![[Democracy Watch Logo]](dw.gif) |
![[Op-ed]](oped.gif) |
| |
|
             Français |
Set out below is an op-ed by Democracy Watch Coordinator Duff Conacher, the first was published in slightly different, edited form in the August 31, 2009 issue of the Hill Times The criticisms by Joe MacDonald and James Morton of the so-called five-year ban on former public office holders lobbying the federal government are so inaccurate, exaggerated and lacking in any evidence that they only reveal just how weak their arguments are ("Five-year ban on lobbying too restrictive for industry's future" - Hill Times, Aug. 24). First the facts -- the ban only applies to "designated public office holders" (essentially, only Ministers, their staff, and senior government officials) and people on a new Prime Minister's transition team. As a result, the ban does not apply to 90 percent of federal politicians and political staff, nor to 99 percent of federal public servants (including private sector employees who serve in government through an employment exchange program). And exemptions to the ban can be granted by the Commissioner of Lobbying if the person worked in a short-term or administrative position. Second, the ban does not prohibit lobbying, it only prohibits being a registered lobbyist. Only paid lobbyists, and only employees of for-profit corporations who lobby more than 20 percent of their work time, are required by the Lobbying Act to register. Anyone who works for a United Nations' or other international organization recognized by Parliament, is also not required to register. Third, registration is not required for appearances before parliamentary committees, or for communications concerning the "enforcement, interpretation or application" of any law or regulation, so any former politician, staffer or public official can be paid to do those things right after they leave office (with a few specific restrictions for one to two years under the Conflict of Interest Act). Even if a ban on lobbying was applied to all other federal politicians, staff and public servants (as it should be, on a sliding scale from 6 months to four years depending on their decision-making power (with the possibility of an exemption)), and even if registration loopholes were closed (as they should be, given that they allow secret lobbying by corporations and wealthy interests), the ban would still only apply to actual lobbying (ie. arranging meetings with and communicating with people in government about their decision-making on various issues). Therefore, any former politician, staffer or public servant could still transfer their skills, knowledge and experience to the private and broader public sectors in any of the hundreds of other types of jobs that are available to those with such skills (at universities, think-tanks, international organizations, charities and many other private sector employers). They could even still be paid to advise any individual, corporation and/or interest group on how to approach the federal government. Even if all the loopholes were closed, the only thing that the ban would prohibit is cashing in on your relationships with your former colleagues right after you leave public service and selling the access and influence you have with them to the highest bidder. The ban (loophole-filled as it is) is aimed at discouraging people from entering the public service with the intent of cashing in on their service because, very likely, that type of person will not be dedicated to serving the public good. The ban is also aimed at upholding fundamental good government conflict of interest rules by prohibiting those who have worked as or with decision-makers from lobbying those decision-makers or their colleagues for a period of time long enough to ensure that those decision-makers are no longer involved in making decisions. The previous ban of two years for ministers, and one year for senior government officials, was too short because the turnover of decision-makers in government (either through Cabinet shuffles, appointments, retirements, resignations or elections) has usually not, throughout the history of Canada, happened that regularly. All of the above makes clear that Public Affairs Association of Canada President Joe MacDonald is spouting pure hogwash when he claims that the so-called ban "discourages younger minds from joining politics and the public service" and "inhibits those already involved from transferring their skills, knowledge and experience to the private and broader public sectors" and that, as a result, "Canadian politics and political discourse in general is much the poorer". All of the above also makes clear that lawyer James Morton's claim that because of the ban "some of Canada's brightest policy minds will be strictly limited in what they can do once they leave government" is completely inaccurate. The fact that Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Morton offer no evidence also reveals just how unbelievable their claims are. So instead of increasing unethical government by reducing the length of the lobbying ban, federal political parties should work together to close the loopholes that allow for secret lobbying, and apply the ban on a sliding scale to all politicians, staff and government officials, so that the federal government will, finally after 142 years, have a comprehensive and effective lobbying ethics and disclosure system. |