Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank my colleagues for allowing me to bring this motion before the House today. I’d like to thank Mr. Nadli for seconding this motion to allow its debate.
Personally, I don’t believe one could make a motion any clearer or to the point when it comes to the transparency and accountability of a government. As I have come to say numerous times in the House, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and a lobbyist registry is about as open and bright as it comes to cleansing the question of legitimacy of the House business. However, before we begin to look at the rationale for such need, we need to first put in the definition of what we mean when we say “lobbyist” or what is a lobbyist and why a registry.
There are many ways to define this, but in simple terms, we are talking about a list of people and interest groups trying to influence politicians and government. Many jurisdictions in Canada have more formal definitions of lobbying and lobbyists, but in almost all cases those who are paid or compensated to represent the concerns of others to influence legislative or spending of governments are referred to as lobbyists. These individuals must usually abide by a lobbyist code of conduct and register themselves accordingly. Consequently, those who lobby on a voluntary basis are not required to register nationally.
On top of that, some jurisdictions also base this activity to the following key principles of conduct. Some principles, for example, as found in the Lobbying Act of Canada, refer to such guidelines as that free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest; that lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity; that it is desirable for public office holders and the general public to be able to know who is engaged in lobbying activities; and finally, that a system of registration of paid lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government.
In essence, lobbying the government is in itself not a bad thing. Government can learn a lot from outside experts such as businesses, non-profits, environmental groups, religious organizations. You name it. As I said, it is legitimate and legal activity. It’s to the greater transparency of lobbying and the greater accountability of public officials where one needs to consider a tool that helps curb inappropriate influence to provide the public scrutiny for its elected decision-makers. Hence, the need and motion before us today.
Some may ask, what does government do now in the absence of a lobbyist registry? Any inquiries from the public or even MLAs have to be made to the official or agency in question. Certain records, in some cases, may be subject to access to information and privacy legislation which does not have a very strong mechanism to enforce compliance, but more importantly, this mechanism
does not apply to the office of the Ministers, its Members, or the Legislative Assembly in general. Instead, the public and even Members of this House have no idea who is doing the lobbying, or who they represent, when they meet with specific officials in government and what topics are being discussed.
To the question of how a lobbyist registry would work in our unique consensus style of government, I turn your attention to cities such as Toronto whose municipal dealings are similar to consensus and have had a lobbyist registry in place since 2007. I see no issue that the scope of legislation with proper consultation and review could not produce a bill of high integrity dealing with our unique consensus style of government.
As well, to the question would lobbying to Regular MLAs and non-elected officials have to be reported, in my view, a GNWT registry should be covering lobbying of elected and non-elected officials with decision-making powers or significant influence. The new Financial Administration Act makes greater provision of power for deputy ministers; therefore, so should the transparency of their action.
As for MLAs, there is no dispute that we have significant powers over legislation and appropriations, so we would, in theory, not be immune to such a tool. Of course, all these issues would need to be considered carefully and with proper debate.
Finally, some may be wondering how much would such a lobbyist registry cost the GNWT. This is a great question, especially as we are tethering on the cliff of fiscal restraint. My goal, colleagues, is to keep this simple and efficient for the NWT and its residents. It must be kept in line with the size and activity of our jurisdiction with very modest resources. To put this modest dollar figure to the test, Mr. Speaker, one only needs to look at the budget for the Government of Canada Registry of $825,000 where more than 5,000 lobbyists are registered. By all accounts, a GNWT registry would be much more humble by design.
It all boils down to this: it’s about catching up with the rest of Canada and becoming part of that distinguished list of enlightened jurisdictions that keep track of lobbyist activities. As our responsibilities grow in the aftermath of devolution, all the more reason to get the job done now and show the people of the NWT we are truly an open and honest government.
I’d like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I’d like to thank Mr. Nadli for seconding and to my colleagues here today for their comments. Thank you.