The committee met at 9:34 a.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Steve Morissette (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Steve Morissette. I’m the MLA for Kootenay-Monashee and the chair of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

I’d like to acknowledge that we are meeting today on the legislative precinct here in Victoria, which is located on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking Peoples, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

Our committee is currently conducting a review of the Lobbyists Transparency Act. The committee has until May 4, 2026, to complete its review. As part of its public consultation, our committee accepted written submissions over the summer. Today we’ll continue receiving presentations from those who made submissions.

I’ll now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with the Deputy Chair.

[9:35 a.m.]

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Good morning, everybody. My name is Rosalyn Bird. I’m the MLA for Prince George–Valemount.

Looking forward to hearing people’s submissions today, and we heard some pretty common themes, actually, the last time we met everybody. So thank you for joining us today.

Kiel Giddens: My name is Kiel Giddens, MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie. As you can see, Prince George is well represented here. Thank you very much to all those who have taken part already. I look forward to today’s submissions.

Susie Chant: Good morning. My name is Susie Chant. I’m the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour. I am speaking to you from the Helijet terminal in Vancouver, where we got stranded.

We are in the unceded territories of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, səlilwətaɬ and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm folks.

I’m very pleased to be here. Last week’s meeting was really interesting. A lot of stuff came forward. I’m looking forward to hearing what everybody has to say today. Thank you so much.

Janet Routledge: I’m Janet Routledge. I’m the MLA for Burnaby North, and the government Whip. I’m losing my voice. What Susie said about where we are, why we’re here and who was here before us — she said it all on my behalf, too.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you. We’re now going to hear from organizations and individuals about their input regarding the review of the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

Today, as we start off, we’ll first hear from FortisBC. Thank you for taking the time to present to us. Welcome, Doug Slater and Jennifer Cader. You’ll have ten minutes for a presentation, followed by up to 20 minutes for questions from committee members.

Presentations on the
Lobbyists Transparency Act

FortisBC

Doug Slater: Awesome. Thank you so much. Good morning, committee members.

We’d also like to begin by acknowledging that we are calling in from the unceded and ancestral traditional territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations today.

FortisBC has proudly delivered energy to British Columbians for over 100 years. We serve more than 1.3 million homes and businesses with natural gas, renewable natural gas, electricity and alternative energy services within 135 local and 58 Indigenous communities throughout the province.

On behalf of FortisBC, I would like to start by saying thank you for having us here today and for the opportunity to contribute to the statutory review of the Lobbyists Transparency Act. We believe that the office of the registrar of lobbyists and the Lobbyists Transparency Act have played an important role in advancing transparency around lobbying activities. We actively and thoughtfully follow the processes established by the ORL and believe that it contributes to maintaining public trust in provincial decision-making.

Our written submissions to this committee provided recommendations to improve clarity and accessibility in the application of the act. We provided our unique perspective, as a regulated utility in B.C.’s energy sector that regularly interacts with other energy providers that are public entities, in particular, B.C. Hydro. I’ll note that my comments will focus on our written submissions and will be brief, given our fairly narrow suggestions to improve the act.

Our main focus for our submission today is on distinguishing lobbying from what is ordinary commercial activity. While transparency is essential, many private sector companies do find it difficult to navigate the boundaries of the LTA, especially in their interactions with provincial Crown corporations engaged in commercial activity.

As you may be aware, British Columbia is one of only four provinces that considers in-house lobbying to include communication with a public office holder in an attempt to influence the awarding, amending or termination of any contract with the government or a provincial entity. In using broad terminology like “awarding, amending or termination of any contract” in connection with entities such as B.C. Hydro and Columbia Power, for example, which operate provincial businesses, private sector energy companies like FortisBC that deal with them are frequently discussing contracts.

As noted in our submission, we believe that such routine commercial activity was never intended to constitute lobbying. Other scenarios could include the negotiating or renegotiating of contracts with provincial businesses like the ones I mentioned, such as the purchase and sale of electricity or natural gas.

[9:40 a.m.]

These engagements are highly technical, commercial and regulated in nature. Treating them as lobbying, when they are part of the daily business activities, does not necessarily serve a clear public policy objective. As such, FortisBC encourages the committee to recommend that the LTA be amended in three ways.

First, in the “lobby” definition, we request that the committee amend the word “contract” to read “contract for goods and services” in alignment with what the ORL’s guidance says that term means. This would provide consistency between the act and its guidance.

Second, under subsection 2(2), which identifies the specific circumstances where the act does not apply, we also request that the committee consider an exemption for a provincial entity that operates a business where the submission relates to the negotiation, renegotiation, renewal, amendment, extension, termination or implementation of any contract or other agreement into which the provincial entity enters in the ordinary course of its business.

In plain terms, this amendment will allow FortisBC to communicate with a provincial entity like B.C. Hydro about routine contractual matters like negotiating, renewing or ending of agreements without those communications being considered lobbying under the act.

Third, we also recommend, under subsection 2(2), where the negotiating, renewing or ending of agreements in the context of routine contractual management between a private sector business and a provincial entity that is or may be a matter of the public record, that those conversations and proceedings also not be considered lobbying.

In this scenario, if a contract needs formal approval in a public hearing by an official body or a person with legal authority, then communications about that contract would not be considered lobbying under the act.

Together, these changes will effectively distinguish between what is lobbying and that which is ordinary commercial activity, which is important for utilities like FortisBC’s electric utility, for example, which has deep interconnection with the B.C. Hydro system and agreements in place, regulated by the BCUC, to manage the provision of energy service to our customers.

To conclude, the Lobbyists Transparency Act is a vital tool for ensuring public trust in British Columbia. Our recommendations are really meant to ensure that the act continues to serve its purpose while distinguishing lobbying from routine interactions with public entities like B.C. Hydro.

I’d like to thank you for your time today and for considering our submission. We welcome your questions and clarifications.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you for your succinct recommendations. I’ll now open up the floor for questions from the committee.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much, Doug and Jennifer, for taking the time to make this submission today. It’s very useful for the committee. This is a unique perspective, as you’ve said, that the committee hasn’t heard yet, and I think it is relevant to our review of the act.

As a regulated utility — it’s one of the most highly regulated sectors in the province, for good reason — I think there’s an important function with that. We don’t want, obviously, overlapping infrastructure being developed. We want to make sure that this is in the public interest. Your business works across North America on similar business lines as well. I think you have experience that could inform how British Columbia works here.

In terms of subsection 2(2) on the public hearing process, I think that was an interesting point, in that there already is a public and transparent process going through the Utilities Commission and all that process. Maybe you could expand a little bit further on it as we consider all of your recommendations in tandem.

I think it might be helpful to understand how the commercial side of your business works versus a legitimate lobbying function where there would be seeking to have improvements or changes to regulations or laws in the province. Could you explain a little bit about how those parts of your business operate separately and how they communicate separately?

[9:45 a.m.]

Doug Slater: Thank you for the question.

I guess I’ll give some examples to help explain what types of interactions we’d be talking about. As I mentioned earlier in my submission, B.C. Hydro and FortisBC’s electric system are highly integrated. There are many points of interconnection. We transmit power back and forth. B.C. Hydro is the balancing authority for the province. They dispatch our generating facilities, on an hourly basis. We also jointly administer and coordinate around programs that are offered to both our respective utilities customers that require a lot of interaction.

Just to kind of highlight a few examples. We have an agreement called the Canal plant agreement that is between B.C. Hydro and FortisBC. It manages the integration and management of water flows through our dams and B.C. Hydro’s dam on the Kootenay River. There are a number of different conversations and considerations to implementing that agreement.

We also have rate schedule 3808, which is regulated by the BCUC, where we procure power from B.C. Hydro. About 40 percent of our power comes from B.C. Hydro, so there’s lots of communication under agreements like that.

A third example would be our demand-side management programs, where both B.C. Hydro and FortisBC offer incentives to customers across B.C. We routinely work together to offer programs that are harmonized so that energy customers or electricity customers across British Columbia receive uniform incentives to upgrade their homes and their mechanical systems to improve energy efficiency and save money on their bills.

All of that I would describe as routine. Much of that would be put in front of the BCUC for various levels of approval, whether rate schedule changes or DSM programs, for example.

Should FortisBC be interested in influencing changes in provincial policy to the benefit of its customers, we would typically discuss that more with the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions. That wouldn’t necessarily be something we’d be working with B.C. Hydro on.

I would say, in a traditional sense, if there were lobbying, it would be registered activity that would be done with the ministry, as opposed to B.C. Hydro, where we have lots of commercial interactions.

I hope that helps answer the question and gives some colour to the types of things that we’re speaking about today.

Susie Chant: Thank you very much for your presentation. That was a lot of information in a relatively short period of time. I appreciate it.

This is just wondering. You have contractual agreements with those various entities for those various projects you’re working on. In that event, would it mean that it doesn’t constitute lobbying if there’s already a contract in place? That would be what I was wondering. Let’s leave it at that for a minute.

Doug Slater: To further explain our submission, what we’d be seeking was to exempt what would be commercial negotiations between our organizations for the provision of energy and services.

We’re a customer of B.C. Hydro; B.C. Hydro is also a customer of us. It’s our submission that those interactions don’t necessarily serve a public policy objective. They’re more part of the everyday management between two businesses, one that happens to be a provincial entity and one that happens to be a private sector business.

Those contracts, in many cases, will go before the BCUC, either from B.C. Hydro or from FortisBC, to receive approval, examination and those types of things. We think there’s already a level of oversight there and transparency that would be duplicative, therefore justifying the exemption.

Susie Chant: Does that tell me that in the work that you’ve been doing with B.C. Hydro, you’ve been reporting everything under the legislation?

[9:50 a.m.]

Doug Slater: We report, yes. We follow the legislation, and we report the interactions that constitute lobbying. We have been for some time. This change would allow us to not disclose some of those kinds of routine commercial interactions and would save administration. So yes, that’s correct.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Good morning, and, again, thank you for joining us. This is actually a very unique perspective. We haven’t actually heard this one, so I very much appreciate bringing this to our attention.

I just have a couple follow-up questions from what Kiel was saying. First of all, because you have to actually register not only your lobbying that you do with any government official or any events, you also have to register all your lobbying with what you do with B.C. Hydro. I would be curious what the increase in the number of events is that you actually have to register because of that odd relationship that you are sort of putting out there for us to examine.

The second thing is: have you been non-compliant with the act in any case where you consider something to be contractual when the office of the lobbyist has said: “No, that is actually lobbying.” Have there been any fines? Have there been any mishaps or misunderstandings there? Has it happened frequently? I’m just curious.

I understand why you’re asking what you’re asking, but I’m wondering if that’s part of the reason that you’re asking it — if there’s too much time being spent. “No, no. This isn’t actually lobbying. This is just our day-to-day business.”

Doug Slater: Maybe I’ll start with the second question first, if I could.

We do go to great lengths to make sure that we’re compliant with the act and the requirements. For us, what that means to be compliant…. In a lot of cases, we have to make sure that we have a registered lobbyist if there is a conversation that is going to occur between our organizations where you know a public office holder would be present, and we would be falling under the definition of lobbying.

I wouldn’t say that the impetus for this is as a result of being non-compliant or having fines. It’s just administratively very difficult to make sure, in all cases, that we have the right people there — Fortis doesn’t register all of its employees as lobbyists, for good reason — to manage this process carefully. It’s more the administrative challenge of doing that.

As far as the increase, it really depends on what we have on the go. If, for example, we’re designing new programs in coordination with B.C. Hydro, or perhaps we’re speaking with senior officials there about energy outlooks and energy matters, we would report those interactions, and there can be many of them, depending on sort of what’s happening at the time.

For example, in the context of renewing a very complicated rate agreement like our rate schedule 3808, that would require significant disclosure of the meetings and interactions between our organizations as we work on the commercial details of such a complex agreement. Same thing with the Canal plant agreement. I would say it’s really…. It depends; it fluctuates. Sort of a long way of getting to that.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Just one follow-up. Prior to this regulation being…. The committee, obviously, because this is the first time that this act has actually been looked at since it came into force…. Has Fortis, or Fortis and Hydro, actually had any conversations with the office directly? Like, is this something that has been raised, and then the committee sat, so it was an opportunity to bring it to committee rather than to try and work with the office?

Doug Slater: We’ve not raised the…. I don’t think we’ve raised…. We’ve asked a lot of clarifying questions and have had great support from the ORL — I’ll say that — where we’ve had questions and different situations that arose. We’ve had really good support.

[9:55 a.m.]

We have not raised this issue, which I suppose is more of an issue of interpretation and application of the act and its requirements, which we didn’t view as something that the ORL could change. This was, really, our first opportunity to raise our unique circumstance and have it considered.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Susie Chant: What I’m hearing, perhaps, is that there have been discussions that perhaps were more public than they should have been, when you’re trying to make agreements and things like that. Is that a concern, that, actually, some of the work that you’re doing, which should maybe not be out in the public realm yet until some of the work has been done…?

Is that a concern with the current state?

Doug Slater: I haven’t had that raised internally, as we’re a regulated utility, so virtually everything we do is transparent. We apply to the B.C. Utilities Commission and other regulators for all kinds of approvals, and so eventually virtually everything we do becomes public. It’s not necessarily trying to avoid that. It’s more that it just becomes duplication that it’s going before another regulator.

Therefore, the question is: does it really serve a public policy objective if that’s going to happen? Or is it simply duplication that could be eliminated from the system?

Janet Routledge: I’m trying to get my head around this. I mean, my personal comparison is, okay, so if a union is negotiating with the government as an employer, according to the way this legislation is worded now, would negotiations for a new collective agreement be considered lobbying? Would the union not be in compliance if they don’t tell the world what their bottom line is? I know that’s a rhetorical question, but I think I see where you’re coming from.

Doug Slater: Yeah. I mean, there is an exemption under the act, I believe, for employees of the government, right? I don’t know if the union would fall under that. I’m not a lawyer. That would be, maybe, a question I probably couldn’t answer.

But it’s really like…. I think it underscores the point that if you’re Fortis and you really want to comply 100 percent with something that you view as very important, the act kind of goes along maybe too far in some circumstances where it’s not needed or doesn’t serve a policy objective. That’s where we believe the correction could be.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah. I guess one point of comparison to some of the other submissions that we have is, really, this idea of a duplication of the transparency objectives we’re trying to achieve from these various functions. I think that’s something to look into.

I just want to ask…. In the opening part of your submission on supporting transparency and accountability, I think we can all agree on that. You did make some comments around generally supporting the educational efforts and guidance materials from the registrar’s office.

I mean, some smaller organizations have raised some concerns with the complexity of some of those guidance documents. Relatively speaking, your organization is larger and probably has a bit more resources to be able to navigate all those.

But just to be clear, you’re saying that the current guidance documents are clear, that they have not been a point of contention among your legal advisers, all that kind of thing? Is that the case, I guess, in your organization?

[10:00 a.m.]

Doug Slater: I would say that where we’ve had things that we couldn’t work out ourselves between us and our lawyers or just things that are unclear, we’ve been able to contact the ORL and receive some help and guidance from them.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that group has been very helpful in trying to help, at least us, navigate through some of the complexities. There are lots of different nuanced situations that come up that you really have to apply the act to and interpret, and sometimes that’s difficult. But I would say that we’ve had pretty good support phoning in and receiving some help and guidance and pointing us to different materials.

But not to say that…. Look, it’s a complex thing, and there are lots of different types of interactions that can occur. One has to use judgment and err on the side of caution, as we do, in applying the act.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Any further questions?

Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation. You’ve brought some new information forward for us. It’s been very valuable. I appreciate your time connecting with us.

Doug Slater: Thank you so much for having us. I appreciate the opportunity.

Steve Morissette (Chair): We’ll take a short recess now as we reset for the next one.

The committee recessed from 10:01 a.m. to 10:06 a.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Steve Morissette (Chair): Next we’ll hear from LandlordBC.

David, I’m Steve Morissette. I’m Chair of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act. We’ll give you ten minutes for the presentation, followed by up to 20 minutes for questions from committee members.

The floor is yours. Welcome.

LandlordBC

David Hutniak: Good morning. Thank you, Chair and special committee members. My name is David Hutniak, and I’m the CEO of LandlordBC. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning.

I previously made a submission on behalf of LandlordBC to the Lobbyists Transparency Act consultation — it’s a mouthful — requesting that LandlordBC and other non-profits similar to us should be exempt from the B.C. lobbyists registry. I wish to build upon that submission with some very brief comments to the committee today.

By way of background, LandlordBC is a non-profit association with a 60-plus-year history of providing education and support for owners and managers of rental housing in British Columbia. We’re a member-driven organization. Approximately two-thirds of our members are small mom-and-pop landlords in what we call the secondary market — i.e., folks with basement suites, investor condos and such.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t remind members of the special committee that rental housing providers deliver a critical service and that, ultimately, our sector takes great pride in ensuring that British Columbians have access to an abundance of safe, secure and affordable long-term-rental housing.

For additional context, the rental housing industry in B.C. currently provides housing to an estimated 1.63 million British Columbians in approximately 600,000 units of rental housing. We note that in major urban centres like Vancouver and Victoria, over 54 percent and 61 percent of residents, respectively, are renters.

I elected to take advantage of this opportunity to speak with you today because I wish to express our strong view that LandlordBC and non-profits similar to us should be exempt from the B.C. lobbyists registry and the unnecessary administrative burden associated with the registry.

In terms of LandlordBC specifically, it is our view that it is a mischaracterization to call LandlordBC a lobby group. We do not engage government relations firms, nor do we participate in campaign finance initiatives for political candidates, political parties or public policy. We are non-partisan.

What LandlordBC does do is provide a critical service to the public and government as a sector expert and advocate. As such, it is our strong view that we should be exempt from the B.C. lobbyists registry and the unnecessary administrative burden associated with the registry.

[10:10 a.m.]

Being a sector expert and advocate means being a leader. For over 60 years of sector leadership, LandlordBC remains committed to supporting a sustainable, professional and secure long-term-rental housing market. A cornerstone of this commitment is ensuring that we have an open and constructive partnership with all levels of government and, in particular, with the provincial government so that we may work collaboratively to ensure that B.C. has a strong and healthy rental housing ecosystem.

The key focus of our small but dedicated team of eight is supporting and professionalizing the industry, developing and advancing sustainability initiatives to improve the energy efficiency and resiliency of our aging rental stock and working closely with government to create a legislative environment that is fair and balanced for both renters and rental housing providers.

Our policy and legislative interactions with government are transparent and fact-based, with a focus on long-term, positive outcomes that deliver discernible benefits for renters, rental housing providers and the communities in which we operate.

In closing, I’d like to repeat that it is a mischaracterization to call LandlordBC a lobby group. We are non-partisan, and we do not engage government relations firms, nor do we participate in campaign finance initiatives for political candidates, political parties or public policy. We provide a critical service to the public and government as sector experts and advocates.

I wish to again reiterate that it is our view that LandlordBC and other non-profits like us should be exempt from the B.C. lobbyists registry and the unnecessary administrative burden associated with the registry.

I sincerely thank you for allowing me the time to provide these brief comments.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you, David. I appreciate your comments.

I look to the group to see if there are any questions.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much for taking the time to present to us and for your advocacy on behalf of renters in the province. I appreciate hearing some of your concerns.

We’ve had some other groups, particularly other non-profit groups, argue more along the lines of restoring a minimum threshold of hours as opposed to an outright exemption.

I have two questions. Maybe I’ll start off with the first. What made you choose to argue for an outright exemption versus a minimum threshold of hours?

David Hutniak: Well, it goes back to what we are. Again, I would say non-profits like us…. A great example would be the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, who are good friends of ours.

I mean, advocacy is basically a consultative process, whereas lobbying is not consultative. That’s what we do. We advocate. The way we work with government, interact with government is through a consultative process to try and find solutions. This is why we’ve argued from day one that non-profits like ourselves should not be subject to the lobbyists registry.

I’m aware that other groups, non-profits, have presented sort of minimum thresholds, etc. I suppose if that were the best-case scenario for us, we’re obviously…. At the end of the day, the government will make some decisions here.

Again, I just feel very strongly that it was totally unnecessary that we be part of the registry in the first place, and we continue to believe that. That’s why we’re taking this strong position today.

Kiel Giddens: If I could do a follow-up? Thank you.

I think we have had a lot of conversation on sort of the definition of advocacy versus lobbying. I think your submission is not off base with others we’ve heard, so we appreciate your perspective. I guess the only other follow-up question would be just in terms of the actual amount of lobbying under the current definition that would take place.

[10:15 a.m.]

I mean, sometimes there are government consultations which your organization would perhaps be responding to as opposed to proactively seeking any changes to government regulations or anything like that.

But is there any way you could describe the percentage of time spent on responding to government versus kind of proactively reaching out to government officials?

David Hutniak: Well, probably 80 percent of our time is responding to inquiries or collaborative requests from government. Our sector is a little unique in the sense that we work really, really closely with the residential tenancy branch.

I’m confident they would describe us as a trusted adviser. We have a lot of interaction with them. We meet with them on a quarterly basis, and they reach out to us on a very regular basis, in addition to those meetings, to basically seek our counsel and input on the act and any tweaking that may be required, etc., because — I go back to my earlier comments — we’re sector experts. Again, our whole approach is one of being a partner, consultative, versus some hard-core lobbyist.

We do proact a smaller percentage of the time. Basically, the act, by and large, is…. Compared to other provinces in particular, it has reasonable balance. We’re not uncomfortable, necessarily, working within it. But sure, I mean, there are situations where we’ll reach out to the Minister of Housing and red-flag issues that we see perhaps coming down the pipe or particular concerns.

But because of the amount of regular interaction and consultation, I think it negates the need for any kind of hard-core lobbying, to be perfectly candid with you. There’s just so much communication and interaction with the ministry and RTB in particular. It’s just a constant, ongoing process.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Any further questions? Online? No? Anything else?

Okay. Thank you very much, David. I appreciate you giving your perspective, and we’ll take it into consideration. Thank you.

David Hutniak: Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. Have a great day.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Okay. We will be taking a recess now until 10:50.

The committee recessed from 10:18 a.m. to 10:51 a.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Steve Morissette (Chair): Good morning again.

Welcome, Graeme. I’m Steve Morissette. I’m the Chair of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act. We have our other members here in person and online.

Your next presentation will be from the B.C. Non-Profit and Charity Coalition. You’ll have ten minutes for the presentation and up to 20 minutes for questions from committee members.

Thank you for coming and presenting, and the floor is yours, Graeme.

B.C. Non-Profit and Charity Coalition

Graeme Davidson: Thanks for the opportunity.

Hello to all the committee members. My name is Graeme Davidson. I am the researcher for the British Columbia Non-Profit and Charity Coalition. We’re a group of non-profits and charities in B.C. looking to work together to make changes to the Lobbyists Transparency Act. We’re glad that we’ve had the chance to address the committee today and hope we can make some meaningful contributions to the potential changes to the LTA.

The reason I’m here and talking is pretty simple. The LTA makes it more difficult for our organizations to conduct their advocacy. That’s really the long and short of it. We’ve got a mix of groups inside the coalition. Some are bigger, some are smaller, but they’re all non-profits and charities. It’s all a question of dealing with limited resources.

I have limited time, and compliance with the LTA is difficult for our organizations because it is time-consuming. That means that, as an organization, you’re either dedicating the time of one or two of your employees to dealing with this administrative element the LTA imposes or you’re going outside to hire a consultant lobbyist to do it for you.

Sometimes, for a lot of these organizations, it’s the executive who takes on the burden of dealing with the LTA. All of that is using up scarce resources, scarce time, that really you want to be putting towards your advocacy.

Something a lot of our members feel is that the current system puts a disproportionate burden on them because they are smaller organizations. In all the other provinces, there’s some sort of minimum threshold you have to reach before you have to register with whoever runs the lobbying registry in the province. Typically, it’s something like 40 or 50 hours of lobbying over the course of a year or some percentage of your total work time in order to require registry.

In B.C., any lobbying activity requires you to register. You also have only 10 days to register after the start of your lobbying. In most of the other provinces, you typically have 2 months of grace period before you have to register.

Then after that, you have to submit monthly reports if you’re doing any lobbying — another sort of uniquely B.C. requirement. It all adds up over the course of a given year to be a lot of work.

It’s not just a lot of work to fulfil all the administrative requirements; it’s also a lot of work to be familiar with the system. As I’m sure you’ve become aware over the course of your testimony so far, the system in B.C. is rules-oriented. And that’s a polite way of describing it.

[10:55 a.m.]

If you go to, say, the government of Saskatchewan’s lobbying registry website, you look at their FAQs section, they have five frequently asked questions, and that’s all the information you need to know to operate within the system. The lobbying registrar’s website in B.C. has 200 frequently asked questions. One wonders if you can ask 200 questions frequently. Apparently, B.C. does.

There are 29 guidance documents for navigating the system, and some of these are dozens of pages long. So it takes a real effort to be truly familiar and, not just familiar, confident in how you’re dealing with the system. If you’re the leader of a charity or a non-profit, it’s a burden. It’s a burden, and you’re scared. You’re not confident. It’s not easy to work within the system.

A good example would be if you want to give a gift to a public office holder. The guidance document for that is 20 pages long. It’s 20 pages long. You sort of understand why a lot of organizations just don’t bother or they feel like they have to go outside and hire a consultant or an expert, somebody who really knows the ins and outs of the system. Because when you’re spending the rest of your day trying to work on your advocacy, on whatever your cause is, this is sort of a headache you can’t really deal with.

The long and short of it at the end of it is that a lot of the coalition members and people I’ve talked to are scared about interacting with the LTA. They’re scared to lobby, they’re scared to screw up, and they’re scared to get investigated. Because these are not organizations with deep pockets, they can’t really afford to pay fines if they do break the rules somehow.

Often, you know, it’s something simple that they want to do. They’re not organizing a huge campaign. They want to have one event a year and invite their MLA, or they want to go to meet one minister once a year, and that’s the total of their ambition. To do that little, it feels not worth it. Because the rules are so specific and the punishments can be so burdensome, you just need to be extremely detail-oriented and have full confidence if you want to navigate around the system.

A classic example, and maybe one of the biggest things I hear about as a complaint with the system, is the $100 gift limit. So $100, first of all, doesn’t go as far as it used to. I think everyone understands that. But also in B.C., you’re supposed to include things like taxes and venue costs and other elements in the value calculation. This is all part of that 20-page document you’re supposed to read and be familiar with.

Other provinces don’t have that requirement. They just say it’s the market value of a gift — easy, simple. And with things like the gift limit, because of the low value, the $100 threshold…. In other provinces, it’s higher and there are also certain exemptions if you ask for it. Because of the low value, because of the complicated nature of its calculation and because it’s a rolling 12 months, it’s something you risk violating.

If you just have one annual event, for example, which is, like I said, something a lot of our organizations try to have…. They want to have one annual event. They want to have a Christmas dinner. If you hold it annually, you risk violating the LTA. Because just, for example, depending how the dates fall, you can have two annual events that fall within the same 12-month period.

This sounds like the sort of thing that might be a nitpick. But if you go and look at the enforcement reports, these are things that do get punished. Like last year, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce got a $4,000 fine, because in 2022, there was the NDP leadership race, and they wanted to invite the Premier to their annual event. So they pushed back their Christmas gala until February for that year and then had their next year’s Christmas gala in December as usual. Because of that, they exceeded the $100 gift limit and got fined $4,000.

I mean, people read the enforcement reports, and they get scared. Right now, with the LTA, it is sort of both complex in its interpretation and strict in its enforcement. And that’s a particularly bad combination, especially for non-profits and charities.

[11:00 a.m.]

That’s what we’re asking for, to make changes that make it easier for the little guys, the non-profits, the charities. Things like having a minimum floor so that if you do 50 or more hours of lobbying per year, that’s when you’re required to register; to extend the time limit for registry; to raise the gift limit to $200, simplify its calculation; and also to simplify reporting with the monthly reports on how you’re engaging with public office holders.

These changes would bring B.C. more in line with other provinces — more in line with the rest of Canada — in how they regulate lobbying and generally simplify the matters for charities and non-profits. Specifically, it’s helping those groups that do the least lobbying, small charities and non-profits whose outreach is focused very narrowly on their advocacy.

We’re not trying to undermine the values of the LTA. Openness and transparency are important for the function of a proper democratic government, and we don’t want to live in the Wild West. And we don’t want to live in a province where there are no rules and you can spend your way to power and influence, because that doesn’t help non-profits and charities either.

That’s why we feel that there’s sort of an incongruence between the values of the LTA and the rules as they exist, because they place this disproportionate burden on non-profits and charities, the organizations with the least resources, and the people that, really, we want as a society to be bringing in their advocacy to public office holders. That’s why we’re asking for changes.

Thanks for your time.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you, Graeme. Appreciate your input. As this is the first review of the act, it’s really important to get this kind of input. So thank you.

I’ll open the floor to questions.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I just wanted to thank you for making a presentation today. This is the first time the act has been reviewed, and there are significant differences between large non-profits or charities and the smaller ones. Most of the things that you have brought forward are things that we have heard in other presentations.

I wanted to sort of go back to two pieces. You represent a lot of different groups, and you did mention the length and the number of documents that has come out of the lobbying office that you have to sort of try and filter through and understand and the time consuming…. So do you think the education piece could be presented better or could be simplified through the office? My first question.

And the second question is…. A number of organizations have made the suggestion that it would be helpful for non-profits or smaller organizations to actually report quarterly instead of every single time they engage in doing something. I would just like to hear your thoughts on those two pieces, if you don’t mind.

Graeme Davidson: The education…. Part of these guidance documents are an attempt at education. A lot of these guidance documents are new, actually, since this May. And that’s been an attempt, I believe, by the registrar to try and iron out some of what they appreciate as the lack of understanding of what the LTA entails.

I feel like it’s been somewhat counterproductive in that these attempts at education have complicated, perhaps, the understanding of what the rules are. In general, the LTA is not written in particularly complex language. Rather, it’s the interpretation of what that entails that is complex.

For example, with respect to the gift limit, the LTA just simply states that whatever is decided as the gift limit is the maximum you can donate in a 12-month period. All the things with respect to how to calculate it — taxes, tips, venue costs, all these kinds of things — have actually been interpretations that have been further expanded upon in the education documents.

I feel like more education wouldn’t necessarily help unless there’s also a simplification of the rules themselves. Because again, you might end up scaring off more people than you educate in this way.

As to moving towards a quarterly reporting, I think that would be a great idea. I’m not sure how you would necessarily…. If you would want to do it separately for smaller organizations and larger organizations or whether it would be for everyone.

I think moving to four times a year versus 12 times a year would be a big help, especially because in many instances, with respect, if you’re planning to host an event, for example, often you are required to do the reporting twice, where you….

[11:05 a.m.]

If you’re planning an event, you’re supposed to, ostensibly, report what gifts or what things you are planning to do before you actually host the event and then subsequently report on them again after you’ve hosted the event.

Quarterly reporting would remove some of that duplication. Of course, four times versus 12 times would just be simpler. It would lessen the number of hours you put into that each year.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much, Graeme, for taking the time to make this presentation.

A couple of things stuck out, particularly that you mentioned the guidance document for gifts being 20 pages long. We had heard previously that there are 29 different guidance documents, plus the Q and A. If each are up to 20 pages long, more or less, that’s a lot to wade through, so I do understand the complexity there.

Just two questions. One, could you just maybe give the committee a little bit more information on why you chose $200 as the annual gift limit there?

Second, could you just provide a little bit — only if you’re able to, but would you be able to? — more information to the committee on who exactly your members are so that we know when we’re deliberating kind of who we’re keeping in mind, I guess? Because I guess this is the first time I’ve heard of your organization as representing a coalition of non-profits and charities. If you’re able to, that would be great. If not, I understand. But yeah. It would be helpful to understand a little bit further.

Graeme Davidson: I can leave a link to our website. Is there a way I can write it…

Kiel Giddens: That would be great.

Graeme Davidson: …in this Zoom meeting?

Kiel Giddens: It can be submitted, I believe, after the fact.

Graeme Davidson: I’ve put it in the chat, if you can access that, and I can submit it later.

As for the gift limit, $200…. There are a couple of other provinces that have that limit. Saskatchewan and Ontario have it. That’s the lowest limit outside of B.C., except for Quebec, which sort of has a different approach to lobbying due to its own history there. It’s also just simply double the existing limit.

There isn’t a grand rationale. It’s just similar to other provinces and double the existing limit.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Any further questions?

I’m not seeing any further questions. So thank you, Graeme. I appreciate your input. It’s very valuable to us going forward.

Graeme Davidson: My pleasure.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you. We’ll take a two-minute recess and reset for the next presenter.

The committee recessed from 11:08 a.m. to 11:10 a.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you, Sarah, for joining us today to give us input. It’ll be very valuable to us.

The next presentation is from the Vancouver Foundation.

Sarah, you’ll have ten minutes for the presentation, and we’ll follow with up to 20 minutes for questions from community members. So thank you very much for attending, and the floor is yours.

Vancouver Foundation

Sarah Kim: Great, thank you.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Sarah Kim. My pronouns are she and her. I’m calling in from the lands of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ peoples. I’m the senior manager of advocacy and engagement with the Vancouver Foundation.

Vancouver Foundation is an 82-year-old community foundation which was created by a provincial act and is supported today by over $1.5 billion in permanently invested funds. We are, and have been for a long while, a partner with the government of B.C. in supporting non-profits, charities, communities and constituents across the province. It’s been an honour and a pleasure to be a partner with the government in doing so.

As a trusted partner, we have the ability to engage with and advocate when issues and challenges arise with the non-profit and charitable sector. So I’m thankful for the opportunity to present today to the committee on the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

Since 2020, when the Lobbyists Transparency Act was updated, Vancouver Foundation, along with partners including Vantage Point, whom you’ve heard from, and United Way B.C., whom you’ll be hearing from shortly, has been engaging with the province on behalf of the non-profit sector on this legislation. We’ve advocated with the Attorney General, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Non-profits and the office of the registrar of lobbyists.

We’re supportive and grateful that government has been receptive to some of our concerns and are pleased to see the recent changes that happened and came into effect in May of this year. However, there are still challenges that we have heard, along with our partners, that this legislation has on our sector. It continues to create a chilling effect on the sector in its ability to engage with and advocate and lobby government.

I don’t think I need to share and explain to this committee the vital role and contribution that non-profits play in our communities and social fabric in the province. However, our sector is vital to the engagement and processes and policies and systems that government is thinking about and wanting to implement, and programs, without our contribution and our engagement.

Due to this legislation and its regulations, implementations and interpretations, our sector is not involved in these conversations. So I’m here to offer a few recommendations for the legislation that I hope that this committee will take into consideration. I also recognize that these recommendations are not going to be new. I know that other partners have presented previously with similar recommendations. But I think it’s important for you to hear how challenging the legislation is to this sector.

The recommendations I’d like to offer are simplifying and clarifying the Lobbyists Transparency Act’s reporting requirements, changing the reporting deadlines for government funding that has been received to an annual deadline and adjusting the gift limit amounts and timelines. I’ll go a little bit deeper into all three recommendations.

The first one is simplifying and clarifying the Lobbyists Transparency Act’s reporting requirements. This one is what creates the chilling effect for the sector. There’s uncertainty and a lack of clarity when it comes to the definition of lobbying.

What is lobbying versus what is advocacy? Currently the legislation says that an act of lobbying is communicating with a public office holder in an attempt to influence. That can be interpreted in many different ways.

[11:15 a.m.]

That can be interpreted as trying to arrange a meeting with the public office holder. That can mean, you know…. If a minister approaches an organization for input and in that conversation, the organization is recommending, “Perhaps you can change this policy,” is that interpreted as an attempt to influence?

I think this committee has an opportunity to recommend that there’s more clarity on the definition of what constitutes communication. I think having a clear definition of what is communication, what is defined as communication in the legislation, would provide an ease and an understanding of the legislation and the reporting requirements.

Communication could include, when you have a meeting arranged, reporting that. Communication could also be defined as the types of communication. So maybe that includes or does not include social media posts, which I know you’ve heard, and we’ve heard is a challenge also with the sector in having to report these posts when they are already public information. So again, having some clarity around what is defined as communication, which in the end, ultimately, is defined as lobbying.

I think in terms of the reporting requirements, what affects the sector…. Whether you’re a very small organization that’s volunteer-run, or a very large charity, a national charity, all of these and every organization in between are impacted by the reporting requirements in this legislation and its interpretation.

You heard from my colleague from the Canadian Cancer Society last week how, because they’re a national organization and in B.C., there’s the legislation to report all government funding received, this includes funding received by municipalities outside of British Columbia. I can only imagine the administrative time it takes for a large charity like that to collect all of that information, collect who is talking to whomever, whichever public office holders, and then to have to take the time to report and file all of that.

Then thinking of the smaller non-profits, many of them are not even engaging with government because of the uncertainty, not knowing what constitutes lobbying. And then also if they don’t file or they do file but their filing is incorrect, will they be penalized? There’s a lot of uncertainty in the sector around this legislation. And with all the guidance documents, even with webinars around the legislation, there continues to be uncertainty around engaging with government because of this legislation.

My second recommendation is around changing the deadlines for government funding that has been received. We’re grateful that one of the changes that came into effect earlier in the spring was around requesting government funding. We’re grateful that that has been eliminated from the legislation. However, the change to reporting government funding to a three-month rolling deadline continues to be a burden for this sector.

We’d like to see this legislation be aligned with federal lobbying legislation and that reporting on any government funding that’s been received be changed to an annual deadline. This allows non-profits and charities to be more efficient with their filing. And annual reporting allows them to file along with pre-existing annual filings that they would have to do, which includes CRA filings, funder reports, financial statements. For them to be able to do this at one point in the calendar year would be more efficient for charities and non-profits.

[11:20 a.m.]

Lastly, my last recommendation is around gift limit amounts and timelines. Currently, the gift limit amount is $100 per 12-month period. This causes a challenge for organizations who want to invite their MLA to an event, an annual event. There are a lot of factors out of people’s control as to when that annual event could occur in the following year, and that might be in less than 12 months from their previous event.

If this could be changed to per calendar year, and if the gift limit amount could be increased to at least $200, that would offer some flexibility for non-profits and charities to be able to roll out and continue their programming and engagement with government.

Those are my recommendations. I appreciate the opportunity to present on these to the committee, and I’m open to any questions you may have.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Great. Thank you, Sarah.

I’ll open the floor to questions from committee members.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much for joining us today and putting together a thorough submission. Very helpful. A lot of the things that you’ve talked about, other organizations have brought forward.

We’ve been sort of talking about the reporting requirement and how it can be a little different depending on the size of the non-profit. You could have a non-profit with six people, or you could have an organization that’s quite large, like yours.

We were talking about whether or not reporting could be done quarterly. Other large organizations have said that may be problematic, which I suspect it would be for you guys also. But I’d be curious about your feelings on the option, particularly for non-profits. They would get to decide themselves, depending on their size, how and when they wanted to report.

The other piece was around the requirement for reporting funding sources. Could you give us a bit more information? I suspect that gets quite convoluted, depending on the types of grants, whether it’s gaming or other sorts of things, and how those flow in and out of organizations, either consistently or non-consistently, and how that can change the ebb and flow in regards to reporting that back to the lobbying office.

Sarah Kim: Thanks for the questions.

In response to your first one, the option or opportunity to report quarterly, speaking on behalf of Vancouver Foundation, I don’t believe that it would really change or impact us, when we would have to file. But again, that is speaking on behalf of the foundation.

I imagine that the response would really vary depending on the size and the amount of filing, the amount of activity that an organization would have to file. I think that would really impact their response to your question about having to report quarterly or not.

I can see for some organizations, having more time to gather the information they need to report…. So that if it was only reporting quarterly, I imagine that would be very welcome. However, I also think just taking the time to identify the activity that has happened within an organization…. That amount of time, regardless of when you have to file that and report it, is burdensome. Whether you’re doing that in a month or doing that in a quarter, it almost, for me, feels like it’s a moot point.

What I think is more impactful and would really benefit the sector is having the clarity on what needs to be filed, knowing the type of activity that needs to be filed. Right now, there is a lack of clarity on what that is.

If there was clarity on what needed to be filed, then perhaps filing monthly would maybe not be an issue, or if there was the opportunity to file quarterly, that would not be an issue. The issue right now is not knowing what types of activity need to be filed and then taking the time to identify that and then taking the time to file.

I hope that answers your first question. Then your second question around funding received, just having some more clarity on that…. Sorry, could you just clarify your question?

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): We had heard from a couple other groups that…. I mean, non-profits are highly challenged right now in getting funding, so they apply for funding through a multitude of different avenues.

[11:25 a.m.]

Everybody’s well aware of gaming grants. Municipalities put out grants. Cities put out grants. There are all of these different avenues, and everybody is so strapped to try and keep their organizations afloat at the moment. I would suspect that…. Well, on top of actually writing grant applications, because some of them are extremely complex….

Even in that process, the monies coming in and out of, probably, more so medium-sized non-profits — that would be my guess. How money flows in and out of those organizations, and from what sources, must get quite complex, in regard to reporting back to the lobbyists office. You can’t say: “Well, we get money from ABC.” Especially right now, that’s not how organizations are functioning. Even gaming grants don’t have the stability that they have had over the past decade.

Sarah Kim: Yeah, that’s right. Again, it’s a matter of how you track when money is coming in. Especially if money is coming in…. I’d like to use the Canadian Cancer Society example that my colleague mentioned to you earlier, where they are receiving funding from all kinds and all levels of government across the country. Because of the legislation here in B.C., they have to report all of it, even if it’s funding received outside of British Columbia.

I don’t know if they have a system, or what their system is, to track all of that. I can only imagine the amount of time it would take to inform all of your colleagues that are applying for funding, “If you receive funding, you have to notify the person who’s filing and reporting” — like your in-house lobbyist, if you have one.

I don’t know how that person tracks all of the communication that’s coming in and how they then take the time to report all of that. I hope they have a system in place, but I’m not sure. It does make me wonder about the burden that we put on organizations to put a system in place to be able to comply with this legislation.

I imagine that for a smaller non-profit that might have a smaller team and that might be in the office together, perhaps communication and flow of information is more readily available for them. Perhaps knowing when money comes in and when it comes out might not be as much of a challenge. I’m not sure. But how you track this funding coming in, knowing that it’s coming in at different periods of the year, can really be burdensome.

Steve Morissette: Are there any further questions from the committee?

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much for your presentation.

You also referenced the chilling effect, similar to what Vantage Point described as well, which is…. It’s good to understand that non-profits do have a fear of navigating the act currently.

With regard to your first recommendation, and the act of trying to seek a meeting to begin with, you described — similar to Vantage Point, in the example you provided in your submission — that there could be anywhere between seven and two interactions.

The act itself does have a definition of “lobby,” which is “to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence,” and then goes on to what that is. That communication seems to be what is not necessarily defined well, and that’s the subject of…. All the guidance documents end up having to dive into that topic, because it’s not well understood what the communication is.

Just for simplicity’s sake, would it be your opinion that the actual act of trying to seek a meeting would not constitute lobbying but that the actual meeting itself, if that does in fact occur, would be lobbying? Am I understanding that correctly?

[11:30 a.m.]

Sarah Kim: Yes, and only if, in that meeting, there is an attempt to influence.

Kiel Giddens: Right. I think that’s an important distinction, because providing information is not necessarily always an attempt to influence. It’s also just making sure government is aware, in their own decision-making, so I think that’s useful.

I appreciate your time for coming to speak to us today.

Susie Chant: Hi there. Thank you so much for your presentation. Also, thank you very much for the work that you do. The Vancouver Foundation is instrumental in a lot of stuff, and it is truly appreciated, the work that you do. Just to reassure you, as you said, right at the beginning, yes, the themes that we’re hearing are fairly consistent, and they have in fact come to our attention.

Thank you so much for presenting to us today. It’s appreciated.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Any further questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you, Sarah. You know, I expect that we’ve run out of questions because we’ve heard this before, as you said. But that’s still critically important to us to understand the impact that it’s having over multiple organizations. We appreciate your time to come and present to us, especially since this is the first time we’ve reviewed the act, so it informs us well, going forward. So thank you again.

Sarah Kim: Thanks so much to the committee for the opportunity to present.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Now we will recess for lunch till 1 p.m.

The committee recessed from 11:31 a.m. to 1:03 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Steve Morissette (Chair): Welcome back, everyone.

Michael, I’m the Chair of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act. My name is Steve Morissette.

Thank you for coming and presenting to us today. We’ll open the floor to you now and listen to what you have to say from United Way B.C.

United Way B.C.

Michael McKnight: Great. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am Michael McKnight. I’m the president and CEO of the United Way British Columbia. I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this conversation.

I know United Way has been collaborating with a number of other organizations in our province on this particular issue. Today I thought I would bring a bit of a different perspective than some of my colleagues might have presented to you prior to me or after my presentation — just a different way of thinking about this issue.

I’ll start by just, maybe, providing a brief history of my involvement in this issue. Probably about, I don’t know, 15 years ago or so, I was invited by the province to participate in — I think it was referred to as a task force at the time — the creation of the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

At the time, the task force was told that, I guess, the motivation for such a piece of legislation was to be transparent on the benefits being accrued from relationships with the government, either contractual relationships or relationships in the creation of supportive legislation that might impact a particular organization or industry.

[1:05 p.m.]

At the end of the day, that benefit was really defined as…. I guess I would describe it as profit — profit that could be seen by owners of businesses, shareholders of businesses. To me and to the members of the task force, that made a lot of sense. But the perspective at the time that I was able to bring is that that definition of “benefit” through contractor legislation doesn’t really apply in the same way to the charitable sector.

I use the word “charity” very deliberately, because while every charity is a not-for-profit, not every not-for-profit is a charity, and a “charity” is defined by CRA based on a definition of “an organization whose business is charitable in nature.” There’s a very specific definition of that and a compliance with CRA around maintaining that charitable status.

Not-for-profits can be representative of industry associations or other private sector businesses. Off the top of my head, an example might be the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia, which is a not-for-profit but not a charitable organization.

In that conversation, if we think about benefits being accrued through interaction with government, what we need to understand is that no staff, no board members, no volunteers of a charitable organization accrue any benefit in the relationship that that organization has with government. Those benefits are accrued specifically for British Columbians in general — most often, I think I could say, vulnerable British Columbians who are the clients of the organizations involved.

There is a cost to that compliance. None of us have a line in a government contract that we can attribute the cost of this compliance to. At the end of the day, the cost of this compliance is borne by undesignated revenue, which almost always comes from donations.

Our donors, in essence, underwrite the cost of our compliance with the legislation, as it currently exists. I will say, particularly in this day and age, where the economy is tight and donations are very stretched, that our donors are even more sensitive to the cost of fundraising and administration. Compliance with this legislation is purely administrative.

If I ask the question of how compliance with this legislation for charities is benefiting British Columbians, I think I could say honestly that no British Columbian outside of government has ever asked me to be transparent in my relationships with government, either by way of contract or by way of advocating for specific legislation.

To end the statement part of it, I would suggest that the benefits of open and unencumbered perspectives from the community far outweigh the benefits of simple transparency around transactional interactions with government, whether it’s conversations about contracts or conversations about the benefits of specific legislation.

My suggestion, recommendation or insight could be that, while I certainly believe in the transparency of work with government, particularly as it applies to the private sector and where benefits might be accrued in the way of profits or other kinds of financial revenue, that same benefit doesn’t apply in the same way to the charitable sector. The cost far outweighs, I think, the benefit to all British Columbians.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. That’s a different perspective, for sure, than we’ve heard previously. I’ll open the floor now to questions from our members, if there are any.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much for the presentation and for taking the time to make a submission and come to speak with us today. Certainly, thank you for all of the work that United Way does for all British Columbians, including in my home community of Prince George. I appreciate that. I think your perspective among the non-profit sector is important, given how far-reaching your organization’s work is across Canada.

[1:10 p.m.]

In your written submission…. We talked about aligning the reporting requirements with the federal standards. Could you maybe explain a little bit, in your work cycle and United Way’s work cycle, how that has worked and how work in, perhaps, some other provinces is an example of that alignment — how that reduces the administrative burden for the organization?

Michael McKnight: I think our written submission is a product of our collaboration with a number of other organizations. We tried to come up with recommendations that there was consensus on among different charities, all of which are unique in and of themselves. My statement today, obviously, is a little outside of that.

What I would say, I guess, is there’s so much compliance from all kinds of different entities these days that charities need to adhere to — whether it’s compliance with CRA, the Societies Act, this act, compliance with the national or international bodies of which we are members of. United Way of Canada just sent me an email yesterday on their newest — as they called it, and I’ll quote them — “tranche” of standards that we need to comply with and report on, on an annual basis.

My perspective is, particularly when organizations are stretched and demand is higher, how can we reduce compliance requirements and reporting — not maybe compliance, maybe more reporting requirements?

Right now, we know this is a monthly compliance requirement. Certainly, less is always better. But I feel where we can eliminate the burdens for charitable organizations to do the work that they exist to do serving British Columbians, that it’s best to eliminate those requirements that aren’t ultimately most impactful on the quality of the work that we provide.

I don’t know what our colleagues in the United Ways have to comply with in other parts of the country as it relates to their own provincial legislation. I’m not aware of that, to be honest.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for joining us, for both your written and coming to present to the committee. It’s very appreciated. You can always ask sort of more detailed questions when you have somebody that actually comes to committee, so thank you for taking the time.

It’s a busy time of year, in particular for your organization. Thank you for all the support that you give families all year round, but Christmas can be particularly challenging. Those hampers often….

I have a question about paragraph 2, aligning gift requirements. The last sentence says: “Even charitable donations made on behalf of a public office are considered gifts and must be reported.” Can you just give us a bit of…? I just want to make sure I’m understanding what that means. That’s a bit confusing to me.

Michael McKnight: I guess some of this is interpretive, because until you’re deemed to be offside of something, we are trying our best to interpret what the legislation requires us to do. As is my understanding, anything that either is given to or comes from an elected official or bureaucrat has to be part of our reporting mechanism.

If we, for example, invite an elected official to be a speaker at a breakfast event and that breakfast is provided to that speaker — as it always would be, appropriately — that has to be reported as a gift.

There is complexity in this that isn’t always necessarily clear to us, to be honest. Until somebody decides we’re offside, we’re trying to interpret it to the best of our ability, and that may be an example of that.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I just have a follow-up questions, Steve.

That’s why I asked the question. Just the way that it’s written here, I wanted to make sure it wasn’t…. If I come to a United Way event, for example, and I actually make a donation as an MLA, do you have to report that?

Michael McKnight: As we understand it, yes. Again, until this happens and somebody gets called out, I’m not sure I can 100 percent…. I mean, a lawyer on the government side would have to give a more specific interpretation of that, but that is our interpretation of it at the moment.

[1:15 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Thank you. That’s why I was confused, just the way that one is written. We can actually ask the office that when they’re here later today.

Michael McKnight: Yeah. Perfect.

Harwinder Sandhu: Thank you so much, Michael. Great presentation and also such a…. I think it’s one of the best written submissions, as well.

Most importantly, I had the honour to work with United Way B.C. as Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors’ Services and Long-Term Care, and I’m always proud to share why you’re a trusted partner for the work that we’re doing. It’s incredible to see — not only helping vulnerable people but the Better at Home and other services that your organization delivers to more than 300 communities. It’s commendable.

Thank you for bringing this perspective and sharing some of the history, what happened 15 years ago, and the intent. It’s really helpful. We’ll definitely be taking it in account during our deliberations.

I just want to — Rosalyn’s question prompted my question — say that each year, even before becoming MLA and then after becoming, I used to volunteer, mostly in South Okanagan, during the breakfast drive. When we donate — say, myself — would that have to be reported?

When I was in the role of MLA…. Now I’m curious, because I’m always proud to do my tiny, little part. Did I need to take any action? Or United Way? How does that…?

Yeah. It has really opened up another conversation. Often, we don’t anticipate that this might be part of this.

Michael McKnight: Yeah. Wonderful to see you, Harwinder. It’s always wonderful to work with you.

I would say that this is a great example of…. To be, I guess, as accurately compliant with this piece of legislation as possible, charities have to invest money they don’t have in being able to interpret the legislative impact and to be compliant. Again, not being the legal expert on the details of this legal legislation, I can’t 100 percent accurately answer your question. That would have to be on the government’s legal department’s side.

I can tell you how we interpret it and the impact it has on us. But until somebody, again, is offside on it and gets a reprimand of some kind, it’s hard. It’s like legal precedent. Until we see something like that happen, all we can do is work on our own interpretation.

I will say, the government has been really good at trying to interpret things for the charitable sector. There’s no doubt about that. But until something specific happens, you’re never going to get every interpretation correct.

Harwinder Sandhu: Yeah. It’s good to be cautious and have some more clarification. I’ll definitely have this further conversation.

Thanks to Rosalyn for kind of a thought-provoking question, which…. We all need to try to do the right thing. So thank you.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Are there any further questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much, Michael. I appreciate you taking the time, as others have said, to come here and present to us. It’s really important to us going forward as we work to make recommendations to update this act. I appreciate it.

Michael McKnight: Yeah. Thank you, and I will say that this is a very important and impactful issue for the charitable sector, so we appreciate the fact that the government is taking the time to relook at the impact of this on charities across British Columbia. So thank you very much.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Great. Thank you, Michael.

Okay. We will take about a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1:19 p.m. to 1:28 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you for attending, Guntaas. We appreciate you coming and taking the time to present to us, to feed information to us — ultimately, hopefully, to adjust how we run this committee.

I’m Steve Morissette. I’m the Chair of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act. We look forward to hearing from you.

World Sikh Organization of Canada

Guntaas Kaur: Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Guntaas Kaur. I’m a national board member and director of international affairs with the World Sikh Organization of Canada, otherwise known as the WSO. This organization is a national non-partisan, not-for-profit human rights advocacy organization founded in 1984. Our mandate is to protect and promote the human rights of all Canadians, advance social justice and build community capacity across Canada.

[1:30 p.m.]

This work we carry out in B.C. through initiatives like KaursVote, the Sikh mentorship program and the Sikh Youth Leadership Institute. We engage with all levels of government on issues affecting Sikh Canadians, racialized communities and equity-seeking groups.

I’d like to start at the outset. We appreciate the opportunity to speak to the statutory review of the Lobbyists Transparency Act, or LTA. We agree with the core democratic principles behind the act — that the public must know who is trying to influence public decision-making. We feel this is fully consistent with the legislative intent described in the Ministry of Attorney General’s briefing. Transparency builds trust and supports informed democratic debate.

Our message today is very simple. Transparency must be protected, but the act must also be accessible, equitable and fit for an era of rising foreign interference.

With any review, it’s important to acknowledge what’s working well. The act’s transparency goals are sound. The act’s emphasis on public awareness of lobbying activity is foundational.

A level playing field has been created, particularly in 2020, by the 100-hour threshold for in-house lobbyists. This ensured comparable transparency across sectors. The registrar’s “education first” approach is valuable. As noted in the ORL submission, over 7,000 compliance reviews resulted in only 17 formal determinations, demonstrating effective use of guidance rather than punishment, and the WSO supports this balance.

For us, our key areas of concern and areas that need improvement include that we reduce the compliance burden for not-for-profits. Small faith-based and cultural non-profits often lack staff capacity for complex reporting. Large corporations have legal teams; grassroots charities do not.

For example, while the WSO has 21 national board members, they are all volunteering their time. The organization has only four official employees, one of whom is legal counsel. This act’s intent is to regulate transparency, not to unintentionally sideline smaller community organizations.

Then there’s striking a balance between transparency versus accessibility. The transparency must remain robust, but reporting could be tiered for very small charities. Recent 2024 amendments easing funding disclosures show the province is already moving toward reduced administrative burden where appropriate.

We also, in the current situation, run some risk of community stereotyping and it impacting their democratic participation. When racialized communities advocate, they are sometimes framed as monolithic interest groups. This discourages participation and contradicts the objectives of inclusive democratic engagement.

For example, at the WSO, we often face the statement, “Oh, sorry. I thought your two groups were the same,” when, for instance, Sikh Heritage B.C., a society focused on Sikh heritage in British Columbia, is conflated with the WSO as an advocacy organization due to the fact that we’re both Sikh-Canadian organizations.

Of key concern is a growing blind spot we see with the LTA, and that is the risk for foreign interference. This is where the current act needs modernization. There is potential for covert influence through cultural or consulate-aligned events. The current act exempts consular officials from being considered lobbyists, which is appropriate, but does not address proxy organizations or cultural fronts acting on behalf of foreign governments.

Events affiliated with groups tied to foreign state agendas…. For example, the RSS and its affiliate organization HSS — the RSS being a right-wing Hindutva paramilitary organization from India and HSS its active front in Canada and North America — often masquerade events as cultural gatherings while advancing harmful narratives about Sikh Canadians.

[1:35 p.m.]

The attendance of MLAs or public office holders and amplification of these events unintentionally legitimizes foreign influence efforts. We have in the past noted these concerns to the provincial government.

Recently the RCMP has confirmed connections between the Indian state and the Bishnoi gang’s attacks on Sikh Canadians. In this context, informal, off-registry relationships between provincial politicians and consulate-aligned actors create significant vulnerabilities.

We recognize and applaud the need for cooling-off periods and growing awareness of conflicts of interests. The enforcement of the two-year prohibition or cooling-off period between holding a public office and lobbying the government is essential in our perspective. More clarity, however, is needed around lobbyists who also hold government contracts. These dual roles can create conflicts of interest, as flagged in the act’s own contracting prohibition framework.

Lastly, in this area is education and the need for an equity lens within that education. The registrar already leads with education, but targeted, culturally competent support for racialized communities is very needed. The act should explicitly require consideration of equity impacts so that transparency rules do not inadvertently silence marginalized voices.

This brings us to our recommendations. One is the proportional reporting requirements for small charities, introducing quarterly or even semi-annual reporting for organizations below a certain threshold of staffing or revenue.

Providing simplified forms modelled on the province’s recent simplification of funding disclosures; addressing the potential for covert foreign lobbying by prohibiting undeclared lobbying through cultural or consulate-related events and requiring MLAs to disclose participation, sponsorship or invitation from groups with foreign government affiliations.

Strengthening the cooling-off and conflict rules, so ensure full enforcement of section 2.4 cooling-off periods and broaden conflict-of-interest rules for lobbyists holding government contracts.

Increasing equity-based guidance, so require that the act and registrar apply an equity lens when assessing compliance expectations for racialized and faith-based communities.

Enhancing or strengthening education supports by expanding multilingual resources, webinars and direct advisory support for grassroots community organizations.

Last, improve foreign interference safeguards, requiring registrants to disclose foreign affiliations or funding streams where relevant and closing gaps where foreign-state-aligned organizations operate outside the transparency mechanisms envisioned by the LTA.

In conclusion, the LTA is one of the strongest lobbying frameworks in Canada. Both the ministry and the ORL have emphasized this in their materials. With targeted reforms, it can remain transparent while becoming more accessible, equitable and resilient in the face of modern risks. These improvements will strengthen public trust in democracy without stifling legitimate advocacy, particularly from communities most vulnerable to stereotyping and foreign interference.

I thank you for considering our submissions. We would be pleased to provide further input, including at further stages of this review. I welcome your questions.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. We’ll open the floor to questions right now.

Susie Chant: Thank you very much for your presentation. It’s appreciated, and it’s brought some stuff to us that we haven’t been thinking about in other areas, which we’re always grateful for.

[1:40 p.m.]

I’d like to delve a little bit into the question around the work from folks from different countries that are represented in British Columbia. If you can talk a little bit about…. This is difficult for me to articulate, so bear with me.

Foreign interference is one thing, and I totally understand that, but for instance, if a group is lobbying on behalf of a cultural thing or something else, where does that fit into what you’re speaking about, please?

Guntaas Kaur: I think our points are primarily around the disclosure of associations with foreign state agendas. I completely understand your point with respect to cultural advocacy or raising awareness on aspects of the legislative work that may impact, if I could say, perhaps aspects of culture that have not been considered.

But I think it’s more around the disclosure that needs to be increased that we are particularly speaking to and the awareness of within the lobbying environment of those affiliated relationships — I’m also going to try to cover a number of examples — that may be more aligned with state agendas rather than particular community cultural agendas. Just being aware of that but also being aware of how the participation of MLAs in those events based…. If there is the affiliation with state agendas, the impact of that participation.

I’m not sure if that addressed your question entirely.

Susie Chant: Follow-up?

Steve Morissette (Chair): Yes, go ahead with the follow-up.

Susie Chant: So, part of this is…. And I’m not being flippant in any way, shape or form, but part of this is optics, too. You know, who are you seen with? What are you seen doing? Am I understanding that correctly?

Guntaas Kaur: Yes, absolutely. I would say that it’s not so much alone the optics, but optics are…. As we all say, as we all are aware, sometimes an image carries a thousand words.

It’s the participation, the optics and the amplification without being aware of the underlying affiliations. It’s that affiliations aspect, the promotion that might be attempted without the individual — in this case, we’re using an example of MLAs — being aware of perhaps that it’s attached to harmful narratives around particular communities within Canada. I’m not just relegating this to Sikh Canadians. We’ve heard a great deal from other communities as well. So I could see it applying to a number of communities in Canada.

Steve Morissette (Chair): We’ll go on to Kiel next and then Harwinder.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much for taking the time to present a unique perspective for this group.

Certainly, especially, the work of faith-based organizations as well, I think, is important for us to consider. This is definitely a topic we have not discussed yet, particularly what you’ve raised with regards to foreign interference.

In terms of…. There are a couple of…. I think the foreign interference theme has kind of been woven throughout a number of your recommendations as well. I just want to dive into it a little bit further.

I think the disclosure by foreign affiliations and funding streams…. I can certainly see the rationale. I’m trying to align how the practicability of that happening would work. Are there examples of other jurisdictions that you’re aware of that the organization might work in that this does occur?

I do have a follow-up question afterwards, but I’ll just leave you with that one first.

[1:45 p.m.]

Guntaas Kaur: So in particular, you’re wondering if there are examples of jurisdictions, particularly where it might be the disclosure or that the agenda’s…? Sorry. If you could clarify it? Perhaps I’m not understanding that.

Kiel Giddens: I’m just looking at your recommendation 6, requiring registrants to disclose foreign affiliations in funding streams where applicable. Do you have examples of where that is? I’m just trying to imagine the practicability of that working and how it could be done by organizations.

Guntaas Kaur: One of the examples I used earlier was the RSS. Its Canadian affiliate was HSS. It positions itself as a cultural organization, particularly with an emphasis on youth activities. However, it is closely aligned with a right-wing paramilitary organization out of India.

The potential lies, in an example like that, that the HSS’s agenda or activities are closely aligned with a foreign state and its perhaps particular emphasis on narratives that may be harmful to Canadians of particular backgrounds that that foreign entity wants to discredit.

Where it comes to funding streams, it would be to indicate, perhaps, if any of its funding streams are foreign in nature. I cannot speak to specific examples of other jurisdictions that have applied to this, but I would say that is particularly one example that I could highlight.

So indicating in its reporting that there are either a significant number of donors that are not necessarily residing in Canada and where they are coming from, or if it receives…. It may even be one significant source of funding from outside of Canada, so disclosing that.

The exact mechanism we could certainly look into and provide you with some further information if you would wish to have it.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you. That would be helpful. If I can ask a follow up.

I appreciate that response. Just the other recommendations I’m trying to fully understand are recommendations 2 and 3, ensuring that MLAs disclose participation and sponsorship of any covert lobbying. Then the second is strengthening enforcement of section 2.4, so the cooling off period.

I guess for those two in particular, there’s a burden on MLAs there that I think you’re getting at. Currently, with regards to recommendation 2, a lot of the MLAs are governed by the conflict-of-interest and disclosure requirements there. The Lobbyists Transparency Act isn’t actually what governs it. It’s actually under a separate piece. The burden of disclosure for under the Lobbyists Transparency Act is actually the outside groups.

Do you think that…? Are you saying that this needs to be expanded in some way to include a component of MLA disclosure, for one? On the conflict-of-interest side, what do you foresee as…? What does strengthening enforcement of section 2.4 look like in your mind?

Guntaas Kaur: I was also considering, as we were developing these recommendations, and I think it’s…. Two years is a considerable amount of time, and I think it’s a necessary amount of time. But it’s how that is monitored or enforced.

I can understand that “enforced” sounds like a very hard line or hard language to use. But I think our recommendation is focused on ensuring that that two years is complied with and creating some mechanism of ensuring that, perhaps, the two-year time period is well-documented and that all between the ORL and the MLA perhaps leaving public office is aware of that date.

[1:50 p.m.]

If it’s a date, then it’s a date. If it’s more of a grace period that ends those two years, then being aware of that. Some mechanism of recording it, or perhaps keeping note of that time period, so that the potential for possible lobbying to occur before that time period elapses is less likely, if I can say….

With respect to MLA disclosure of conflict of interest or…. I appreciate your point and I’ve taken note of it, that there are other pieces that govern MLAs and their disclosure. I do believe that some, perhaps, expansion of that, specifically with this context and the growing rise of, particularly, foreign interference, is perhaps needed, specifically to this.

I don’t anticipate that we need to, or foresee the need to, apply a second piece to MLAs, but perhaps in this specific context, where there’s a potential for foreign-affiliated organizations or agendas that may be at work.

I hope that explains the thought process behind those recommendations a bit better.

Harwinder Sandhu: Thank you, Guntaas, for such a great presentation and, most importantly, for addressing the elephant in the room. While others listening may think this foreign interference issue might only impact one diaspora or certain communities, it is a known fact that foreign interference is a major growing threat across the world, and it comes from various countries.

It’s a major threat to any democracy, and we talk about Canadian democracy. Some interference, we know, is designed to shake the public confidence, create unrest and anger, so that the very foundations of democracies can be shaken. People often don’t have the full side of the story. There are many examples, but I won’t take time to share that as your organization is probably well versed in what’s happening.

It’s concerning for everyone, regardless of people’s backgrounds. That’s why I’m just grateful that you brought that perspective, which will be helpful for us when we’re reviewing.

I have a question. As MLAs, we’re invited to foreign events, and sometimes delegates come here. Our goal is to connect, to build relationships, also get to know them. Even if there are tensions between countries, our focus is always to build relationships and address challenges that we’re hearing from people, whether it’s in British Columbia or Canada, with those delegates and, hopefully, bring people together.

Covering some events, how can we differentiate whether there is an event celebrating community and hoping we bring everyone together…? I certainly know that that can be perceived as…. It all depends on optics. Some people may perceive it as foreign interference; some people may see it the other way.

While we’re having these deliberations, how can we differentiate? Are there ideas that whenever, whatever we do…? Or address how we can make it more clear, to prevent further confusion, conflict or any frustration, to do the right thing.

I hope my question made sense. Like, is there any idea how we can do it so that people don’t get mixed up with the two different intents and two different reasons why we’re at some place, no matter which party’s MLAs?

Guntaas Kaur: I completely understand. I do appreciate your comments earlier as well.

With respect to your question, I think the two go hand in hand, and I would say both parties have to act in tandem with each other. I think as MLAs, I can understand your responsibilities include learning about and creating awareness on community events and community concerns, regardless of who those communities are. That may put you in certain positions of meeting entities and individuals that have other agendas, underlying or apparent.

[1:55 p.m.]

As MLAs, perhaps being aware of entities and doing that due diligence behind the scenes with respect to who these organizations or these community affiliates are…. But at the same time, I think that’s why our recommendations are there. Organizations, equally, must also indicate their funding sources or their affiliation with foreign states and where their initiatives may correlate or coincide with those.

I don’t think there’s a clear solution specifically for MLAs only. I think it’s a two-part process that needs to be created. No one is going to get it completely right, but I think incrementally, with each process or procedure, there will be greater transparency and greater understanding of who the actors are and where they’re coming from. With that, we hope that it will mitigate or reduce the possibilities.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much for joining us today. It’s always interesting when you do committee work and you get a presentation that sort of highlights something that we haven’t seen with other presentations. That’s very appreciated.

You may or may not know the answer to this question. I just thought I’d ask it because of the particular perspective that you are bringing.

Are you aware, when there is an event similar to some of the ones that you’re talking about that may include individuals from embassies and consulates — it may be ambassadors; it may be attachés…? Around your concerns regarding foreign influence, do you know if there is any cross-reference with those larger, I’ll say, social- or political-type events, usually around international relations? If there’s any cross-reference between provincial and federal lobbying rules or regulations?

Guntaas Kaur: Cross-reference between rules and regulations?

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Well, not necessarily that. Are you aware, with an event like that, if that information is shared sort of provincial to federal, federal to provincial, in regards to the lobbying legislation?

Guntaas Kaur: I’m not at this moment aware. I don’t have anything on hand that I can point to specifically. I’m happy to provide that if we do, and we can certainly take a look into it and get back to you.

What came to my mind when you were asking the question with respect to individuals attending events…. And this is not specifically about intergovernmental sharing of information. I think recent investigations into foreign interference have indicated that individuals, from within even foreign government institutions in Canada, have played, perhaps, a role in foreign interference and the activities of that, so within consulates themselves. That did come to my mind.

But your question specifically with respect to federal to provincial — I do not have that information on hand at this moment, but I am certainly willing to take a look and get back to your committee, if that would be permissible.

I also remember there was a previous question, as well, of jurisdiction that I’m also more than willing to look into.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): It wasn’t my intention to create more work for you. I just thought you might actually know.

Guntaas Kaur: Not a problem at all. This is what we’re here for. It is an excellent question, and I do appreciate the spirit behind it.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): The office is going to be here this afternoon, so it’s a question we can bring up with them also.

Thank you so much. I very much appreciate it. This is actually a very interesting perspective, so I appreciate that.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Yes, thank you so much for the presentation. We truly appreciate it. This is our first review of the act, so it’s important to gather this kind of information. We appreciate your time and your openness sharing with us.

Guntaas Kaur: You’re welcome. Thank you for the time and for considering our submissions.

Steve Morissette (Chair): We’ll take a two-minute recess to reset.

The committee recessed from 2:00 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Steve Morissette (Chair): I’m Steve Morissette. I’m the Chair of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act. We truly appreciate you coming forward to present to us, to feed us information as we move forward.

Welcome, Alanah. I’ll open the floor to you, and you can share your presentation with us. Thank you.

MS Canada

Alanah Duffy: Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, everyone. I’m pleased to provide remarks today on behalf of MS Canada. My name is Alanah Duffy, and I work as a manager of government relations with the organization.

I’m grateful for this opportunity to present today as the committee works to improve the Lobbyists Transparency Act. We feel the act can better work for charities and not-for-profit organizations while still maintaining the transparency and accountability for which the act was created.

First, I want to share a little bit about multiple sclerosis, or MS, and the work that MS Canada does. MS is one of the most common neurological diseases among young adults in Canada, and Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world, with an estimated 90,000 Canadians living with the disease. On average, 12 Canadians are diagnosed daily, and most are between the ages of 20 and 49, prime years for career and family development.

MS is a continuous disease process that progresses through different stages over time, and everyone experiences it differently, as severity, symptoms and response to treatment can vary from person to person. The unpredictable, episodic yet progressive nature of MS makes it particularly challenging to maintain an adequate quality of life.

[2:05 p.m.]

At MS Canada, we focus on support, advocacy and research that will positively impact the lives of people living with and affected by MS. For more than 75 years, we have been a trusted connection for the MS community to valuable resources and programs needed on their unique MS journey.

We advocate for policy change that removes barriers and improves the well-being of those affected by MS in Canada. We invest in life-changing research that will advance treatment and care, enhance well-being, help to understand and halt disease progression and, ultimately, prevent MS.

As a national charitable organization engaged in advocacy to improve the lives of Canadians affected by MS, MS Canada must comply with the Lobbyists Transparency Act. The current act requires information that takes a disproportionate amount of staff time to reconcile, while we deal with limited staff resources.

Data from Statistics Canada has found that in 2023, there were relatively fewer charitable donors in Canada compared with 2018, despite a sizable increase in the population during those years. This decline coincides with the rising cost of living. Along with that rising cost of living, there has been more demand on our organization to provide supports. All charities are doing more with less in recent years.

There are three areas where we feel the Lobbyists Transparency Act can be improved: financial reporting requirements, reporting intervals and social media reporting requirements.

First, I will discuss the issues with the financial reporting requirements. MS Canada is a national non-profit organization that operates under a single charitable number. Under the mandate of the act, our organization is required to report detailed financial information from all municipal, provincial and federal governments in the country.

For example, a small grant from a municipality in Nova Scotia must be reported to remain compliant with the act. As a national charity, MS Canada receives funding from provinces and communities across the country to provide programs and services within those communities. Collecting this information for the purposes of the registry reporting requires hours of staff time to reconcile.

We do appreciate a recent change to only require reporting on funding received from government agencies. Until this recent change, we were required to report on all government funding requested, some of which was ultimately never granted. It was extremely difficult to track funding applications made by multiple staff across different departments throughout our organization.

We appreciate that change and encourage further amendments to only require reporting on funding received from government and government agencies within the province of British Columbia.

Second, the Lobbyists Transparency Act requires much more frequent reporting than other Canadian lobby registries. Section 4.1(1) of the act outlines the monthly reporting requirement for lobbying activity to the lobbyist registry, while section 4.3(1) details the requirement to report quarterly on funding received from all levels of government.

Outside of British Columbia, no other jurisdiction requires regular reporting of funding received from government more than every six months. Notably, this high frequency of reporting was even higher until recently, when organizations were required to provide monthly reporting on government funding. Despite this recent and welcome change, B.C.’s quarterly reporting frequency is still twice as frequent as other jurisdictions.

Lastly, the social media reporting requirements are particularly labour-intensive for MS Canada. We are required to report separately on each social media post directed to a senior public office holder. For example, we often engage with politicians who participate in our annual Burgers to Beat MS fundraiser on their social media. Every August, we ask politicians from across Canada to participate in Burgers to Beat MS Day, where $2 from every A&W Teen Burger purchased is donated to MS Canada to support programs and research.

We send two emails ahead of time notifying politicians of this event and encourage them to grab a burger and share a photo on their social media. Then we have to closely monitor the social media of B.C. MLAs and report any posts from MLAs about this fundraiser.

As MLAs often have several different social media channels, it’s extremely time-consuming to check three or four different channels for all 93 MLAs to see if they’ve posted about Burgers to Beat MS. My team has to block off the entire day after Burgers to Beat MS Day in our calendars to check the social media posts of B.C. MLAs for our reporting.

[2:10 p.m.]

We feel posting on social media channels such as Facebook, X and Instagram are public and easily searchable. The posts are about public awareness of MS and not advancing any particular ask. In fact, we do not approach MLAs about our advocacy priorities over social media. As well, no other lobby registry requires us to report on social media posts.

To conclude, the current requirements under the Lobbyists Transparency Act and requirements by the office of the registrar of lobbyists have placed a disproportionate burden on MS Canada’s advocacy work in British Columbia.

We are pleased to be part of the review of this legislation and hope that we can work together to make the Lobbyists Transparency Act more manageable for charities and not-for-profits while still maintaining the transparency and accountability goals of the act.

Thank you for your time, and now I welcome any questions.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Alanah. I’ll now open the floor to any questions from members.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Alanah. I don’t have a question. I just wanted to say thank you for joining us today and giving us a written submission.

That’s the first time we’ve heard that. We’ve heard, from other organizations, the challenges around social media, but the way you just described it — for highly encouraging the public to be aware of an illness that is drastically growing in numbers and to help support an organization that is not only doing advocacy work but doing research.

The fact that you’re taking an entire day, with your whole team, to track social media is crazy. That is absolutely crazy. Although we’ve heard that from other people, the particular example you gave just put it in a whole new light. This is the beauty of people actually coming and making presentations. We get to read the written one, but then we get to hear your own perspectives and some experiences that aren’t necessarily in the written submission.

I very much appreciate you joining us, particularly at this time of year. Your organization does fantastic work, and your events are actually amazing. Thank you for what you are doing in the province. I know this team is hoping to make things a little bit easier for you and other organizations that are doing incredible work.

Alanah Duffy: Thank you, MLA Bird. I really appreciate the comments.

We think that with just some tightened language within the act, it might help alleviate the social media burden, to differentiate between posts and lobbying on social media. The posts that we see are often just about raising awareness, but because there’s such ambiguity in the language, we just feel like we should report them to remain compliant.

Maybe that’s an area that could receive some focus when your committee does the report.

Harwinder Sandhu: Thank you, Alanah. I’m immensely grateful to you and your organization for the life-changing work that you all do. You do lots with limited resources, and the social media piece is so complex. We have heard from many organizations, but you elaborated it so eloquently.

You highlighted that your team has to block off an entire day, and I’m still thinking many of us go to many events in a week or a day, and we don’t even get to upload everything on social media. Your team would have, probably, dedicated an entire day — which, I think, is crazy — that they could have utilized to do other things that people need and that needed to be done.

If we posted afterwards, which we often do, maybe a week from now or in a few days, then it still leaves the organization in limbo. I think this is certainly helpful. I just want to appreciate the presentation and the work you do.

Alanah Duffy: Thank you so much, MLA Sandhu.

Yes, part of the reason it’s time-consuming is because MLAs go to many events and often post a couple of times a day. We try to go through the posts the next day, because then we have less content to scroll through, but our communications team also has a list of the B.C. MLAs to alert us if there are any posts after the event date, for example, like you brought up.

[2:15 p.m.]

Janet Routledge: I don’t want to repeat what my colleagues on the committee have said, although I agree with everything they’ve said.

The one additional piece that I wrote down for myself…. We’ve already had a number of presenters who have made the distinction between lobbying and advocacy. The other piece that you’ve brought in, particularly with talking about social media, is raising awareness. Raising awareness is not the same as lobbying.

I think it’s something as a committee we need to discuss more deeply in terms of how we make it safe for organizations like yours that do such important work to safely do that work. Thanks.

Alanah Duffy: Thanks, MLA Routledge. I think you’re right. A lot of charities and not-for-profits felt we were caught up in a lobbyists act that was designed for corporations and for-profit entities. With some small tweaks, I think we can make it work for everyone and still maintain the transparency.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Alanah. Really appreciate it.

You know, I didn’t realize that me eating a Teen Burger and posting on Instagram was going to cause extra work for you, but there you go. That’s where we are. So appreciate you highlighting some of the concerns.

On the social media posts, one thing you said I just want to dive into a little bit further. You basically described the fact that the ambiguity is what has led to this overreporting.

What type of guidance did you actually receive from the office of the registrar, and what kind of feedback did they provide? What has led to this situation that you find yourself in, where you feel the need to overreport on social media in particular?

Alanah Duffy: Thanks for the question, MLA Giddens. I will say the office has been extremely accessible for any questions we’ve had over the years since the act came out.

I know Charles Aruliah from the Canadian Cancer Society mentioned that we met with Michael Harvey. I think it was back in October or November. I had a chance to ask this question for the first time, and they said that if it’s just an awareness post, we likely don’t have to report it, but it’s better to err on the side of caution.

That is what we’ve been doing in order to remain compliant so we can keep doing our advocacy work in British Columbia, so we would appreciate some more written guidance just so that it’s black and white for everyone who falls under the act.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Are there any further questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you so much, Alanah. We truly appreciate you taking the time to come and present to us, as this is the first review of the act. All this information feeds into our deliberations going forward, and we truly appreciate you taking the time. Thank you.

Alanah Duffy: Thank you all for your time. Appreciate it.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Have a good afternoon.

Alanah Duffy: You too.

Steve Morissette (Chair): We’ll take a ten-minute recess until the next presentation.

The committee recessed from 2:18 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you for coming to present, Sasha. I’m Steve Morissette. I’m the Chair of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

You’ll have ten minutes for the presentation and up to 20 minutes for questions from committee members.

Sasha Izard

Sasha Izard: Thank you for your invitation to participate in this committee process in regard to the Lobbyists Transparency Act. It is an honour.

It is critical to note that the name of the Lobbyists Transparency Act is not accurate. It is misleading, and it should be changed. Lobbying in British Columbia is simply not transparent at present.

Nothing better illustrates that than that the government of British Columbia had top lobbyists of a major lobbying organization for corporate development and real estate interests, the Urban Development Institute, sign non-disclosure agreements as they advised the province on provincial housing targets for municipalities — a program of targets to municipalities that they had been lobbying the province for, for years, to implement. The province responded by implementing housing targets as requested.

The practice of having lobbyists sign non-disclosure agreements while advising the province on the subject of their lobbying completely violates the spirit of the act, which is to make lobbying transparent, and this practice should be forbidden under the act.

Also, from what I understand, there is an exemption whereby if the province invites lobbyists, e.g. the UDI, for consultation, then what they attempt to convince the province of — items that they are being consulted on — is not considered lobbying, and they and others in such a situation do not have to register such activities as lobbying.

This double standard should be ended. It allows lobbying to go under the radar, and thus there is lack of requirements for lobbying registration in the LTA in regard to this form of what I call reverse lobbying, which should be ended. Having topics of discussion often vague, and registered only after meeting certain criteria, cannot be said to be making lobbying transparent. Rather, this fulfils some bare-bones requirements of the most basic levels of transparency.

To be transparent, all lobbying would have to be recorded and instantly made publicly available without censorship, i.e. redaction, which would make lobbying democratic in that the demos, or the public, could see what is transpiring between their elected officials and bureaucrats as it actually takes place and thus understand how that leads to policy decision–making. Right now much of this takes place behind closed doors, with many secretive lobby committees advising branches of government behind the scenes, as revealed by freedom of information.

“Freedom of information” is also a misnomer, as sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, most notably section 13, which is discretionary, allows the provincial government to censor and redact most lobbying-derived content that is circulated internally, as these can be considered advice or recommendations developed for a public body, and the government can pick and choose, including in a heavy-handed way, what content the public can see or not see in this regard.

Heavy-handed delays and costs can also be barriers to the public being able to see, in a timely matter, lobbying’s effects on policy-making before the public has time to react, as legislation can be, and has been, quickly advanced that has been heavily based on lobbying. This undermines democracy.

Therefore, as lobbying in the province cannot in any true sense of the word be called transparent, I suggest renaming the act to the accurately named lobbying registry act. Alternatively, lobbying could be made fully transparent, which would include having all lobbying activity fully recorded and made immediately, without censorship or redaction, available to the public. If that were achieved — and I suggest it be, but I doubt it will be — then yes, the name Lobbyists Transparency Act could live up to its name and warrant being kept.

As this is not the case at present, once again, I suggest that the act be renamed the lobbying registry act to accurately reflect what it is, for the most part. I say “for the most part” because, from what I understand and from my communications with the office of the registrar of lobbyists for B.C., unpaid lobbyists are not required to register their activity on the B.C. lobbyists registry.

This creates major opportunities for what I refer to as proxy lobbying or astroturf lobbying, whereby volunteer organizations — e.g. societies or other groups, including student groups lobbying in the interests of the same industry that is helping to organize and finance them, e.g. the UVic Real Estate Club — can advance lobbying of other interests without having to register lobbying activity.

That activity can thus pass under the radar, something that can undermine democracy while advancing private and/or outside interests, even co-opting the use of the name of a public body — in this example, the University of Victoria, which, as it receives significant government funding, is classified as a public body under FOIPPA.

[2:35 p.m.]

I direct you to my article, which can be read at the Creatively United website, titled “Does the Provincial Government of British Columbia Legally Recognize the Existence of Any Lobby?” It is a critical question to ask. “Lobby” is not defined as a noun in the so-called Lobbyists Transparency Act, nor is “lobbying organization,” a compound noun, recognized under the act, as I was informed by the office of the registrar of lobbyists for B.C.

There are many problems with this, as “lobby” and “lobbying” are treated as verbs under the act, but the act does not recognize a lobby as being a distinct entity — a critical omission. By using the word “lobbyist” and in other instances, the act often focuses on individuals while often overlooking organizational accountability and responsibility, i.e. in examples of conflict of interest.

The following is the definition from the Cambridge English Dictionary of “lobby” as a noun: “Lobby, noun (pressure group), a group of people who try to persuade the government or an official group to do something.” That is a very good starting point. We can see how “lobby” is defined in the English language as a noun. Does the Lobbyists Transparency Act capture even a fraction of that activity in its registration requirements? I think not, and therefore, these omissions must be found and fixed in order to live up to the act’s name.

I offer the following examples of what could be added to the act to identify what is a lobby.

(a) A lobby, noun, is a non-public organization that offers the influencing of public officials, elected or otherwise, e.g. bureaucrats, as a service to others.

(b) A non-public organization that is not a registered charity which offers or provides political influence for its paying members should, for the purposes of the act, be considered a lobby, noun.

(c) A non-public organization will also be considered a lobby, noun, if among the purposes of such an organization is to influence elected officials.

(d) If the constitution of a society or business operating in British Columbia, whether profit or non-profit, indicates that among the purposes of the organization are to convince or influence elected officials, then the organization, provided that it is not a public body, is considered a lobby, noun, for the purposes of this act and must register its status as a lobby, noun, as per the act.

In regard to this latter example that I have provided as a recommendation to be included in the act, I will quote an excerpt from the stated purposes of a society from the very brief constitution of the Homes for Living Foundation, which is registered under the Societies Act as a non-profit entity and which has also functioned as a third-party advertising sponsor during the general local government election of 2022.

“We want to take a data-driven approach and transparently cast a light on what councillors support/don’t support so that people can pressure them to support policies that are the most impactful.”

The organization is clear in its stated purposes in its constitution that it wants to pressure elected officials to support certain policies. Yet Homes for Living, which has sent lobbying letters to MLAs — and whose members have met with MLAs, advancing a development agenda very similar to that of registered lobbying organizations — does not register lobbying activity.

The act ignores organizations like them, which lobby without those involved in the organization being paid for it, yet which are clearly acting as a lobby by the Cambridge English Dictionary definition of “lobby” as a noun, which categorizes the word “lobby,” noun, as “pressure group.” Pressuring politicians as a want of the organization is clearly stated in the purposes of the organization in its registered constitution.

Why is this not covered by the act? This is clearly an omission, as such lobbying, by the use of the word in English, is not transparent in the province, as it does not have to be registered under the LTA. As I stated in my submission, there should be two types of lobbying that require registration, the category of unpaid lobbying/unpaid lobbyists and the category of paid lobbying/paid lobbyists. This could be indicated by boxes representing the categories, which can be ticked off accordingly while registering lobbying activity.

Another critical elephant-in-the-room omission in the act is the major double standard whereby municipalities are not provided for in provincial legislation to have and enforce mandatory lobbyists registries, unlike the province itself, which requires such activity aimed at the province to be registered under the LTA, yet local governments are under provincial legislation.

This can be solved simply, as has been proposed through UBCM: that the province include in the LTA that the activity of lobbying of municipalities be required to be registered, just as it is currently required for lobbying of the province.

I suggest the following to be included under definitions of “lobby” as a noun, in addition to the examples that I have already provided. Organizations that are not public bodies and are not registered charities that hold events for elected officials where the elected officials can be influenced, such as events that involve advocacy, lobbying, education, dining and/or networking, should be defined as lobbies and such events should be defined as lobby events in the LTA.

[2:40 p.m.]

Some reasonable exemptions could apply to this in the act, but they should be specific, rational and not used as loopholes to be exploited for the purposes of crypto lobbying, which is something that unfortunately flourishes in the province of British Columbia, owing much to a lack of appropriate provisions in the act as it currently stands. I hope these are fixed.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank very much for your presentation, Sasha. We’ll open the floor to questions from members.

Susie Chant: Thank you for your presentation, Sasha.

Can you tell me what crypto lobbying means when you say it like that? I don’t understand.

Sasha Izard: Well, crypto is secret. It’s secret because the lobbying is not registered. It may not be viewable to the public at all, or it may not be recognized as lobbying, but it fits the Cambridge English definition of lobbying and lobby as a noun.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Any other questions?

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Sasha, for taking the time to present and provide a submission.

You’ve referenced the use of NDAs in that process. I’m wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on what brought you to just become interested in that particular situation and what you see is happening, I guess, in that regard with NDAs in particular.

Sasha Izard: Sure. Is anybody familiar with the Urban Development Institute? It’s a registered organization, actively registered on the B.C. lobbyists registry. It’s regarded by many as the most powerful and influential lobbying organization for development in real estate in the province.

The province consults with them on a regular basis. The UDI has many committees that meet with the province. That was on its website, udi.org. It has taken down those committees. I have an article that documents those committees and who are on those committees, which include not only industry representatives but even public officials and public organizations — for example, QuadReal, which is a branch of the B.C. Investment Corporation.

The government and lobbies have overlapped significantly to the point where I think we need a separation of lobby and state.

I contacted the Ministry of Housing, through the FOI process, and asked them about committees. They didn’t want to answer many questions about the committees. I would describe their response as evasive.

I made a major freedom-of-information request, which you can access through the B.C. government’s online portal, for all the communications with the ministry, with the UDI, and also the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and some other ministries as well.

The result of that is I have in my possession, and I have published articles on this, the actual signed NDAs of top lobbyists in the Urban Development Institute that signed non-disclosure agreements with the province so that when the province consulted them on the upcoming housing legislation, which they themselves had lobbied for, the UDI lobbyists would not have to divulge that information.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I wanted to thank you for coming today, not only your written submission but in person. I sit on a couple of committees, and we don’t often get individuals doing that type of thing. They usually always represent a fairly significant entity of one type or another.

I wanted to thank you for your passion and being participatory as a citizen, actually, in this process. I wish we saw it more, to be quite honest. I just wanted to applaud you for that.

Sasha Izard: Thank you. I wish we saw that more as well. I wish we saw it from our wonderful media in the province, which does not do appropriate investigatory journalism because they do not talk about these issues.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I just wanted to, especially this time of year…. I very much appreciate you taking the time.

Sasha Izard: I very much appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Seeing no more questions, thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate you taking the time to come and present to us as our first review of this act, so appreciate your comments and your perspective.

Sasha Izard: Any time. If you wish to contact me, I can provide you any articles or references, including freedom-of-information content, of which I have much.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you, Sasha. Appreciate it.

Okay, we’ll take a 15-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 2:44 p.m. to 3:03 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Steve Morissette (Chair): Welcome back, everyone. Last but not least, we will hear from the office of the registrar of lobbyists. Welcome back.

You will have 30 minutes for presentation and up to 30 minutes for questions from committee members. The floor is yours.

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists

Michael Harvey: Thank you very much. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee.

I would like to begin by respectfully acknowledging the land on which we are meeting today, on the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən People of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. I am grateful to live and work with people from across many traditional and unceded territories covering all regions of British Columbia.

With me today are deputy registrar oline Twiss and policy analyst Nick Rowlands.

I want to begin by thanking you for inviting me and my team here today to discuss our recommendations as part of your work in this inaugural statutory review of the Lobbyists Transparency Act. In my last appearance, I spoke about the important role that lobbying plays in our society and the role of the lobbyists registry in promoting transparency and who is influencing decision-makers for B.C.

Let me underscore the importance of lobbying to our democracy. Government, legislators and other public officials can understand the society they’re charged with governing better when they are meeting with lobbyists from organizations and associations, whether for profit or not for profit. Simply put, lobbyists can often provide substantive information about their needs, expertise, preferences and pressures to inform the decisions being made to govern this province.

When lobbying happens without transparency, accountability suffers, and trust is damaged. This is where the LTA has an essential role in contributing to trust.

[3:05 p.m.]

The overarching goal of the rules set out in the act is to ensure that there is transparency in who is paid to communicate with you and other public office holders in an attempt to influence your decisions. If I think back to the primary policy objective that this legislative review can accomplish, I’d say that the act as a whole is in good shape.

As I remarked when I appeared before you previously, it is seen as a leading statute in Canada and even beyond. The main reason is the high level of transparency that the LTA provides for people living in British Columbia about who is trying to influence public office holders.

That said, there are of course some things that can be refined, and we will focus on five specific recommendations that, in our view, will improve transparency and the administration of the act. Before I get into our specific recommendations, I would like to draw your attention to our strategic plan, which we developed over the course of the past year and released in October. It’s available on our website.

In that plan, we recognized that awareness of the act and the need to simplify administration of the act are two areas that require our specific focus. On the issue of awareness, we have prioritized a multi-pronged approach to reach lobbyists who may not be aware of the act and therefore may be unknowingly lobbying and not registering their lobbying, as required by the act.

We are also looking at ways to reach them through networks and associations, through public office holders themselves, and through other creative means. However, we’re also committed to improving our education and outreach to currently registered lobbyists, with a focus on simplifying and streamlining our guidance documents so that lobbyists are better informed on how to comply with the act.

In terms of simplifying the administration of the act, we know that parts of it are complicated and that even those who have been working with the act for a long time can be confused about how it is supposed to operate. In our view, it is not so much that the act is complicated but, often, that reality is complicated. Politics are complicated.

The lobbying community is diverse, there are numerous types of public office holders, and the types of activities involved in influencing them are themselves numerous and varied. Applying the requirements of the act to many different fact circumstances is where the complications come in. This is an unavoidable feature of modern democratic governance.

Even on Friday, there were a number of things that were said in presentations to this committee that weren’t accurate. I would like to clarify, briefly and for the record, just a few of those now, so that both the public and the committee are not left with incorrect conclusions. Of course, I will be glad to address any other questions after this appearance today that you may have on specific provisions of the act and that may have raised questions throughout your deliberations.

For example, a few presentations put forward that jail time is a potential result from contravening the act. I can say, with absolute certainty, that this is not the case. The LTA provides me with authority to issue administrative monetary penalties of up to $25,000, which, I should say, we have never come close to, or to issue an administrative penalty that prohibits an individual from lobbying for a period of two years. We have not, to date, had to exercise that function. But no jail time.

Another point of possible confusion I heard on Friday relates to lobbying that is consulted via social media platforms. Only social media posts directed at public office holders, where the content of the post also meets the definition of “lobby,” require reporting in the lobbyists registry.

When I say “directed at,” I mean that the post needs to tag the public office holder. If we’re talking about X, for example, it would have to use “@” and their username, or it would have to use a hashtag, to direct the communication at the person, like if you were sending them an email or a letter. Simply posting about a public policy issue on social media with no direction at a public office holder would not be lobbying.

Additionally, a post whose content is not an attempt to influence any of the items referenced in the definition of “lobby” would also not be viewed as lobbying. For example, if an individual posts a photo of themselves with a public office holder to a social media platform, without any content that attempts to influence public policy, that would not be considered lobbying, and they wouldn’t have to include that in a monthly report.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’d also like to clarify that meetings that are requested with public office holders but never set up do not need to be reported. Further, if a lobbyist is arranging a meeting with a public office holder just for themselves, the guidance from my office is that they do not have to report the arranging of the meeting — in other words, the request for the meeting. They just report the actual meeting when it happens.

Finally, for assurance for those that have appeared as part of this process before you, presenting to a committee of the Legislative Assembly that is part of the public record, such as this one today, does not need to be reported. The transparency function is, of course, accomplished by our public hearings. Again, my team and I will be happy to provide follow-up to any detailed questions you may have after today.

I will now take some time to walk you through the five recommendations that I believe will enhance the transparency purpose of the LTA that we have made to you. For ease, we have organized our recommendations into two themes: enhancing transparency and simplifying understanding.

I will start with the two recommendations under enhancing transparency. The first of these is to increase transparency around those that have a direct influence in a lobbying activity. As my submission notes, transparency in lobbying means more than identifying who conducts lobbying. It also requires transparency on who drives and ultimately benefits from the lobbying. There are now provisions in the LTA that support this that are designed to shed light on the behind-the-scenes actors that control, fund and benefit from a lobbying activity.

However, there are gaps in the current requirements that can potentially cloud who is ultimately behind the lobbying activity. For example, there are situations where a group of organizations, typically businesses, create a proxy organization to lobby their shared interest. It is those founding organizations and businesses that will truly benefit from the purpose of the lobbying and the lobbying activity of the proxy organization that they’ve set up.

In this example, the act requires that the proxy organization register its lobbying activity but may not require the proxy organization to disclose its connection to the founding businesses or actors. While this is a legitimate practice and form of lobbying, and it can be an efficient way for multiple organizations to lobby a public office holder based on a shared message and interest, under the current LTA, there can be a lack of transparency because the public is unable to see, through the registry, who the ultimate beneficiaries are, those individual organizations which created the proxy, if those are concealed.

Take, for example, a group of international like-minded organizations that want to join forces to lobby for a common cause. They can form a joint venture company as a proxy to conduct lobbying on their behalf. However, the way the act is currently written, only the proxy company would need to register their lobbying activity, with no reference to those larger international organizations. So you can see in this example how this defeats the transparency purposes of the LTA and is depriving the public from that information.

This transparency gap could be addressed by introducing a provision under section 4(1) that requires a designated filer to disclose whether members of their organizations, clients, board of directors or governing body are employed by, have a membership in or interests with external organizations that have a direct interest in the lobbying activity of the organization, and if so, what those interests are.

This flows from a recommendation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, otherwise known as the OECD. The OECD is a recognized international knowledge hub for best practices and public policy on issues ranging from AI, gender equality, climate mitigation and transparency. As part of their work, they put out recommendations and standards for lobbying regulation worldwide, and it’s generally recognized as the international standard for lobbying regulation.

The recommendation that I mentioned aligns with their recommendations on transparency and integrity in lobbying and influence. We do endeavour to align our work and recommendations with OECD standards wherever feasible.

[3:15 p.m.]

The second recommendation we have to enhance transparency is intended to bring clarity in the type of communications used for lobbying. Currently the LTA does not require lobbyists to indicate the type of communication used when registering their lobbying activity. When I say “type of communication,” I mean how the lobbying was conducted — by in-person meetings, over the phone, by letters, emails or done through social media, just to name a few examples.

We have heard from lobbyists that adding this requirement would provide the public with a more complete picture of which organizations and lobbyists are getting face-to-face meetings with public office holders and which are lobbying via channels that may or may not carry as much influence, such as social media.

This will give the public the information to infer, for example, whether a lobbyist who has in-person meetings and phone calls on a specific issue has the same weight of influence as a lobbyist who lobbies solely through social media posts mentioning the public office holder.

So I’ll withhold any opinion on which type of communications carry more influence, but I can certainly understand this point, that understanding the context of how the communications occur can provide increased transparency about whether communications that do happen are effective in influencing decision-making.

Therefore, I recommend introducing provisions under sections 4.1 and 4.2(2) that require designated filers to report the type of communication used when lobbying. I should note that this recommendation aligns with the majority of other Canadian provincial, territorial and federal lobbying legislation.

I’ll now move on to the second theme I mentioned: simplifying understanding. We recognize that simplicity will help drive compliance. An act that people can understand is one that’s easier to comply with and enforce. The three recommendations I put forward under this theme show that it is possible to prioritize simplicity in lobbying registration while still maintaining the legislation’s core purpose of transparency and accountability.

So the first is clarifying the definition of “provincial entity.” Currently, the regulation sets out two definitions for a provincial entity under section 3. So one of those definitions is used by lobbyists and the other by current and former public office holders. For lobbyists, the definition under section 3(a) is used to determine whether they’re lobbying a public office holder, and if so, whether they’re required to register their lobbying activity.

However, assessing whether an organization meets this definition of provincial entity is a complex process. Lobbyists must first navigate a cascading series of regulations and statutes. They must also have an understanding of the organization’s governance or ownership structure to determine whether the individual they are lobbying is a public office holder employed at a provincial entity.

Conversely, the definition used by current and former public office holders is defined in a quick and clear way. One way to help describe the contrast between the two definitions is that the definition under 3(a) is deductive in that it outlines criteria that a lobbyist must navigate along the way, while the definition under section 3(b) is simply an appendix list of provincial entities.

So you may be wondering why lobbyists can’t just rely on the definition under section 3(b). While there’s an overlap between the two definitions, they’re not identical in scope. The definition used by lobbyists under section 3(a) is broader than the one under section 3(b). So simply creating one table that applies to both would narrow the scope of 3(a) or would broaden the scope of 3(b). That’s not what the original legislators had in mind.

So in the spirit of simplicity, maintaining two separate lists would assist in simplifying understanding and limiting misinterpretation while maintaining the original scope that was intended by the legislators.

My team has seen firsthand how the complexity of section 3(a) can lead to confusion among lobbyists about whether a reporting obligation exists. We regularly assist lobbyists that come to our office for guidance on this issue. But we are concerned that lobbyists that are unaware of this requirement or who mistakenly believe that a reporting obligation does not exist based on their journey through various regulations and statutes could unintentionally be non-compliant with the act.

[3:20 p.m.]

Therefore, we recommend establishing and maintaining a schedule of provincial entities that is applicable for section 3(a) of the regulation, similar to how the definition under section (b) is represented. This will provide clarity for lobbyists and support compliance.

My next recommendation assists with simplifying understanding by giving my office the statutory authority to issue advisory opinions and interpretation bulletins. While I do have authority under section 9.4 of the LTA to issue guidance, I’m limited to just that — guidance. I do not have the ability to clarify for a lobbyist that might come forward whether a specific fact circumstance would contravene the LTA in the form of an advisory opinion or interpretation bulletin.

This amendment that I’m recommending would provide me with the authority to provide certainty to lobbyists that are coming forward and asking for a predetermination on a matter so that they can do the right thing.

Adding this authority to the act will give the registrar the ability to offer direct advice to a lobbyist on a complex or unique matter before it becomes an issue of non-compliance. This ultimately benefits lobbyists, who often come to my office seeking specific advice and who want to do the right thing.

An example might help illustrate this point. We often get organizations that come to us looking for clarification on whether a specific gift would be allowed under the narrow exception to the LTA’s gift prohibition.

Just as a refresher, gifts are prohibited under the LTA, with few exceptions. For example, they can be given under the protocol of social obligations that would normally accompany the duties and responsibilities of the office of the public office holder and the total value of gifts promised or given is less than $100 over a 12-month period.

However, under the LTA as it stands, we cannot give advice under whether the exception would be valid in the specific circumstance. We can only provide general guidance on how the exception generally applies. The organization must then interpret their situation to determine if an exception applies on their own.

It’s important to understand these principles of administrative law. We must avoid prejudicing ourselves in a future decision. That’s why we need to keep ourselves stepped back from providing that ultimate advice unless we have explicit authority to do it, in which case we can proceed. That’s what I’m asking for. If we had that authority, we would have the ability to provide direct advice to an organization based on specific fact circumstances.

Similarly, the ability to issue public-facing interpretation bulletins would enhance clarity for lobbyists seeking to understand the act. The bulletins would provide a publicly available interpretation of how specific provisions of the act are applied in common but complex situations.

I have heard from many lobbyists about the need for this added authority. We know that while our guidance is useful and a valuable tool for lobbyists, it is just that. It is not advice or direction, and again, lobbyists are left frustrated when they simply want to comply with the act and are unsure how to do so.

This recommendation does align with other Canadian provincial and federal jurisdictions, with the sole exception of Saskatchewan. Aligning our act in B.C. would give lobbyists in this province access to the same level of clarity and support as the rest of Canada.

My final recommendation is something that is already done generally in practice but would benefit from being captured in the legislation.

In general, the Ministry of Attorney General consults with the ORL prior to amending the LTA or any accompanying regulation. This advanced consultation is valuable for many reasons.

First, it gives my office the opportunity to advise if there will be costs required to update the registry to accommodate any proposed changes and of the time needed before they could feasibly be implemented. It also gives my office time to develop updated guidance and education in advance of any change taking place, to support lobbyists in meeting their obligations when any new changes come into effect.

While I certainly have no indication that the ministry would cease this practice of advance consultation in the future, codifying it into the act is an appropriate safeguard to ensure lawmakers have all the information necessary when making changes that affect the registry.

Therefore, I recommend introducing a provision that requires the ministry responsible for the LTA to consult with the registrar prior to introducing legislative or regulatory amendments.

Before I conclude my remarks and welcome your questions, Chair, I would like to take a bit of time this afternoon to address some of the commentary you have already heard as part of your consultation process.

[3:25 p.m.]

First, and in general, I would like to emphasize that we are sympathetic and supportive to recommendations that are consistent with the transparency purposes of the act, especially if they lead to simplifying processes that can ultimately lead to increased compliance.

I’ll first speak to the issue of gifts, which was raised in many submissions to the committee. While I believe the gift prohibition is serving its purpose of safeguarding public trust in the practice of lobbying, I do recognize that the $100 annual limit introduced five years ago may be out of date, considering inflation and the rising costs of hospitality. Therefore, I would not be opposed to adjusting that annual limit within reason, in a way that still reflects and maintains the purpose of mitigating undue influence.

I would also not be opposed to adjusting the time period for the gift calculation to shift from, at present, a rolling 12-month period to a calendar year. I don’t have significant concerns about exempting gifts that are offered — or, as is the language in the LTA, promised — but ultimately never given from the gift prohibition and reporting requirements.

As I just mentioned, the underlying purpose of the gift prohibition is to prevent undue influence. There has been research to show that any gift, be it a small token of appreciation or a meal or a cup of coffee, can influence a decision-maker. The gift prohibition’s narrow exception allows for instances of modest gift-giving situations where that is socially expected. Relaxing these rules or carving out categories of gift from the prohibition risks opening the door to exploitation and undermines the purpose of the gift prohibition.

I would also not be concerned about focusing the requirements related to government funding an organization or client receives. One of the benefits of reporting government funding received from governments outside of British Columbia is that it shines a light on situations where non-B.C. governments and foreign governments attempt to indirectly influence B.C. public policy by funding lobbying activities in this province.

But with that said, we agree that including in the registry information about funding received by organizations lobbying in this province that has nothing to do with actual lobbying activity or outcomes undermines the transparency purposes of the act. The registry should only contain information that’s relevant to lobbying. We think that through careful legislative drafting it would be possible to craft a requirement in the act that focuses transparency in government funding that relates to lobbying activity of an organization.

The other area that I would like to comment on is the issue of value neutrality when it comes to how the LTA is applied. You have heard throughout your consultations that some lobbyists recommend that some categories of lobbyists should be excluded from the act and that a two-tiered structure would eliminate the burden placed on lobbying that is done in the public interest. I disagree.

The strength of the LTA is that it is value-neutral legislation that applies to anyone who is paid to influence B.C. public office holders. A two-tiered structure threatens the transparency provisions of the act and would introduce value judgments that are impossible to make in a statute. What one person believes is in the public interest will vary from another. It is a positive feature of the act that it does not make these value decisions.

Organizations that lobby in the public interest are among a broad array of actors that seek to influence public office holders. We know that the lobbying they do is legitimate and necessary to assist public office holders with making decisions.

The transparency purpose of the act allows the public to scrutinize who is seeking to influence government decisions. It’s critical that the public have transparency on who is talking to government. Equally important is transparency on who is not part of those discussions. By making transparent all actors who lobby government, the LTA ensures that the public can see who is communicating with government and also who is being left out of these important conversations.

Further, I would point out that the public’s voice is mostly missing from these discussions. I note that there were few submissions to this committee from members of the public. So it’s not lost on me that the general theme of those few submissions was a call for more regulation of lobbyists, not less. In any case, fortunately the public has you, their elected members, to bring forward the voices of the average person listening to news on the radio or reading the paper in the morning.

[3:30 p.m.]

You have heard a lot over the past few months from those that are paid to talk to you. While those voices are important, I would encourage you to remember the role the act plays for your constituents at home and the transparency mechanisms in the act that were developed for their benefit.

Before I conclude, I would like to leave you with the philosophy I raised in my previous appearance that I believe has been reinforced throughout the consultations that you’ve heard during this process: keep it simple, keep it simple, keep it simple.

Now, I’m not saying simplicity means less requirements, so please don’t take this as a signal from me to deregulate, per se. But rather I would simply enforce that an effective regulatory environment can be a simple environment with clear guardrails in place.

With that, Chair and members, I welcome your questions.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, and I’ll open the floor to questions.

Susie Chant: Thank you so very much, as always.

First of all, just so that you’re aware — you’ve been listening to what we’ve been going through — there have been a number of entities that have said they’re very pleased with the support that they’ve gotten from your office when they call. They, too, drew attention to that you were able to help them but not advise them on a course of direction within their certain environment. Rather, you were able to give generalities and lead them to choose how they apply them. So I think that’s a rather pertinent point.

One of the things that has become fairly evident through this is lobbying, advocacy work, negotiating and raising awareness — definitions of those activities seem to be very much overlapped.

When you were talking specifically about the social media stuff, I think that’s where it often crashes, because I think a lot of the entities that were speaking to us have a different concept of the use of social media than what you just described to us now. So I think that bears a fair amount of attention at some point, because again, social media has its place in our world, and we need to be sure that we’re all sort of playing the game the same way.

Anyway, so those are just some comments that I had, because I really think that some of our discussion will be needing to sort of determine what each of these activities is, and can we separate them effectively?

Thank you. It’s not really a question — more of a comment.

Michael Harvey: Okay. I’m happy to respond to it, though.

Susie Chant: Oh, okay.

Michael Harvey: The social media question is certainly one that we heard a lot about when we did our consultations on our plan, and that’s why…. But as we’ve been listening, we’ve heard a lot here about it, as well, and so we’ve certainly taken that back. We took it back before even these hearings that we are listening to, talking about things like developing a simplified….

There’s lots in our current guidance on social media, but finding a way to kind of pull it out and create a shorter, specific guidance on social media might be of assistance. I think that that’s one of the ways in which we can help. The other is that recommendation that we made about the type of social media.

I heard one person, when I did my consultation, say to me: “I tweeted at a minister many times last year, and that is identified as an instance of lobbying, but it’s not like I had 40 meetings with the minister.” We still think social media is — it’s certainly not going away. If anything, it’s part of the wave of the future, when it comes to influencing. We think it’s important to shed a light on that. But it helped inform our recommendation to identify the type of lobbying, in that recommendation.

The last thing I’ll say about social media is that we often hear the argument that: “Well, social media is transparent. It’s already out there in the public, so isn’t the transparency function already served by it being out there already?”

[3:35 p.m.]

To which I’d say that if I, as a member of the public, want to find out who has been lobbying, let’s say, the Minister of Housing, then right now I’d be able to go to the registry and look for that. All that information is there. But if social media was not covered in the act, even if I go to the registry, that information about the social media wouldn’t be there. First of all, I can say…. Myself, personally — I don’t have a Facebook account. So I’d have to get one.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Good for you.

Michael Harvey: Yeah, it’s liberating.

I would have to create one. I’d have to create an X account, create a LinkedIn account. I’d have to go around there and search for the various different ways of identifying that. So I’d say, first of all, social media is not exactly in the public domain, and also, undermining the one-stop shop that our registry provides is a challenge.

I mean, I think we understand that there is an administrative burden that comes with complying with the act. But part of this exercise, just like with any regulatory enterprise, is trying to find that right sweet spot between achieving the legitimate public purposes that we want to achieve and doing it in a way that’s as administratively simple as possible.

First of all, I think that we’re pretty much already there with the act and that we can really continue with some refinements to get to that sweet spot.

Harwinder Sandhu: Thank you for your presentation. I really appreciate it. There are always two sides, two perspectives to a story. Also, highlighting how carefully you’ve been listening and taking notes on what things we can…. And you address some challenges.

Pardon me if you’ve mentioned. We heard lots about duplicate reporting, and people shared that often it’s the same information. I wonder if you can shed some light on how accurate that was or what confusion could be there if people are facing that. How can we probably address that?

Thank you so much for the great work you’re all doing.

Michael Harvey: I’m not sure in what situations duplicate reporting would emerge.

Harwinder Sandhu: Maybe if I can further clarify. For example, some students and some other organizations mentioned that the process itself is cumbersome and oftentimes they have to report it in a few different places, but it’s the identical information, which poses a huge administrative burden, especially on the organizations which are not well equipped and don’t have that many resources.

I was curious if you’re aware about that and if you can shed some light.

Michael Harvey: I’m not exactly sure with duplicate reporting what exactly that referred to. It may be that there’s some information that is required in the registration return that might be duplicated in a monthly report.

We’re certainly open to addressing issues with duplicate information — and we always do actually. We’re always looking for opportunities to improve the registry, to make inputting information in there more streamlined. I’ll give you a few examples of that.

In 2023, we introduced an optional bulk-entry system. Under the bulk-entry system, a lobbyist is able to report, using a bulk-entry spreadsheet, multiple different activities at the same time. So that’s one way in which I think we made a refinement to try to get at that type of issue that you’re talking about.

In 2022, we introduced an autocomplete function that allowed filers to select previously lobbied senior public office holders rather than manually re-entering their name. So if someone is lobbying the same person over and over again, it’ll be automatically populated.

In 2021, we introduced a “select all” feature. So let’s say we had a lobbyist that was inviting all MLAs to a reception. They could just “select all” rather than having to go down through the long list and identify them all individually.

[3:40 p.m.]

We do this kind of thing all the time. We have programmers that work with the registry, that we work with to try to make these kind of refinements. We’re constantly listening to the business need of the lobbyists. We’re happy to continue listening to those to identify priority refinements.

Harwinder Sandhu: I appreciate it. Thank you.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I have quite a few questions, so I’m not quite sure where to start.

But I’ll go back to social media and the repetitive input of information. I know that you covered it just before I came in, but I asked Kiel about it, and he said we should ask for clarification.

When somebody requests a meeting, if somebody gets a hold of me and says: “I want to meet with you, MLA Bird, about (a)….” Right? They send me an email. I don’t answer, or I’ll check my schedule. They send a follow-up email, or they send a letter, or they send…. But it actually never results in a meeting for whatever reason.

Is that actually still considered lobbying? This was one of the frustrations, particularly with smaller organizations that do less than 50 hours of lobbying work, probably, per year. They might be very small groups, five or six people. They’re very focused, that type of thing. That was one of the areas that people were frustrated about and weren’t really clear on, because you’re not actually lobbying in a request. You’re lobbying in the meeting that resulted from the request.

I think there’s confusion around that. I think that’s part of where the repeat information conversation is coming in.

Can you clarify for us? If you’ve requested a meeting, is that actually lobbying, or is the meeting itself that came to fruition?

Michael Harvey: Yeah. I just want to make sure, because it’s important that we be nice and clear. If someone writes to you trying to set up a meeting and the meeting never happens, then that’s nothing. It doesn’t…. If the communication is just trying to set up the meeting, then that’s not the lobbying, right?

If I’m writing you to set up a meeting and then the meeting happens, then I need to report the meeting, right? That’s where the lobbying is.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Yeah. There’s no question on that.

Michael Harvey: If I’m writing you a letter, and I ask you for a meeting, and then I also in that email express a whole bunch of things that I try to influence you about, then that’s lobbying. But if it’s just setting up a meeting and the meeting never happens, then that’s not lobbying.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Okay. Again, I’m asking clarifying questions because this came up over and over again with individuals that presented. Thank you for clarifying the meeting piece because that came up repeated times, actually. There are lots of organizations that will be thrilled to hear that you have said that.

Now, the content of the email, I think, is also a grey area for some organizations, but based on what you just said…. I write to Mr. Harvey: “I would like to meet with you. I would like to discuss a housing issue for students.” But you don’t specify any details around what that housing issue is. You don’t have a specific ask. You’re not looking…. It’s just a very generic “this is what I want to talk to you about.”

I’m guessing based on your explanation that that is actually not lobbying. That is still just a meeting request.

Michael Harvey: Yeah. Now, I do want to be careful about getting into a whole lot of whataboutism, because again, some of these questions can get into territory where we may have to take a look at the fact circumstance. But to me, the idea is that lobbying is trying to influence. Just trying to set up a meeting or saying “I want to talk to you about” is not…. There’s no directionality to that influence. It’s not saying “I want this” or “I want not that.” The directionality is relevant.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I don’t disagree with you. I just wanted to clarify, because there has been, and we have heard, lots of confusion around that. That’s why I’m actually asking the question very specifically.

Michael Harvey: Of course. Yeah.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Then the other piece I wanted to sort of go back to is what Susie had mentioned earlier.

Particularly, if somebody is meeting…. I don’t know. There’s a community event, right? Somebody from the student union association, which Susie chats with regularly, because she has a college in her riding…. Or we have a university in our riding. A conversation comes up about the lack of student housing, but it’s the student association.

[3:45 p.m.]

There’s that grey zone. I’m not asking you to sort of say: “This is black. This is white.” Especially, again, with small organizations like that and particularly students that are rolling in and out, there’s confusion in regards to where advocacy starts and stops and when you get into lobbying.

For me, if somebody mentioned that to Susie, I wouldn’t necessarily consider that lobbying. Now, if the conversation went from “we are short on student housing” to “and oh, by the way, here’s a proposal as to where we could put student housing and how it could be paid for,” then, yeah, you’ve crossed that line.

Michael Harvey: What we look at…. I mean, we’re guided by the definition of what “lobby” is in section 2 of the act. Really, it’s to communicate with a public office holder to influence. So there needs to be…. Influence suggests a directionality: “We want this rather than that.” I think there needs to be a reference to a decision — decisions over policies, programs, legislation and so on. There needs to be a specific policy or program, and there needs to be a directionality.

Beyond that, I think, this is where we get into the specific fact circumstances that we’d have to assess.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Okay.

The one last thing I’m going to say is that I’m going to use a really good example. I don’t know if you guys heard that today — the example that the MS group gave. She was explaining to us that every year they have a big fundraising event. Everybody goes to, I think, A&W for their burgers.

They put it out on social media. They encourage all of their government officials to go and to support their organization. They do research. They do education. They do all kinds of things. But it’s just: “Please attend our event.” They hashtag everybody and their dog under the sun, sort of thing.

But she was explaining that they actually have to dedicate staff for an entire day, post that social media event, to track if MLAs went, if they responded to the tweet, if there was a picture. They actually spend an entire day dedicated to that.

For me, I mean…. I’m not going to say because I’ll get myself into trouble. But for me, I wouldn’t consider that lobbying. I would consider that advocacy for an organization that does incredible work that we desperately need, actually.

Again, this was a repeated theme that we heard from people.

Michael Harvey: Right. I mean a lot of the interpretation of that would have to go to what is happening at that event, and if it would be interpreted as fitting into the exception to the gift prohibition. If it’s a fundraiser, and if it’s at A&W and they’re not being given food — like at a reception, where you go and there would be food — then it may not be related to the gift prohibition.

Again, I don’t know too much about the specific activities of the MS Society, but then you’d have to examine what their lobbying activities are, both at the reception and also their general lobbying activities. I really can’t, with that set of facts…. I know that’s not what you asked me. You didn’t ask me to interpret that matter, but the issue that you raised was the resources that they need to do to comply with that. Again, not knowing specifically what resources they brought to bear on that event, I really can’t speak more to that.

The only general comment, then, that I’ll make is that there are resources that are required to comply with the act. We don’t deny that. We’re committed to trying to find ways within how we administer the act as it’s written to try to make that as simple as possible. We’re also committed to advocating — and that’s what I’ve tried to do here today — for changes in the act that, while still achieving the purpose of the act, can make it as simple as possible.

I think that’s probably the most I can say to respond to that particular instance.

[3:50 p.m.]

Janet Routledge: This is a really important discussion. I think there’s a lot that we’re grappling with here. I came into these hearings of presentations with a fairly general, superficial view about lobbying. I absolutely think that it’s important to have lobbying transparency in law. As you said earlier, it is essential to democracy.

Where I grapple with it is that sometimes I think there can be aspects of it, in trying to meet that, that can actually undermine democracy. I really do think that there’s at least…. One, I think we need to have a clearer definition of “lobbyist.” An oil refinery is a different kind of lobbyist, for different purposes and with different capacity, than a student union. To apply the same rules to them, I think, is problematic. I think we need to think more about that.

I also think the issue of gifts…. I get that we have to be careful that gifts do not apply undue influence. I totally get that. I also think there are, as one of the presenters referred to them, basic courtesies and that there are some things that are being defined as gifts that they have to report and that I don’t think are gifts.

I am not going to agree to particular housing in my community because someone gave me a cup of coffee. That’s not going to happen. I think that’s true of all MLAs. I think we really need to take a hard look at what we mean by gifts, the value of the gifts.

Again, I’m coming at it from the point of view, mainly because of who presented to us, of non-profits. They weren’t trying to get an advantage from us. They were trying to participate in the public good. They talked about how they don’t have the same capacity as a large corporation to meet some of the obligations. I really do think we should take a look at that.

Michael Harvey: To respond to that, I just urge extreme caution in that. As I mentioned in my speech, I view it as a positive feature of our act that it’s value-neutral and that it doesn’t draw those kinds of distinctions between organizations. Even if we talk about a term like “not-for-profit,” that’s big. We talk a lot about not-for-profits, but there are many different types of not-for-profits.

You could have a not-for-profit that is, let’s say, the MS society, but the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is a not-for-profit, and people would say: “Well, which of those is in the public interest?” It depends on whom you talk to. Certainly, I think, a lot of people would believe the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is in the public interest because it advocates for lower taxes.

Another example would be the Canadian Vaping Association. It’s a not-for-profit, right?

There are all sorts of different values that get imbued into things. I’d just encourage you to be very careful in imbuing that directly into statute. My concern is that if the values that are imbued into the statute can’t be viewed as universal, then it may undermine the legitimacy of the statute in the eyes of those who are governing it and of those who look to it to provide transparency.

Janet Routledge: I don’t disagree with you. That’s why I say this is a bigger conversation, a longer conversation. It’s not so much the statute as the application of it, the tests.

Michael Harvey: Right. Well, for one thing, as a regulator, it’s important to understand that we are bound by the statute that we’re faced with and that we are bound to determine. Sometimes there is latitude that we have, but only so much, right?

[3:55 p.m.]

There are situations where the words on the page are just impossible to interpret in any other way than as they are specifically written there, even considering the modern approach to statutory interpretation.

I do want to say one other thing about the idea of categories of members, just to underline something I mentioned in the statute but that may be a little counterintuitive. I’d encourage you to take a moment to wrap your head around it.

If someone comes to the registry and wants to try to find out who’s influencing the minister of X, then right now they can see everybody who’s influencing them, whether they’re large, powerful corporations with deep pockets or small organizations without deep pockets or, for that matter, small organizations that have lots of members, and the members have deep pockets.

Right now they can see all of that because everybody is captured. If you carve out parties that are then out of the act, then you can’t see that they’re not there. Right now if you go to the registry and you see lots of entries for the minister of X related to big corporations or small associations with powerful members, but you don’t see any of the small players, then you can say: “Oh, there’s a bias here. There’s something going on. Those small players are not getting access.” But if you carve them out, then you don’t get to see that. You don’t know what you don’t know.

So yes, there is an administrative burden to casting the wide net that the act casts, but this can have benefits that are both intuitive and non-intuitive, and the nature of our submissions encourages us to really focus on what we can do to make compliance by those groups easy and simple so that the public has the truest picture possible.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Thank you.

We’ll go to Kiel and then Susie.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much for the presentation and to all of you for being here.

I appreciated, Michael, hearing about the strategic planning, the latest strategic plan that focused on awareness of the act and simplifying administration. I think those are…. You’re obviously seeing some of what you’re hearing from the various lobbyist organizations out there.

In the simplification piece of it, there was obviously a lot of concern over the sheer amount of guidance documents to wade through. We heard 29 guidance documents, approximately, with frequently asked questions on top of that. In us looking at this, objectively trying to help that process, some of the language, perhaps, in the act itself — are there ways, perhaps, that it could be more defined in the act itself?

I look at the examples you provided. Obviously, your recommendation 3 is trying to be more prescriptive, have government be more prescriptive and establish and maintain a schedule of provincial entities. I think that is kind of aligning with what we’re hearing there.

Senior public office holder — I think that if you’re talking about provincial entities, that means something different at B.C. Hydro than it does in a government line ministry as well. I’m interested in your thoughts on being more prescriptive in some of these areas to reduce the need for guidance documents.

I think this is an important question because it also speaks to your No. 4 on advisory opinions. My one worry risk that I would have at this point is that it leads to a proliferation of even more information bulletins, that it’s going to be more wading through, on top of the guidance that already exists. To me, it would be a little bit of a concern that we’re taking away from that simplification.

I’m wondering if, in general, you could provide some comments to those points.

Michael Harvey: Sure. Happy to do so.

There’s no question that there’s a lot of guidance. I can understand how, if I was a new in-house lobbyist or I was hired on by a consultant lobbyist, and I sat down and tried to read it front to back, I would be overwhelmed.

[4:00 p.m.]

In our experience, that’s not actually how, most of the time, it works. Our registry officers get called every day with questions. The reason why our guidance documents look like they do is because our registry officers work hard to work with the people that are calling them on the phone. I mean, that’s where you began our discussion today, by recognizing that.

We work hard to do that, but we want to make sure that everybody has the benefit of those conversations, so we develop that out into guidance. Yes, the net effect at the end of it is there’s a lot of guidance. I think if we were in another jurisdiction that didn’t take that approach and didn’t have much guidance, you’d be likely hearing complaints about: “I wish that the ORL had more guidance to offer.”

That said, I think that what you’ve raised is valid. It is for that reason that we’d really like to develop more. I’ve identified it as a priority in our strategic plan, to do more layer guidances and to find ways…. You know, we might have one long piece, but then we develop an infographic and, let’s say, a shorter piece that is easier to navigate. We work between the registry officers and our comm staff to develop a way to prioritize how we are going to go through our guidance documents and make them more digestible.

You’re still going to have…. It’s so nice to have the longer pieces there for when people need to do the deep dive. That’s what happens, right? Someone calls into our registry officer, and then the registry officer can point them to this specific part of the guidance and say: “Look there. We covered that. This is your guide.”

That stuff is important that it exists. But really, the thing that you put your finger on, and I think it’s really important, is the digestibility. How do we make it more digestible and usable for people? So heard and understood as a priority.

I think in terms of statutory amendment, which is ultimately a big part of what we’re talking about here today, there are some things where you’d really benefit from being more specific and prescriptive. Then there are some other things where it’s really more helpful to provide a bit more room for interpretation and then let the prescription come from, let’s say, interpretation bulletins.

I hear that that’s a concern of yours. To a certain point, I would say we’ve looked around and we will always continue looking around to find out what works in other jurisdictions that we can learn from. We try some things out, and we’ll do our best. Then we’ll evaluate what we do and see how well it works.

We recognize the concern that has been raised, and we’re committed to addressing it, because we think it increases compliance and it increases transparency.

Susie Chant: One of the things that concerned me with the bulk of the smaller entities that we heard — and some of the larger ones, in fact — was that complying was having a chilling effect on the activities of lobbying groups.

That, to me, is a concern, because as you stated so very well, lobbying is how we learn. You know, I know more about cement than I ever knew in my life. I have to just say it.

These activities are very important at whatever level they come in. I have had times…. As an example, somebody comes to see me. They are a constituent in my riding, but they are coming as part of a campaign, for instance, save our forests, don’t cull the wolves, save the — I don’t know; it was very complicated — caribou.

Michael Harvey: Ostriches, I think. Probably it was ostriches.

Susie Chant: Yeah, there was the ostriches. There was the mink, the caribou and the wolves.

Yes, thank you. Don’t talk about ostriches, she said. Don’t talk about them.

Anyway, people come to me, and they’re not part of an organization at all. Yet they’re saying to me: “Am I allowed to do this? I’m worried that I’m lobbying and that I’m breaking some law.” I’m like: “Holy crow. Shhh. It’s okay. We’re all right. We’re fine here.” But in fact, it’s having a chilling effect on some of the smaller organizations that have, in fact, looked at things and gone: “We just can’t do this.”

When we couple that with work that they do for grants…. Every hour for them is precious, whether they’re working with volunteers or paid staff.

[4:05 p.m.]

It does worry me that there are some places, some establishments, that are saying: “Okay, we won’t lobby, but then that takes off a third of our raison d’être, basically, because we want to be able to say: ‘These are our concerns.’”

So it’s sort of more of a commentary than anything else in that I’m just very concerned about that and hoping that the work that we do here will abate some of that, mitigate some of it.

Michael Harvey: So we’ve definitely heard a lot about the so-called chilling effect before. And we take that and everything that we hear very seriously. I’ll make a general comment. I’ll say that any regulatory regime that you can imagine is going to face that, right?

So let’s say that we’re talking about environmental regulations. You may have some enterprise that would say: “Well, I’d like to set this up but I have to deal with these environmental regulations.” Let’s say that we’re talking about opening a restaurant, and some people might say: “Well, liquor is regulated. Am I going to be profitable if I don’t offer liquor in my restaurant? But if I do, then I have to go through these regulations.”

Nevertheless, I think no one would deny the importance of having an effective environmental regime or having an effective liquor control regime. And the question is: how do we find the right level where we get the effective public purpose that we want but we’re not unduly preventing the activity that, indeed, we’re trying to recognize? So it’s a really important question.

Our evidence is that we think that concerns about a chilling effect are overstated. And remember that you are hearing from, still, a relatively small number of voices that are quite vocal and expressed their concern.

But the evidence that we have from our registry is that since 2020, when essentially the LTA in its current form came into force — which is what is generally understood to be the leading statute in Canada and around the world — what we’ve seen is that registrations have increased over that period by 23 percent and the number of in-house lobbyists has increased by 21 percent. So the numbers are going up; they’re not going down.

So the growth in activity, and the quite robust activity, that we see in our registry compared to our other jurisdictions seems to be an indication that there’s lots of lobbying happening in British Columbia and that there’s compliance with the act.

Now again, we recognize that there’s work to do to get out to talk to people that don’t know if they are lobbyists or not, don’t know about their compliance. We don’t really even know how big that community is, but we’ve identified it as a top priority for our strategic plan to try to figure out how we get at that community.

And then, once we identify them and identify that these are folks that may not know their statutory obligations, how can we then effectively communicate to them, and how can we listen to them about what it would take to come into compliance with the act?

So we recognize the problem. We don’t think it’s quite as broad as may have been represented, but we are taking steps to address that issue.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I’d like to go back to the gift amount and a chill effect that we heard about as MLAs that we all kind of raised our eyebrows about. And if you heard this in your consultation, great; if not, just something to flag.

So the first question is an easy one, and then I’ll explain where it’s coming from.

And I forgot to say thank you very much for joining us this evening in my first…. I’m too excited to get my question out. Always a pleasure to see you guys.

The amount for MLAs before they have to engage the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is actually $250. So my first question is: do you have an issue with that amount? And then I’ll explain why I’m using that amount with a very specific example for Kiel and I that represents all MLAs.

[4:10 p.m.]

In a number of the presentations, we heard that non-profits, particularly smaller ones, are actually not reaching out to elected officials anymore because they are very fearful of surpassing that gift amount because of how it’s calculated.

So I’m going to use the $250. The Spirit of the North Foundation up in Prince George, of course, is doing the fundraising for our new hospital tower. We didn’t get invites to the gala. There was no doubt that that calculation would have far surpassed that gift amount.

But the presence of MLAs being at an event like that is extremely important. We’re not there to…. The tower’s being built. We’re not there to lobby for the tower. That has been determined. But to help the community, to help the region understand what that asset…. It’s a huge asset, and it’s a huge expense for our region because of who’s paying for that.

It’s just something I’m flagging in that…. I would agree. I’m not going to build a housing complex because somebody gave me a Subway sandwich and a cup of coffee. I can understand the public perception around galas. But I don’t think that’s an unreasonable amount where we have all signed understanding agreements that once you have passed this threshold, you are going to draw public scrutiny beyond this amount.

You know, if you were offering me Taylor Swift tickets, you’re probably going to want something more than whatever, right? Or a Helijet trip or a vacation on a private island. But I think the $250…. I just want to see how you feel about that amount based on the fact that we, as elected officials, have already agreed that anything beyond that is our responsibility to report anyway.

Michael Harvey: I’ll be candid in response to that. We did have…. In coming up with our, you know…. What do we think about the $100 limit? We sat down as a team, we talked about it, and we agreed on $100.

Just anytime you see a dollar figure in a statute, that dollar figure was ascribed at a certain point in time, and inflation increases. We certainly understand that particularly with the price of food in British Columbia, the offer….

This gift issue comes up a lot around receptions and so on. I understand that the price goes up. But we are confronted with the research that I cited earlier about how even a small gift can be influential. We know that this is…. We’ve seen this in the academic research, but we also talk about it nationally and internationally with colleagues. What the academic research suggests….

Really, some of it comes from the medical literature, where physicians are commonly approached by drug companies. In some instances, you had the physicians who would say to us: “Oh gosh, you know, are we really letting our prescribing practices be determined by the drug companies that are giving us a lunch or a pen or whatever?”

What the literature found was, in ways that are sometimes more subtle than they think, their views can be subtly influenced. The researchers found that they were influenced more than they thought they were. The literature said that the people that reported that they were less likely to be influenced were the ones that were more likely to be influenced.

To get back to your question, we recognize that $100 probably is not the right number. So we had our discussion internally. We said: “Well, what is the right number?” I’m loath to tell you what the right number is, because I don’t know what the right number is. And $250 is a lot. Is the right number $250? It strikes us at the higher end.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I’m just curious, just because it aligns with another….

Michel Harvey: So you’re asking how I respond to $250. I would say it’d be at the high end.

I also understand that we hear the $250 a lot because people cite the conflict of interest, noting that’s a different statute with a different public policy purpose, and it applies to different people. So the $250 applies to legislators. Even though MLAs are the largest group of senior public office holders that are affected, the LTA also applies to many other public office holders as well, bureaucrats and so on.

[4:15 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I appreciate that. I found it fearful when they started…. More than one organization, like probably half our presenters, said they didn’t want to invite MLAs.

Michael Harvey: So I might say one other thing about this idea of fear. I just want to point out that in the registry, we do quite a lot of reviewing when things get thrown up by the system to take a look at. So over, I think, five years, we’ve done…. I’m just looking at the…. Since 2020, we’ve done 7,000 compliance reviews. Over that period, 17 of them have led to a determination of non-compliance. Only 17 of 7,000 over five years.

So you know, we heard these kinds of voices too. I had some person say: “Oh, you know, the ORL. You’re waving around your big stick.” That is less than 0.1 percent. The vast majority of issues, even the vast majority of non-compliance issues, do not lead to any kind of stick being waved whatsoever. Instead, we either send an email to say, “Please correct this in the registry,” or we might dismiss and say, “It’s minor or trivial,” and then we don’t really do anything about it.

So I think we have to do a lot with outreach to make sure that our community understands that we’re not out there. Because I guess what they see…. They see the 17. They don’t see the rest of the 7,000. They don’t realize that we’re actually not out there waving around a big stick. So that’s something for us to take away for sure.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Any further questions?

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I have one last question if no one else has one.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Go ahead.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): We had a presenter that raised a question about interference from international bodies, whether it be governments, whether it be organizations, whether it be…. Whatever it happens to be. And I hadn’t actually ever thought about it. I mean, we’ve all sat here and said, “Well, we’re looking at lobbying like a whole different thing,” and not because of cement but just in general.

I was curious because there is a federal Lobbying Act and then each province has a lobbying act. If there’s an international-type event — whether it be social, whether it be well organized — and you have entities that would come from embassies, would come from attachés, all of these types of people, you know, big stakeholders that are coming from other countries…. Is there any cross-reference between the two pieces of legislation if it’s that type of event?

Do federal governments and provincial governments cross-reference, especially if it’s a sort of publicly highlighted event where you’re going to have various levels and international levels of government attending?

Michael Harvey: I don’t believe that we actively cross-reference with each other. And I don’t believe that we’ve ever done any kind of joint investigation on the lobbying side.

What I will say is that the concern about foreign influence is obviously one that has been in the discourse and crosses over a whole bunch of different regulatory environments.

On the other side, when I’m wearing my Privacy Commissioner work, we are engaged with the Chief Electoral Officer and others on this, on the electoral side of it, to the extent that foreign players may be attempting to influence our electoral processes.

Under the lobbying side of it, I mean, this is why you’ve heard or we’ve certainly seen submissions about having to report funding that comes from other governments. I know that you received submissions saying: “My organization is…. Yeah, we’re lobbying, and I need to report some money that we got from” — let’s say — “a Quebec arts council or something for a summer festival that we were holding. Why do I need to report that in the lobbying registry?”

Right now, you do. We’re saying: “We get it. You probably shouldn’t.” And this is why we’d be open to that kind of amendment. If anything, having that kind of stuff in the registry detracts from its transparency, because it really is not consistent with the purposes of the registry that it be there in the first place.

[4:20 p.m.]

But on the other hand, the public policy purpose of trying to see: is there a foreign government out there that is supporting a lobbying activity in this province and giving money to an organization for that purpose?” Actually, we think that’s probably pretty important for British Columbians to know about.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I don’t disagree, actually. Yep.

Michael Harvey: Yeah. That’s what that was about, so that’s a pretty small slice of, really, a big social problem that we think fits within our mandate. We think that’s a valid public purpose.

Steve Morissette (Chair): I see no other questions. Thank you so much. It has been very educational. I appreciate you guys taking the time to come and present to us. Yeah. It has been great.

Thank you, oline, Michael and Nick. I appreciate you.

Michael Harvey: In turn, we very much appreciate how you’ve been seized with the issues in this act, and I’m very enthusiastic about your work and looking forward to your report.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Is there any other business?

I’ll ask for a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

Steve Morissette (Chair): Well, thank you, everyone. This is our last meeting of 2025, so best of the holidays to you. Merry Christmas.

The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 4:21 p.m.