Lobbyist Act may cause paralysis

Transparency legislation could hinder rather than help democracy
Published in FFWD August 30, 2007 by Drew Anderson in News

The provincial Conservative government’s flagship accountability bill is causing concern among not-for-profit groups as the consultation process comes to a close and the new session of the legislature nears. Bill 1, or the Lobbyists Act, was introduced by Premier Ed Stelmach in March of this year, trumpeted as an important step towards greater transparency, but the not-for-profit sector is concerned it will limit access to decision-makers and paralyze many organizations.
“Public Interest Alberta (PIA)… has been calling on the provincial government to establish a very clear, transparent lobbyist registry with our concern about how so many decisions are influenced behind closed doors,” says Bill Moore-Kilgannon, executive director of PIA. “But the more we looked at the details, the more we got concerned about how, at the end of the day, these regulations that they’re putting in place may limit democracy and people’s access to decision makers, rather than enhance it.”
The act will establish a lobbyist registry and an index of government contact information, both of which will be free and easy to access for citizens, as well as a ban on lobbying and providing paid advice to the government on the same issue at the same time.
However, it is the scope and the broad definitions in the bill that are causing furrowed brows in the not-for-profit sector. These concerns are highlighted in a report prepared by the Legal Resource Centre and commissioned by the Muttart Foundation, which funds not-for-profit organizations and engages in policy research and awareness.
One of the central issues raised in the bill, as it’s currently written, is the amount of work and resources necessary to prevent violations. “A major problem in the Alberta act is the concept of associated persons,” said Bill Wyatt, executive director of the Muttart Foundation. “So if the Muttart Foundation wants to lobby the provincial government on something related to charities, I would arguably have to go to all of my directors and all of my staff members and say, ‘You have to tell me what you’re doing and what your spouses are doing and what any other organization you’re involved with is doing.’”
If any of those people are giving paid advice to the government on the same issue, the foundation would be unable to engage the government. The definition of public office holder in the legislation is also very broad, encompassing bureaucrats and advisors. In some instances a public office holder, as defined in the act, could sit on the board of a not-for-profit, meaning internal conversations might contravene the new regulations and would have to be reported. Some executive directors could be put in a position where they are unable to communicate with their own staff on the operation of their organization. This transparency and reporting also raises the issue of privacy, within an organization and amongst its staff and members.
“Public Interest Alberta would be fine being very transparent with who we are and what we’re trying to do, but the question comes in whether or not there’s potential for abuse once the government has all that information,” says Moore-Kilgannon.
This may discourage some watchdog groups or those representing refugees from authoritarian countries from engaging with the government, according to the Muttart report.
“It creates an environment that is ever more complex. I think it’s unintentional that it could have the kind of implications that it might have,” says Katherine van Kooy, president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations.
Sandi Walker, a spokesperson for Alberta Justice, believes the rules governing compliance with the act will be clear once the bill is passed. “There will be educational materials that are put out for the public, so people will understand what their responsibilities are and whether or not the act will apply to them,” she says.
Another issue raised in the Muttart report is the ability of government officials to circumvent the act. If a lobbyist is approached by a government official for advice, the rules relating to conflict do not apply, thereby potentially furthering favouritism of one organization or company over another.
“We wanted to be able to continue to consult with our stakeholders, so it’s important that we have the ability to ask people who may be affected by government decisions, and who have experience and knowledge about an issue, their opinion on it,” says Walker.
This applies to all sectors, including the not-for-profit.
All of these issues hold the very real possibility of preventing some advocacy and charitable organizations from conducting their business. “For most organizations, they’ll become very concerned about jeopardizing their positions, so they’ll be very reluctant to engage in something for fear that it might contravene the rules,” says van Kooy. “It almost becomes a self-imposed chill.”
Fines for contravention of the act range from $50,000 for an initial offence, and up to $200,000 for any offence after that. The bill has already passed second reading in the legislature and is now with the standing committee on government services, which will report back to the government in November. The Muttart report, signed by 81 different organizations to date, will be forwarded to the committee. “I think it’s incredibly important that people take a look at the implications of this and get ready to speak out on it as the regulations get put into place,” says Moore-Kilgannon.