Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
I'm very pleased to appear before this committee once again. I appeared as recently as two years ago in my former capacity as Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Now in B.C. I have two new roles, and I appear before you today as Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia. I am also the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.
With me today is Jay Fedorak, who is acting deputy registrar.
I've also provided a more detailed written submission for consideration by the committee.
I can summarize the theme of my presentation in two statements. First, lobbyists play an important role in promoting fair and effective public decision-making by ensuring that public office holders have a full range of information, evidence, and opinions necessary to make decisions in the public interest.
Second, while it's essential that all interests receive the opportunity to be heard, it's critical to minimize opportunities for any particular party to exert undue influence in the ultimate decision.
Every day in this country lobbyists are communicating with public office holders to persuade them to support what I'm sure we can all agree are good causes. Non-profit organizations lobby for increased support for disadvantaged members of the community. Canadian businesses lobby for funding and regulatory changes that benefit the Canadian economy and Canadian workers.
In British Columbia we see organizations like the David Suzuki Foundation lobbying the Office of the Premier, as well as the majority of the ministers and members of the Legislative Assembly, to address climate change, promote clean energy and sustainable fishing, and protect the oceans. Vancouver Shipyards is lobbying the Office of the Premier and many members of the Legislative Assembly, looking to assist the provincial government with employment training programs to ready candidates for employment in the marine industry. The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce is lobbying the Office of the Premier and most ministers, seeking support for the Victoria International Airport runway extension, which it suggests will add another $37 million to the local economy annually.
The different jurisdictions across Canada are fortunate to have safeguards in place to minimize the exercise of undue influence. Public registration of lobbying makes lobbying activities transparent through mandatory declarations. Laws that contain a mandatory code of conduct promote integrity in public decision-making. Together, registration and codes of conduct help to ensure that citizens and organizations influence public decisions in a visible and ethical manner.
But there's more that can be done. My submission to the committee outlines three recommendations to improve safeguards and promote legitimate lobbying.
My first recommendation is that the Commissioner of Lobbying be given the power to assess administrative penalties. Today the only enforcement mechanisms available to the commissioner are to report to the police on violations of the Lobbying Act, and to report to Parliament on violations of the Lobbying Act code of conduct. The only other option available to the commissioner is to try to educate the lobbyist violating the act.
The Lobbying Act is an administrative law statute. Violations are administrative in nature, and very few will likely be serious enough to warrant police investigations or prosecutions. On the other hand, many violations are serious enough to warrant more than a warning or a stern educational session.
As regulators under administrative law it's important that we have the power to issue penalties proportional to the offence. In the immortal words of Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado, the object in administering justice should be to let the punishment fit the crime.
In British Columbia, the Registrar of Lobbyists can investigate matters of non-compliance and issue an administrative penalty of up to $25,000. The purpose of such a penalty is to promote future compliance with the party in question.
We may also publish investigation reports, which are intended to promote compliance of others by example. Once lobbyists became aware that we had the authority to issue administrative penalties, they took their registration responsibilities much more seriously. In fact, registrations have increased significantly since we received our new powers in 2010.
In April 2010 the registry had 303 active registrations. As of January 1, 2012, it had increased to 507. That's a 70% increase once we had administrative penalties and investigative powers. If the federal commissioner were to obtain the authority to issue administrative penalties, I'm confident that the federal regulatory regime would see similar results.
My second suggestion is that rule 8 of the Lobbying Act be amended to address some of the concerns raised. I hope that the concerns don't obscure the important role that the code of conduct plays. While registration establishes transparency about key aspects of any lobbying activity, public office targets, the subject matter, the intended outcome of the lobbying, client information, and whether the client or employer is receiving any government funding, it does not provide transparency about the nature and the content of the communications between the lobbyist and the public office holder. Fortunately, the code governs the nature of the relationship between public office holders, which helps to further minimize opportunities for the exercise of undue influence.
In the absence of a code of conduct, as is the case in British Columbia, there's nothing prohibiting lobbyists from receiving and using confidential insider information, attempting to influence by providing gifts or other benefits, or pursuing an outcome in a way that would put a public office holder in a potential conflict of interest situation.
A strong code of conduct is absolutely vital to a clear and transparent program of lobbying.
I want to focus for a moment on rule 8 of the federal code, which forbids a lobbyist from placing public office holders in a conflict of interest. There were concerns expressed about restrictions on lobbyists who have assisted public office holders on election campaigns, for example.
One modest improvement is to require all lobbyists to declare on their registration whether or not they have engaged in political activity on behalf of the person they are lobbying, and in what capacity. This would, at minimum, provide some transparency to the public about the nature of the relationship between the lobbyist and the elected official.
My third suggestion relates to the five-year prohibition on designated public office holders from lobbying.
It's easy to see the problems with former public office holders who engage as consultants to lobby their former colleagues. I don't have to make mention of some high-profile cases we've seen that bring this problem to light. Originally there was a three-year prohibition established to prevent cases of undue influence. That ban was extended to five years in the absence of other necessary safeguards.
While the ban does help to limit undue influence, I respectfully suggest that there are other considerations at play that deserve our attention.
One of the goals of lobbyist regulation is to promote fair and effective lobbying. There are many businesses and not-for-profit organizations that have legitimate concerns and interests to communicate with public office holders. There is no question that former public office holders can be effective lobbyists. Access to talented lobbying professionals helps organizations obtain fair access. A five-year ban limits the size of this talent pool. Moreover, the length of the ban might also reinforce unfair stereotyping of lobbyists and public office holders.
The key for a healthy lobbying community and regulation system is to achieve the right balance. It's my recommendation that if the Lobbying Act is amended to incorporate appropriate administrative penalties, and the current code is maintained and strengthened, the committee might consider recommending a shorter ban or prohibition. I believe this would strike the right balance between promoting fair and effective lobbying while protecting against undue influence.
Madam Chair, this concludes my presentation. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. I would be pleased to answer any questions.