Sears first false claim, which he backs with an illogical reference to George Orwell, is that "political participation by corporations and unions is to be banned" by Bill C-2.  In fact, the bill only bans political donations by corporations, unions and other organizations -- they will still be allowed to participate in every other way in the political system.

Sears' second false claim is that Bill C-2's so-called ban on former Cabinet ministers and some government officials becoming lobbyists for five years will stop "most" people who may become lobbyists from becoming lobbyists.  In fact, the ban is so loophole-filled (for example, it does not apply at all to MPs or their staff, and many others can be exempted from the ban) that it will allow most ex-government people to continue (as dozens have in the past decade) to pass through the revolving door and very soon become lobbyists for interest groups they dealt with while in government. 

Sears continues his reconstruction of the past, present and future when he claims that Canadians are not angry with politicians and public servants "as criminal predators in a kleptocracy" -- illogically attempting to make Canadians' concerns about government corruption seem absurd for the sole purpose of dismissing their concerns as absurd.  

Canadians are not angry for the reason Sears cites, but every poll conducted in the past 10 years by every polling company in Canada shows that they are angry because of the clear evidence that people in the federal government (especially the most powerful people) have often not been effectively required to act honestly, ethically, openly and representatively, nor to prevent waste.

Sears' then goes on to make the exaggerated claim that nothing needs to be done about federal government corruption because Canada is "squeaky clean by global standards" according to one survey.  First of all, the survey is limited because only business executives are questioned, and second over a few years it showed Canada dropping from fifth to 14th in the list of countries surveyed.

In any case, just because Canada's federal government appears to be cleaner than other governments doesn't mean it is clean.  In fact, the federal government's clean reputation is due in part to an ethics enforcement system that is still so weak it has let, in the past decade alone, 25 Cabinet ministers, and many ministerial staff and MPs, violate ethics rules without being found guilty.

Of course, Sears illogical and baseless claims lead to his illogical and baseless conclusion -- that Bill C-2 is not needed because the federal government is not ill in the ways the bill attempts to cure. 

Beyond the examples already given above, has Sears already forgotten the recent past during which (among dozens of other examples of irresponsible government activities that could be listed): the federal government repeatedly issued false budget surplus estimates, the Liberals and the Conservatives broke several promises made in several elections, a dozen complaints about lobbyists violating ethics rules have yet to be ruled on even though they are years old; several annual reports by two Information Commissioners have detailed systemic, ongoing violations of the open government law; dozens of ruling party supporters have been appointed by Cabinet to positions they are not qualified for, often at enforcement agencies that enforce laws that apply to Cabinet, and; who knows how many government officials (likely hundreds) have witnessed wrongdoing and kept quiet because of lack of whistleblower protection.  And then there was the sponsorship scandal, of course, with more than $40 million still missing.

Sears then turns to analyzing three specific parts of Bill C-2, at times contradicting his previous claims.  According to him, it is good (both politically and in policy terms) that Bill C-2 does not require more transparent government because the Conservatives broke their election promise to include eight open government measures in the bill (many of which are in provincial laws).  So now Bill C-2 is good?

No, Bill C-2 is bad because it will limit political donations to $1,000 annually (even though this is the amount an average Canadian can afford, and is therefore consistent with the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote).  According to Sears, this legal limit is bad because some people will attempt to violate it in order to raise the funds (he claims) are definitely needed for today's campaigns.

Assuming politicians and parties could prove they can't raise the funds needed to campaign (which is unlikely, given that the Conservatives raised as much in 2005 as the Liberals did on average each year from 2001 to 2003), Sears rejects (without citing any reasons) the most democratic solution to this problem -- increasing the amount of the per vote public subsidy for parties and candidates.

Sears begins his response to the third area of Bill C-2, the new lobbying law, by making the over-the-top claim that it is an "anti-lobbyist jihad" whose more stringent transparency measures will also be violated regularly.  In fact, Bill C-2 doesn't even come close to ending secret, unethical lobbying (which the Conservatives promised to do), as many corporate lobbyists, and all unpaid lobbyists, will still be exempt from all disclosure requirements and ethics rules.

Beyond the false claims basis of Sears' concerns, underlying his arguments against donation limits and lobbyist disclosure requirements is the highly dubious premise that governments shouldn't pass laws, no matter how democratizing, that people (especially politicians and elite lobbyists) will attempt to violate.  Really?

Sears goes even further with his false claims when he states that Bill C-2 creates "armies of accountants" that will conduct multiple audits.  In fact, in the area of spending controls all Bill C-2 does is ensure that more government organizations and processes can be audited (which never should have been exempt from auditing), and ensure that it is more clear who is responsible for spending decisions (which is consistent with one of the four specific solutions Sears' offers to the government's problems).

Sears other three proposed specific solutions also make sense (cut duplication, disclose measurable goals for every government activity, reward frugality) but unfortunately he then ends his baseless tirade against Bill C-2 with vague proposals to "reinvigorate Parliament" and respect citizens and the civil service and set a "path based on trust" as his other key means to increase federal government accountability.

Overall, again as others have, Sears simply fails to acknowledge clearly identified past problems with the federal government's ethics, openness, political finance and waste prevention rules and enforcement systems, and how Bill C-2 effectively strengthens some of those rules and their enforcement in ways based on fundamental democratic principles.  

The bizarre thing is that Sears and the others didn't need to resort to false and illogical claims to criticize Bill C-2.  It is obvious that Bill C-2 will not "forever change the way Ottawa does business" in many key, democratic ways (as the Conservatives have claimed) simply because the bill does not contain 21 measures the Conservatives promised, many of the bill's measures are weak and so do not fulfill election promises, and the bill is missing another 25 or so measures (including Sears four specific proposals and many other broadly supported democratizing proposals) that are key to making this change. 

One can only hope that the Senate will amend Bill C-2 by adding the 21 promised measures that the Conservatives failed to include (To see details, go to  Democracy Watch's June 26, 2006 news release), and/or that more than one of the federal political parties will seize the currently wide-open opportunity (especially with the minority government) to propose these many changes still needed to ensure that everyone in the federal government is effectively required to act honestly, ethically, openly and representatively and to prevent waste.

NOTE: To see a summary of the 21 promised measures that the Conservatives failed to include in Bill C-2, go to Democracy Watch's May 25, 2006 news release 

To see a summary of the 25 additional measures that need to be enacted to ensure an effective federal government accountability and system, go to  Democracy Watch's April 11, 2006 news release 

To see the details about all the changes needed to the federal government's accountability system (including details about the 21 promised measures, and details about many of the 25 additional measures, go to Democracy Watch's May 30, 2006 news release