INST Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
CHAPTER 5
POLICY MAKING IN THE INFORMATION AGE - LOBBYING, ACCESS AND THE INTERNET
Lobbying is really about taking private interests and making them merge with the public interest, while being totally transparent… The Internet is a key factor in making that happen today….We think there's a critical role for government and for this institution to make sure it happens in a meaningful way. [Michael Teeter 15:10:10]
The Lobbyists Registration Act is really about transparency and making public advocacy more transparent. While the Act is, in our experience, well run and meeting a real need, to some extent I think there really are bigger things going on. In fact, there are things government can do to really open up the process a heck of a lot more, beyond the Lobbyists Registration Act — and what we're really talking about is the public consultation process and how it works. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:20]
One of the most interesting topics of discussion in which the Committee engaged was on the subject of the Internet, and its impact on lobbying and the public consultation process. The discussion was led by Scott Proudfoot and Michael Teeter, co-creators of www.Hillwatch.com, a Web portal designed as a politics and public policy on-line resource centre for people working in politics and government or for people who want to influence government. The site categorizes and provides links to over 2,300 sites to help people find useful resources. For example, the site lists 450 Canadian groups and organizations in different issue areas, as well as several hundred international groups. The site is intended to showcase the public policy positions of the private sector associations, NGOs and coalitions corporations. Since its creation six months ago, the site has attracted some 40,000 visitors, attesting to the power of the Internet:
The power of the Internet to really shape a lot of public policy discussion really arrives from the fact of where people go first for information. Increasingly, with over 50% of the Canadian population connected, with the people involved in the press, with people involved in public policy discussion, with association executives, I think you'll find the rate of connection is probably around 80% to 90% in many instances.[Scott Proudfoot 15:10:10]
What is the nature of the link between the Internet and lobbying? The most obvious connection is the fact that the lobbyists registry is online and some 98% of registrations are done electronically. The ready availability of the registry on the Internet has, in the opinion of most observers, contributed to a significant improvement in transparency in the public policy-making process:
The theory behind this is that if you really want to know who's saying what on the issues you're debating, and what issues are being debated inside governments and so on, you really can go to the Internet to find out. If you put them together in an organized fashion and in a meaningful fashion, think of what it gives the public. [Michael Teeter 15:10:10]
Interestingly, it appears to be the case that the groups making most effective use of the new medium as a lobbying tool are often those with the fewest resources:
The groups that have understood the value of the Internet as a campaign tool, as a tool to promote their points of view, have been the civil society groups. It's not that they're smarter than anyone else. In fact, they have less resources. They therefore figured out that the Internet is sort of a tool that allows them to do stuff online better, more cheaply, and quicker, and they've gravitated to this. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:15]
The effective use of the Internet by civil society groups has prompted other organizations to make their own policies clear. An example was offered of the GMO food debate:
The anti-GMO food activists use the Internet to attack the mainstream corporations. The mainstream corporations, which didn't know what hit them, frankly, all of a sudden found they had to really respond in public and defend their position. If you go to their corporate sites now, or if you go to their association sites, there's a lot of good, reliable information, there's a lot of self-interested information, there's a lot of scientific evidence, and there's a lot of fear-mongering. There's a whole potpourri of information that you can find on the issue. Four or five years ago, you wouldn't have seen any of this information. Now it's all largely publicly accessible. Basically, beyond the Lobbyists Registration Act, we think the Internet is really pushing the whole industry to be a heck of a lot more public and transparent where people can find it. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:15]
But many public interest groups are doing more than just looking for information:
They're organizing to put pressure on governments….They are lobbyists, but they're not just one person representing somebody behind the scenes and having to register. You're talking about millions using the Internet to organize themselves. [Michael Teeter 15:10:20]
2. A Challenge for Governments
The emergence of the Internet poses a number of questions for legislators and other policy-makers. Members of Parliament are already familiar with at least one issue: What to do with all the E-mail?
Some of this comes with some downside. One of the downside effects is that you, as members of Parliament, are going to be subjected to a heck of a lot more of what I call political spam. We just saw a recent report that senators in the U.S. are getting 55,000 E-mails a month. House representatives are getting 8,000. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:15]
The growth of Internet lobbying also raises the difficult question of determining who is behind a Web site:
Associations have structures, they have laws that regulate their incorporation, and so on. But these don't. They don't have leadership, they don't have mandates, and they don't have rules that govern their behaviour. A key challenge for governments will therefore be what to do with these things. What do you do with these communities that are putting pressure on you? [Michael Teeter 15:10:20]
Scott Proudfoot suggested that the solution to the problem lies with the development of voluntary codes:
So if there is a concern about disclosure and the lack of disclosure with these groups, they all have websites. If we could get them to agree on a good code of practice voluntarily, I'm sure most of them would voluntarily submit to it and would be part of it. I think that would solve a lot of the problems. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:40]
In spite of these concerns, it is clear that the Internet can be a powerful tool for raising public awareness by "getting the message out":
A lot of people want more direct democracy. They don't just want to replace representatives; I think they want to replace the media, too, if not more so. What you're going to get is the "Animal Rights Supper Hour" or the "Anti-Globalization Evening Show". That's really where it's going. It's going to be a very different world that's going to force all of us to adjust in a fairly major way [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:15]
In addition to contributing to greater public awareness about important issues, the Internet will, at the same time, permit policy-makers to expand the process of public consultations in a meaningful way. The Committee is aware that this process is already underway to some degree in the Canadian government and governments around the world:
The very officials we're talking about now who are being lobbied by lobbyists form e-communities of their own. E-communities are being formed inside government as we speak, and these communities are taking policy positions… [Michael Teeter 15:10:20]
The Committee listened with great interest to the U.K. experience with online consultations. The U.K government has created a "citizen portal" called UK Online. In the portal called "Citizen Space" they have a button labelled "Consultations" that takes the visitor to a central registry, where information is available about all consultations going on in the government. The site also permits the visitor to link to background information provided by officials, and provides the coordinates for who to contact and where to send submissions. The central registry links the various departmental registries. In addition, some departmental registries link to departmental sites, which provide a "Consultations" button. In the normal course, the sites provide information about which consultations are live and which have just closed. For those that have closed and for which the government has rendered a decision, a summary is provided of who appeared, what was said, and what the government's decision was.
Hillwatch’s co-founders suggested that, by creating a similar site, the Canadian government could create the means and the incentives for Canadians to participate in a more meaningful way in the public policy debate:
We think it's a heck of a good idea. People would have more incentive to get involved, to be included, to find out what's going on, and we'd recommend that you just go over there and steal the idea, holus-bolus, and apply it in Canada. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:20]
However, Hillwatch was of the view that the U.K. system could be improved upon. One way would be to provide E-mail notification of pending consulations to anyone who had expressed an interest:
…all you have to do is create, as part of a consultation registry, a list of thirty or forty key topics. Are you interested in these topics? Put in your check and put in your E-mail. We'll then send you an E-mail to tell you when a consultation comes up. You can then go to the consultation site, get more information, get the background, and get involved if you want. It's very simple, cheap, and easy technology. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:20]
Hillwatch offered a second constructive suggestion for improvement:
If you have a consultation registry, why not have a submission button? Have a list of people who have made submissions. They could provide the links to the material on their sites. They could provide the links to the material on the site where people can view it, or the government could provide some sort of central registry with a searchable database. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:20]
The Committee is mindful, of course, that the confidentiality of sensitive business information should still be protected. For that reason, parties making submissions would have to be given the choice of disclosing the substance of their brief:
Now there is one important caveat here: I think it has to be voluntary. There are times when we're involved with clients and the information is confidential — we shouldn't be giving away information we wouldn't want their competitors to know. I think people have to have the right not to volunteer information. But I think most people would participate. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:25]
The Committee found much to support in the recommendations of Hillwatch. We are aware that the Government of Canada has already set up a Web portal to access government institutions (www.canada.gc.ca), into which these recommended innovations could easily be incorporated.
4. The Role of Parliamentarians
Where is the elected member of Parliament in all this? To some extent, you can be left out of the process. As we talk about consultative mechanisms and e-communities, I think we have to think about how to build elected representatives and democratic accountability into the process. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:25]
Members of the Committee are aware of what some observers have referred to as the steady diminution of the role of ordinary MP in the policy-making process. Many members come to Parliament with great experience and expertise in different areas; the traditional view is that MPs are involved in the policy debate only at the point when a bill comes before us. Members of Parliament do, in fact, get involved earlier in the process. In fact, effective representation of our constituents often makes our early involvement necessary. But Members of Parliament are often kept no better informed than members of the public about what goes on inside the various departments of government. Hillwatch suggested a simple means by which the Internet could be used to bring Members "into the loop" earlier in the process.
…there should be a button that says: Contact your MP. If something is important to you, send your representation to your MP. You have to build that in. As e-government evolves, you have to look for other ways to build MPs into the process. I'd be very concerned if we didn't make that a major priority. [Scott Proudfoot 15:10:25]
But will this mean even more work for Members, in addition to their already busy schedules? Perhaps. But the Committee looks upon it as an opportunity to represent our constituents more effectively and efficiently, by entering into an ongoing "e-dialogue" with them. In addition to increasing our effectiveness as elected representatives, Hillwatch reminded the Committee that there are other advantages to actively engaging with constituents in this way:
…when people communicate with you as MPs via the Internet, from your constituency or otherwise, you should look on that as an opportunity to capture data. Once you learn something about a person, that person essentially becomes a volunteer. American politicians have perfected this, and it's coming to Canada. [Michael Teeter 15:10:30]
The Committee is of the view that the Internet offers a unique and exciting opportunity for the Government of Canada and Members of Parliament to engage Canadians in the public policy debate to an unprecedented degree. By making it easy for Canadians to have their views heard, public policy-making can reflect the views and interests of all Canadians, and not just of those who can afford access to government. By engaging Canadians in a meaningful way in the debate, public policy can become truly reflective of the wishes of all Canadians.
In order to promote transparency in the process by which public decision making is made, and in order to ensure that all Canadians are able to contribute effectively to the policymaking process:
Recommendation 24:
The Committee recommends that the Department of Industry, in consultation with other departments of government, devote the necessary resources and proceed with all deliberateness to design and implement an Internet architecture, to be incorporated into the Government of Canada website (http://www.canada.gc.ca), and to include the following features:
- An easy-to-find "Consultations" portal to take visitors to a central registry containing information about all consultations currently going on in the government, with links to the departments undertaking the consultations;
- Additional links to background information prepared or received by government in relation to a consultation;
- Links to persons or departments to contact and where to send submissions;
- Information about which consultations are open and which have just closed; and, for those that have closed and for which the government has rendered a decision, a summary of who appeared, what was said, what the government's decision was and the reasons for it;
- An E-mail notice subscription list to permit Canadians to be informed of upcoming consultations on subjects of concern to them;
- A "contact your MP" button to permit Canadians to copy their MPs with their submissions to government.
Recommendation 25:
As well, once the consultations portal is available, the Committee recommends that the government undertake to advertise and publicize the site in order to make Canadians aware of its existence and of the opportunity to become involved in the public policy-making process.