Denial
The Township of View Royal has been a fairly quiet municipality in the Greater Victoria region of Southern Vancouver Island, in the Province of British Columbia. For many years it had been regarded as a somewhat sleepy place. However, being bisected by the Island Highway and thus being a key transit passage in the regional government the CRD’s Regional Growth Strategy, major development was starting to take off in a very fast way, that no doubt rendered many residents aghast at what was taking place.
In the fall of 2022, View Royal elected a new Mayor Sid Tobias after a remarkably independent and for many an unexpected campaign. Other election surprises took place among most of View Royal’s neighbouring municipalities, with several incumbent mayors heading out. Two of these municipalities (Langford and Colwood) were included among the fastest growing municipalities in the whole country, which might not entirely come as a surprise, because the ‘western communities’ as they are referred to, were focussed targets for rapid growth in the regional government the CRD’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), that has seen massive deforestation in the western communities, particularly Langford; in such a rapid space of time that many residents had been left in a state of shock.
Fast forward close to a year later:
On September 12, 2023 at the View Royal Council Committee of the Whole, the Executive Director of the Urban Development Institute Capital Region, told View Royal Council during public input: “UDI is not a lobbying group.“
Not only is the UDI a legally registered lobbying group, according to the BC Lobbyists Registry and to the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists; but the Executive Director, who said they are not a lobbying group, is actually registered on that registry, as their “in-house lobbyist”.
Being considered that night on the agenda was that the Township of View Royal had joined the Urban Development Institute, as a paying member early that year, without the elected officials having been informed of that decision.
Reports by staff were presented that night on September 12, 2023 about the membership with the organization. One councillor subsequently made a motion for the Township to withdraw its membership based on the very plain logic that the elected officials didn’t vote to join in the first place. A confused round of deliberations took place, that ended in a tied vote and thus fail according to procedure, but this was not the end of the episode, far from it.
I have gone into much more detail about this in a 2-part article titled:
The Strange Case of How a Municipality in BC Became a Development and Real Estate Lobby Member Without Informing Mayor and Council and How a Local Government in BC Joining the Development and Real Estate Lobby as a Paying Member Without a Vote from Elected Officials Turned Out to Not be an Unusual Practice After All…
These can be read by clicking on Part I. and Part 2.
The tied vote that night happened, because during the deliberations, more than one councillor had said that they do not think that the UDI is a lobby; instead, it was just a minor educational institute, according to some views. One of the councillors during the deliberation said that if it did become a lobby, they would vote to axe the membership, but that they didn’t think it was a lobby at that time. Thus, with a tied vote, the motion failed.
However, it was very soon after that, that the councillors were presented with the actual facts regarding the organization’s status; which were the opposite of what the organization’s Executive Director had told them that night when it came to lobbying. The plain fact, as clear as if it were a bright day after a dark night, is that the UDI is a registered lobbying group on the BC Lobbyists Registry and had been and continued to actively lobby the province.
Thus, informed with the actual legal evidence that the UDI is a registered lobbying group, the issue was triggered to appear again. It did so at the November 14, 2023 View Royal Committee of the Whole, at which the Mayor and Councillors determined that the Executive Director’s comments in this regard were not accurate, that the UDI was not only legally registered as a lobbyist organization, but also that they are indeed a lobby, and that in light of the new information regarding it, that they should terminate View Royal’s membership with the UDI effective immediately, in a ‘unanimous’ decision.
‘Effective immediately’ didn’t quite have the same impact as the statement however. The decision to discontinue the membership required ratification by the same council, which it received, a week later on November 21, albeit watered down then to lapse naturally, as it was scheduled to do approximately 2 months afterward.
Nonetheless, the impact was more or less the same, the Township of View Royal would not be continuing with a paid membership in a lobbyist organization that it had never had a vote to join in the first place.
Is a River in Egypt
On January 5, 2024, I emailed the UDI at their email address: info@udi.org
I asked the UDI a very simple question:
“Is Urban Development Institute a Lobby?”
The UDI did not reply.
——————————————————————————————————————–
8 days later, on Saturday Jan 13, I emailed the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia.
I asked them the same question:
“Is Urban Development Institute a Lobby?”
——————————————————————————————————————–
The Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia responded with a very prompt reply at 8:24 AM Monday morning on Jan 15.
Their email read:
“Good morning Sasha,
Thank you for your email.
Our Registry shows that Urban Development Institute is lobbying the provincial government in the matters that the organization has outlined under Specific Topics of Lobbying Communications and their last update to the Registry was on December 1, 2023
For your reference, “lobby” is defined in the Lobbyists Transparency Act (LTA) as follows:
Best regards,
——————————————————————————————————————–
I responded 20 minutes after:
Hello Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia,
Thank you for your response. It is informative. It doesn’t answer my specific question though.
Please answer clearly “yes” or “no” to it.
Is Urban Development Institute a Lobby?”
Thank you
——————————————————————————————————————–
The Office responded 9 minutes after that:
Sasha,
I have provided you the answer based on the definition of lobby as per the LTA. Perhaps I don’t understand your question. Please elaborate.
Thank you,
——————————————————————————————————————–
I responded 9 minutes after:
Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia,
Lobby can be a verb and it can be a noun.
You told me that “Urban Development Institute is lobbying the provincial government”.
That establishes that they are lobbying in verb form, which is clear.
My question is: are they a lobby in the sense of the noun form of the word?
e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary offers the following definition of lobby in noun form:
lobby
noun [ C ]
UK
/ˈlɒb.i/ US
/ˈlɑː.bi/
lobby noun [C] (PRESSURE GROUP)
a group of people who try to persuade the government or an official group to do something:
LOBBY | English meaning – Cambridge Dictionary
Thank you again,
——————————————————————————————————————–
The Office responded an hour 40 minutes after:
Hello Sasha,
Thank you for your reply.
It appears that you are asking us to interpret the term “lobby” in a manner that is not consistent with how “lobby” is defined in the Lobbyists Transparency Act (LTA). The mandate of the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists (ORL) is to oversee, monitor and enforce the LTA. As noted in my previous email, the LTA specifically defines the term “lobby” as follows:
“lobby”, subject to section 2 (2), means
(a) to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence
(i) the development of any legislative proposal by the government of British Columbia, a Provincial entity or a member of the Legislative Assembly,
(ii) the introduction, amendment, passage or defeat of any Bill or resolution in or before the Legislative Assembly,
(iii) the development or enactment of any regulation, including the enactment of a regulation for the purposes of amending or repealing a regulation,
(iv) the development, establishment, amendment or termination of any program, policy, directive or guideline of the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity,
(v) the awarding, amendment or termination of any contract, grant or financial benefit by or on behalf of the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity,
(vi) a decision by the Executive Council or a member of the Executive Council to transfer from the Crown for consideration all or part of, or any interest in or asset of, any business, enterprise or institution that provides goods or services to the Crown, a Provincial entity or the public, or
(vii) a decision by the Executive Council or a member of the Executive Council to have the private sector instead of the Crown provide goods or services to the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity,
(b) to arrange a meeting between a public office holder and any other individual for the purpose of attempting to influence any of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) of this definition;
(c) [Repealed 2018-52-2.]
As you can see from this definition, the LTA defines “lobby” in the form of a verb (“to communicate with…”). The LTA does not provide another definition of “lobby”, and most specifically does not provide a definition of “lobby” in which it is referenced as a noun (person, place or thing). Consequently, the ORL is unable to respond further on whether Urban Development Institute is a “lobby”, as this question appears to fall outside the scope of the LTA.
As noted in my previous email, Urban Development Institute has an active Registration Return that lists their “in-house lobbyists”, and as such I can confirm that Urban Development Institute is currently registered as a lobbying organization.
Respectfully,
——————————————————————————————————————–
7 minutes later, I responded:
Hello BC Lobbyists Registry,
So essentially what you are telling me is that there is no legal definition of a lobby in British Columbia?
I use the article ‘a’ in front of lobby, because I am referring to lobby as a noun.
——————————————————————————————————————–
If it were a warm summer’s night, instead of a cold winter morning, the sound of crickets chirping could have been plainly audible after. The Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia did not respond this time.
If a Lobby is not a Legally Recognized Noun
Does the Government Legally Recognize the Existence of Any Lobbies at all?
It’s a pretty important question, when you think about it. If there is no legal definition of a lobby (n.) in British Columbia’s Lobbyists Transparency Act, does the government recognize that lobbies exist? Given the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia’s refusal to apply the term lobby as a noun, based on the lack of that term as a noun in the Act; it appears that the answer is no.
If to follow the government’s logic here, there is not a single organization legally recognized as a lobby.
Now don’t get me wrong, the government identifies lobbyists and lobbyist organizations, and requires them to register their activities, but activities is the key word, because the government only appears to acknowledge activity; in other words verbs, when it comes to lobbying. It does not recognize a lobby as an entity.
This is rather important when you think of it, because lobbies can then go below both the Government’s and the public’s radar, and they and the government (that often has dealings with them, including not unusually consulting them for the generation and implementation of policy), can offer plausible deniability about the true nature/knowledge of these organizations (as they seek to influence). This plausible deniability can be achieved, based on the ambiguity that they are not legally identified as a lobby (n.) under the BC LTA.
In other words, if to follow the logic of the wording in the LTA, there are no lobbies as such, just individuals and organizations that lobby and that could include practically anyone or any organization.
What this translates to is that a lobby as an entity is put on the same potential footing legally as a charity, when seeking to influence the government. The only difference is that while a charity, or an NGO is legally identified through their registration as such, there are no organizations registered as a lobby. Any organization can potentially be registered as a lobbyist group, but they are just one of many different types of organizations seeking to influence the government. They are not registered as a lobby as such.
Why is the distinction important? It’s important, because in a democracy, the government and the public should know who they are dealing with, in order to protect the public’s interests and to avoid conflict of interest.
In the US, for example, everyone knows that the NRA is a lobby. In Canada however, can you think of a single name of an organization that is a lobby? Many people and even officials working for the government cannot.
This opens up major potential for infiltration of the government systems by lobbies, because they are not legally identified as such, in other words Trojan Horses.
The government can legally identify lobbyist organizations, as such, but they can say that they are among many benevolent charities, NGOs etc., that seek to influence the government in the public’s interest. Thus, the government having lobbies, even helping to draft and implement policy can remain unquestioned, because to the public and government they are not recognized as a lobby (n.). Hence again plausible deniability of potential governmental working relationships, collaborations, or ‘partnerships’ with lobbies acting in stealth is established. In the worst-case scenario outright collusion between lobby and state that could be enabled by such a lack of transparency regarding the government working with lobbies and this going for the most part undetected.
Rather, lobbies can register themselves as non-profit NGOs, or even charities and continue to function as a lobby without being identified as such. The effect is much like a masquerade. A lobby in British Columbia can say they are a non-profit, but that doesn’t mean that profit isn’t one of their goals, or even stated goals.
The UDI for example, despite being a non-profit, seems somewhat contradictory, in that they simultaneously claimed to be: “the team of industry leaders and professionals who are influencing the issues that affect your bottom line.”
This line followed their having stated that they are “Your voice in the Capital Region’s development industry”
They also stated:
“Our in-depth research and analyses of current trends and future projections mean you can make informed decisions that better your bottom line.”
[Underlines were added by myself.]
Yes, the organization as such, won’t generate a profit, but that doesn’t mean that their activities are not generating profits for their paying members. Thus, even a non-profit can have the generation of profit in indirect forms as a stated goal.
Those that work for the organization can still be paid, but profits cannot be paid out to investors. That does not mean that those that pay money to the organization are not potentially investing indirectly, by expecting in the future to potentially reap scenarios whereby they increase their finances/profits due to being in a better position, e.g. through lobbying activity and influence on government and the media, or through market analyses etc.
How are those involved with an NGO acting as an unidentified lobby (n.), benefitting from this situation that is ostensibly non-profit? Again, their staffs can be paid, so have regular or semi-regular work. By putting that they worked with the organizations, staffs can look forward to potential future career advancements and ‘networking opportunities.’
The Board of Directors, who may be filled with senior business people working for companies that have financial interests in outcomes that the organization can influence through lobbying, and through other activity, can have an indirect economic interest in the outcomes created by the organization; and so could be poised to reap profits from its activities that are not gained from the organization’s coffers per se.
If similar types of business people stack the boards of other NGOs and charities, such NGOs and charities can also be used to advance a lobby’s agenda without declaring and letting the public know that they are functioning as a lobby (n.). Thus, lacking a distinct legally recognized status as a lobby; a captured NGO or charity might not be recognized as serving more than one purpose. Such an organization would not operate the same as a charity or even an NGO that is merely trying to influence the government for altruistic purposes; rather this transformed entity might be serving interests that might overlap with self-interest among parties involved including financiers of the organization.
A charity or NGO serving purely altruistic purposes without self-interest might have activities that would still be defined as lobbying and they might also be defined as lobbyist organization or group. In this case, without a distinction between a lobby and merely those carrying out lobbying activities on occasion, the waters get muddied between charity, altruistic NGO and actual lobbies, hiding being NGO, Non-Profit and even charity statuses to hide their true nature, being organizations dedicated to influencing politicians for the advancement of the interests of those involved with those organizations and financing them.
With the waters muddied and obscured by this lack of distinction, who can now tell the difference? The government will not make a distinction, due to a lack of categorizing criteria in legislation. Organizations and the government have a perfect means of plausible deniability in the case their relationships being found too intertwined and too close and potential conflicts are found to have emerged. Lobby, what lobby? There is no lobby, at least as far as the law seems to be concerned…
A Verbal Smokescreen?
Individuals
Rather than Organizations
Lobbyist(s) (noun and plural form) are legally recognized according to the BC Lobbyists Transparency Act (LTA). Lobbyist organizations are legally recognized, but a lobby (noun.) is not legally recognized in the LTA. A lobbyist is an individual, often acting on behalf of an organization. A collection of lobbyists acting on behalf an organization that is registered as a lobbyist organization, rationally speaking would make that organization a lobby, but such organizations are not recognized under the term lobby (n.) legally. They lobby, but aren’t seen as a lobby.
It is a potential mistake, and an easy one to make to expect that the law reflects what one would typically expect through personal ration analyses. It is also a mistake to think that common sense prevails, if not anywhere, but in law as well.
If anyone illustrated this, it was Franz Kafka, in his famous novel The Trial, which stuck in the collective mind the word Kafkaesque, when it comes to bureaucracy and legal systems.
By legally defining lobby as a verb, but not defining lobby as a noun, there is what I would describe the creation of a situation and system, in which there is an ability for lobbies to hide their true nature from the public at a subliminal level and from the government they may seek to influence.
There is another legal use of words that can also create a subliminal confusion or even ducking from the public mind, when it comes to lobbying in the LTA and that involves its brief section on conflict of interest.
——————————————————————————————————————-
On October 17, 2023 I emailed the BC Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists:
Hello Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia,
Do you think it is a conflict of interest for branches of the government, e.g. local governments and crown corporations to become paying members of a lobby that represents private interests and that is lobbying the same government?
Also is it a conflict of interest for branches of the government to be a paying member of such a lobby, when many of the represented private companies serve to benefit from favourable government policy and in cases even receive contracts from the same government?
Also is it a conflict of interest where members of that lobby are contracted by branches of the government to generate policy that other branches of the government must conform to by law and on subjects the same lobby has been pushing for?
If you don’t know the answers. To whom may I contact in the government that can provide the answers?
Thank you,
——————————————————————————————————————
The BCORL responded the next day:
Good Morning Sasha Izard,
Thank you for your email and questions.
For your reference, the mandate of the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for BC (ORL) is to oversee, monitor and enforce the Lobbyists Transparency Act (LTA). The LTA requires individuals and organizations who lobby BC public office holders and meet specific criteria to register their lobbying activities in an online public registry. The Registrar of Lobbyists is generally responsible for monitoring, promoting, and enforcing compliance with the LTA. The LTA does not apply to the lobbying of municipal government, only to the lobbying of BC public office holders at the provincial government level.
Do you think it is a conflict of interest for branches of the government, e.g. local governments and crown corporations to become paying members of a lobby that represents private interests and that is lobbying the same government?/ Also is it a conflict of interest for branches of the government to be a paying member of such a lobby, when many of the represented private companies serve to benefit from favourable government policy and in cases even receive contracts from the same government?
The LTA does not have any regulations applicable to the situations set out under the first two questions in your email. I would suggest that you consider seeking guidance from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s office if an MLA is involved, or alternatively from the Human Resources office of the appropriate ministry/Provincial entity or municipality, if applicable.
Also is it a conflict of interest where members of that lobby are contracted by branches of the government to generate policy that other branches of the government must conform to by law and on subjects the same lobby has been pushing for?
The contracting prohibition set out in section 2.1 of the LTA may apply (copied below, underlining and yellow highlight added by me):
Contracting prohibition
2.1 (1) In this section, “contract for providing paid advice” means an agreement or other arrangement under which a person directly or indirectly receives or is to receive payment for providing advice to the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity, but does not include reasonable remuneration for serving on a board, commission, council or other body that is established under an enactment and on which there are at least 2 other members who represent other organizations or interests.
(2) Subject to section 2.3, a person must not do either of the following:
(a) lobby on a matter in relation to which the person, or a person associated with that person, holds a contract for providing paid advice;
(b) enter into a contract for providing paid advice on a matter in relation to which the person, or a person associated with that person, is lobbying.
(3) Subsection (2) applies regardless of the number of hours the person’s lobbying or duty to lobby on behalf of an organization or an affiliate, either alone or together with other individuals in the organization, amounts to annually.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is associated with another person if the other person is
(a) a corporation of which the first person is a director or senior officer,
(b) a corporation carrying on business or activities for profit or gain if the first person owns or is the beneficial owner of shares of the corporation,
(c) the employer of the first person,
(d) a partnership
(i) of which the first person is a partner, or
(ii) of which one of the partners is a corporation associated with the first person by reason of paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, or
(e) a person or group of persons acting as the agent of the first person and having actual authority in that capacity from the first person.
If you believe that you have information pertaining to a potential contravention of section 2.1, please feel free to reply to this email with any relevant information. Please note that, as per section 7.92 of the LTA (copied below), we would not be able to comment further on whether an investigation or hearing is being conducted as a result.
Restrictions on disclosure of information by the registrar and staff
7.92 (1) Except as provided under this section, the registrar and anyone acting for or under the direction of the registrar must not disclose
(a) whether an investigation or a hearing is being conducted under this Act, or
(b) any information or record obtained in conducting an investigation or a hearing under this Act.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or if I can provide any additional clarity on this matter.
Sincerely,
——————————————————————————————————————
As far as I can tell, the Contracting Prohibition in the Act, is the only real section involving prohibited forms of conflict of interest when it comes to lobbying. I could be wrong about that, but it’s the only section that I’ve found so far. Feel free to write me at info@sashaizard.com if, you find anything else.
In this section, the word “person” appears over and over again; in fact, 21 times. In comparison, the word “organization” appears three times, and in these cases the word appears to be indirectly related to potential activities that constitute conflict of interest. The use of the term relating to conflict of interest tends be more related to how individuals or more than one person “people” act individually, or together, while they are in organizations, rather than being used in terms of organizational responsibility. The word “group” appears once in this section, but this is a “group of people”, not an organization per se and it refers to:
“acting as the agent of the first person and having actual authority in that capacity from the first person”
In other words responsibility, comes down again and again to and individual or somestimes people. Most likely this will be an individual in the form of a person, at least as far as the language is concerned.
If to see this in terms of language, individual people or persons, are ripe for serving as scapegoats, fall people, etc., and plausible deniability appears to be open for groups and organizations. With such language it can be easy to identify and reduce conflict of interest issues if they are found to a ‘single individual’, or ‘a few bad apples’ etc. The language makes difficult recognizing organizational, and often, but not always higher-level responsibility.
The language of individuals, or groups of individuals rather than organizations also makes it very difficult to see conflict of interest, unless one is specifically trained to do so. If one looks at individuals, rather than collectives, then it can be very difficult to spot conflict of interest. If one person (call them the left hand), is doing something, but another person (call them the right hand), is doing something that would be conflict of interest, if they were an individual, then suddenly it can be seen as not a conflict of interest, because it is two different people operating. Even if this is seen as a group of people operating, the organization can say that it is just a small group, it is not the organization itself that was or is operating in conflict.
As I’m saying this regarding language and the appearances that can be derived from it, I am not saying that this is necessarily the case legally. I don’t know the answer, but I do think it’s a question that really needs to be asked and clarified. It’s a question that I find immediately apparent when reading the scanty conflict of interest rules in the Act and seeing practically nothing immediately apparent; that makes organizations, corporations, branches of government, third party electoral organizations, NGOs, etc., prevented in BC’s lobby law, from carrying out acts that ethically would be considered by many to be conflicts of interest.
An organization may be recognized legally as a person, but the average person reading the Act, is unlikely to make that connection/association.
A lot of this language, I’ve been told, goes back to English Common Law from the 19th century. However, English Common Law of the 19th century was made at a time prior to vast developments in Public Relations theory, psychological theory/science and theory and science of mass psychology that has emerged since then and become very advanced.
Modern language games from the Public Relations industry in the 21st century are open to a field-day of exploiting a lack of covered terms in the law, especially enabling them to create images and smokescreens of plausible deniability.
In the US, everyone knows the NRA is a lobby, but in Canada do we recognize the existence of lobbies as such? Or, do they simply go under the radar as “lobbyist organizations” which could be any organization that lobbies at the very least in their part-time, if anyone digs enough to find out.
Why do our media, constantly frame organizations and those involved with them seeking to influence the government and the public to achieve favourable policy to their own and/or their organization’s interests as “advocates,” instead of the lobbyists that they are often legally registered as? Isn’t the role of a free press in a democracy to expose to the public the exact nature of what is taking place and exactly who and what is attempting to influence both themselves and the government?
Conclusion:
With all the information discussed in mind, I ask the question once again:
Does the Provincial Government of British Columbia Legally Recognize the Existence of Any Lobby?
If to judge from the basis of my communications with the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, the answer appears to be no.
If this is the case, that the province does not legally recognize the existence of any lobby, as such, then the reader is left with two possible conclusions:
1.There are no lobbies in British Columbia, or in the world for that matter.
2. There is a massive black hole of a loophole in lobby law in British Columbia that amounts to a giant elephant in the room that doesn’t legally recognize the existence of lobbies as such, and needs to be addressed as soon as possible, for the sake of preventing serious likely undue influence on the Provincial Government of British Columbia.
I suspect that the answer can be found in the latter.
I have made the analogy before, and in concluding I will make it again. In the so-called ‘Age of Enlightenment’, the separation of church and state was a key concept that emerged to prevent abuses of power that are almost bound to appear with the merger of religious power with that of the state.
The importance of a secular state, and enlightened, even handed-rule; emerged in this so-called ‘Age of Reason,’ as a crucial component of good governance, even if states that aimed to be secular and even-handed didn’t always live up to that fully.
In the 21st century, in British Columbia, I propose that for good governance, democracy and even-handed rule to emerge out of a murky darkness spawned by a serious lack of transparency, when it comes to lobbies operating in the province; that what is crucial if we are to achieve anything resembling true democracy, is the much needed and belated separation of lobby and state. The only way to achieve that for the state and for the public, is to be able to identify a lobby in the first place.
Appendix: Another Dialogue with the BC Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
During my brief communications with the BC Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, they eventually responded:
“Consequently, the ORL is unable to respond further on whether Urban Development Institute is a “lobby”, as this question appears to fall outside the scope of the LTA.
As noted in my previous email, Urban Development Institute has an active Registration Return that lists their “in-house lobbyists”, and as such I can confirm that Urban Development Institute is currently registered as a lobbying organization.”
I responded, “So essentially what you are telling me is that there is no legal definition of a lobby in British Columbia?
I use the article ‘a’ in front of lobby, because I am referring to lobby as a noun.”
There was no response, but this isn’t the first time I’ve found branches of the Government rapidly shutting down further conversations about the Urban Development Institute and/or lobby law when there appear to be double standards or holes in it.
Another example of a conversation being shut down was from City of Victoria FOI on the subject of trying to figure out how the City became a paying member of the lobby in the first place:
“I have spoke with my colleagues in Legislative Services, and we must clarify that the response you have been provided does not confirm if the City joined the UDI through a council resolution or not. We can only indicate that based on the search capabilities of limited PDF documents from 15 and 16 years ago, we are unable to find anything related to joining UDI. You may contact Archives and view the documents from the time if you wish.
As you have not made a request subject to section 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, this office is unable to answer any further questions related to the UDI.” [I added the underline.]
That didn’t put me off the trail though. I eventually did find the answer, despite their claim that, “this office is unable to answer any further questions related to the UDI,” which was an easy bluff to call by simply making another FOI on the subject directly. The City of Victoria joined the UDI lobby as a paying member by staff signing the municipality up unilaterally without votes by elected officials, something that has repeated again and again in different municipalities in British Columbia.
The Province has also refused to continue any discussion about the double standard in law, in which municipalities are not allowed to have lobbyist registries that are mandatory to fill out; when the Province itself has a mandatory lobbyist registry for itself, and the municipalities and regional governments fall under the Province.
So I’ve had more than a bit of experience with government stonewalling and prevaricating on these subjects. In fact, I’ve come to expect it.
However, the BC Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists did respond to me when I emailed them again on a second subject.
I have included this dialogue, because it sheds light on a detail of something that I found to be interesting that came up during our previous discussion.
The dialogue was as follows, beginning with my email to the office:
In this section of the LTA that you recently quoted in an email to me: (c) [Repealed 2018-52-2.]
What was that section that was repealed?
Thank you,
Sasha Izard
““lobby”, subject to section 2 (2), means
(a) to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence
(i) the development of any legislative proposal by the government of British Columbia, a Provincial entity or a member of the Legislative Assembly,
(ii) the introduction, amendment, passage or defeat of any Bill or resolution in or before the Legislative Assembly,
(iii) the development or enactment of any regulation, including the enactment of a regulation for the purposes of amending or repealing a regulation,
(iv) the development, establishment, amendment or termination of any program, policy, directive or guideline of the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity,
(v) the awarding, amendment or termination of any contract, grant or financial benefit by or on behalf of the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity,
(vi) a decision by the Executive Council or a member of the Executive Council to transfer from the Crown for consideration all or part of, or any interest in or asset of, any business, enterprise or institution that provides goods or services to the Crown, a Provincial entity or the public, or
(vii) a decision by the Executive Council or a member of the Executive Council to have the private sector instead of the Crown provide goods or services to the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity,
(b) to arrange a meeting between a public office holder and any other individual for the purpose of attempting to influence any of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) of this definition;
(c) [Repealed 2018-52-2.]”
——————————————————————————————————————–
The office responded 2 days later:
Sasha,
Please click on this link https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/astat/sbc-2018-c-52/latest/sbc-2018-c-52.html to see amendments made to the Lobbyists Registration Act which is now Lobbyists Transparency Act as of May 2020.
Best regards,
——————————————————————————————————————–
Thank you,
Do you mind just copy and pasting the relevant section that I mentioned?
Thank you again,
Sasha
——————————————————————————————————————–
Sasha,
As per your request:
Here is the Lobbyists Registration Act: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/sbc-2001-c-42/145707/sbc-2001-c-42.html
And a screen shot of how it was repealed.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Thank you.
Do you mind doing the same thing with taking a screenshot, this time of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition of “lobby” that was removed?
– Sasha
——————————————————————————————————————–
Sasha,
Here is a screen shot of (b) and (c) in the Lobbyists Registration Act that was repealed from the Lobbyists Transparency Act:
——————————————————————————————————————–
Hi,
Thank you for your quick response.
What is a consultant lobbyist? Is this term legally defined?
Do you know why these two sections were repealed in 2018?
Thank you again,
Sasha