge loopholes in the law that allow for secret, unethical lobbying that corrupts government decision-making processes,” Conacher, an advocate for government transparency, said in an email.

“Even worse,” he told The Tyee, it “recommends changes that will increase the size of the loopholes, which will increase the amount of unethical, secretive favour-trading and deals between lobbyists and the provincial government.”

Democracy Watch had asked the committee to recommend closing 11 loopholes, none of which it adopted. One change it wanted was to extend the requirement to disclose lobbying to cover municipal politicians and officials.

The group’s submission was among 30 made by organizations and individuals to the committee during its public consultation phase. The committee also heard from B.C.’s Ministry of Attorney General, and the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, which oversees lobbying rules.

In its report, the committee acknowledged the importance of promoting transparency and public awareness of lobbying. But it also said they “reflected on input regarding the chilling effect in lobbying, which arises when vague or complex rules and requirements discourage individuals and organizations from engaging with public office holders due to concerns about inadvertent non-compliance, administrative workload, or potential penalties.”

They were particularly concerned about the effect on small organizations and hoped to balance the need for transparency with “the need to ensure charities and non-profit organizations are not spending significant time on lobbying registration and reporting rather than their primary objectives.”

Changes the committee recommended included “amending the gift-giving prohibition to exclude costs related to hospitality, including hospitality provided in common with other attendees at official meetings or conferences.” The change would remove limits on providing food and drinks to public office holders.

In his submission to the committee, the registrar of lobbyists, Michael Harvey, “emphasized that the gift-giving prohibition is intended to prevent undue influence, noting research indicating that even small tokens — such as a meal or coffee — can affect decision-making.”

In their discussion, however, committee members argued “hospitality is often provided to support participation in official events, rather than to influence public office holders,” and that if there’s a change, “exemptions should be limited to modest hospitality such as light meals provided during routine meetings and must not extend to higher-value offerings.”

Their recommendation failed to include that nuance, instead simply asking that the cost of hospitality be excluded from the limit on gift giving. Under current limits, in a 12-month period a lobbyist can give a public office holder gifts or benefits worth up to $100.

The committee also recommended a change to “require gifts to be reported to the Registrar of Lobbyists only once they are given to a public office holder, rather than when they are both promised and given.” The change would remove the requirement for lobbyists to report when they have promised an official a gift.

Nor would it be necessary to report gifts as frequently. Instead of every month, the committee proposed, gifts should be reported once every three months. Funding and monthly returns could be made quarterly as well.

The fees for complimentary tickets for community and charitable events should be exempted from the prohibition on gift giving, they said.

The deadline for in-house lobbyists — staff who lobby on behalf of an organization — to register should be extended to 60 days from the current 10 days, and the act should be amended “so that an individual is not considered an in-house lobbyist if their lobbying activities total fewer than 50 hours in a calendar year, regardless of the size or purpose of the organization.”

The committee also advocated “replacing the requirement to report each individual lobbying activity with summary reporting on the number and subject areas of lobbying,” a change that would make reports vaguer than they already are.

Arranging a meeting for someone with a public office holder, something politically connected lobbyists often do for their clients, would no longer be considered lobbying and therefore would not need to be reported.

Conacher said several of the committee’s recommendations are for “changes to the law that will increase the size of several secret, unethical lobbying loopholes.”

Delivering the report to the legislature, Steve Morissette, committee chair and the NDP MLA for Kootenay-Monashee, said “the committee received considerable input regarding the workload required for organizations, especially charities and non-profits, to register and report lobbying activities.”

Having also heard about the importance of “promoting transparency and supporting public trust in democratic institutions,” the recommendations aim “to enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the act, address concerns about high administrative demands and increase transparency related to the use of communications,” he said.

Kiel Giddens, a Conservative Party of BC MLA representing Prince George-Mackenzie, was the committee’s deputy chair.

The act and the registry are essential in making sure lobbying is transparent and to maintain public trust, he said, but the committee also heard a lot about “a lack of clarity regarding the act’s requirements and the concerns some have about inadvertent non-compliance.”

He said lobbying allows “individuals and organizations to share their expertise and perspectives with public office holders and to engage in the policy-making process,” but overly onerous rules could have a chilling effect.

“To address these concerns,” Giddens said, “the committee identified opportunities to simplify reporting requirements while maintaining transparency in order to better support democratic participation.”

Attorney General Niki Sharma, who is responsible for the act, said she had read the report and thought it included some interesting ideas.

A team within her ministry is reviewing the recommendations. “I don’t have anything solid about what our commitment is,” she said, “but absolutely if there are changes needed we’ll work on it.”