Monday, November 28, 2005

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch presented its analysis of the failure of the lobbying regulation system to prevent and penalize past illegal lobbying, and of the federal parties’ proposals to strengthen the enforcement system.  Democracy Watch’s analysis was presented at a parliamentary committee hearing examining why illegal “success” or contingency fee arrangements entered into by former Liberal Cabinet minister David Dingwall and other lobbyists with companies seeking contracts from the Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC) fund were not prevented, caught or penalized.

As part of its presentation, Democracy Watch called on the federal government to pursue all possible avenues to hold former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson and former Registrar of Lobbyists Diane Champagne-Paul accountable and penalize them for failing to catch and prevent these illegal lobbying activities.  Incredibly, Champagne-Paul is still employed in an ethics enforcement position as the Director of the MPs Code of Conduct for the current Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro.  And after Bill C-4 eliminated the Ethics Counsellor position in May 2004, Howard Wilson took a paid leave of several months (worth a total of about $80,000) and then retired in late 2004.

“The entire unethical, wasteful mess involving David Dingwall and the TPC fund would have been prevented if former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson and former Registrar of Lobbyists Diane Champagne-Paul had done their jobs properly,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “They must be held accountable for failing to catch and penalize people involved in clearly unethical, illegal activities, and for failing to disclose these activities to the public.”

David Dingwall reported in his Lobbyists Registration Act (LRA) registrations that he was in a contingency fee arrangement lobbying for a TPC "contract" for BioNiche Lifesciences Inc. from May 18, 2000 and March 21, 2003, and that he was in a contingency fee arrangement lobbying for a contract with the Privacy Commissioner's office for Prolific Technologies Inc. from July 19, 2000 to March 21, 2003.

Clearly, the Registrar of Lobbyists had (and continues to have) the responsibility to alert the department or agency that places a contract for bidding that one of the bidders is violating the Treasury Board policy banning contingency fees, and the Registrar also clearly had the responsibility to alert the former Ethics Counsellor, who at the time enforced the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and restrictions on lobbying by former Cabinet ministers.

The Lobbyists' Code requires lobbyists to act "with integrity" and to "observe the highest professional and ethical standards" and to "conform fully with not only the letter but the spirit of . . . all the relevant laws."  Clearly, the Ethics Counsellor, if he was doing his job properly, would have found Dingwall guilty, in the required public report to Parliament, of violating these Code rules by being in illegal contingency fee arrangements.

In a July 2004 ruling, the Federal Court found that Wilson and his entire office (including the Registrar of Lobbyists) was biased because the Prime Minister and federal Cabinet were in control of whether Wilson kept his joh, and was also in control of the budget and staffing of the office. (Decision of Federal Court in Democracy Watch v. Office of the Ethics Counsellor (July 9, 2004))

Incredibly, this structurally biased lobbying law enforcement system is still operating, as the Industry Minister controls whether the new Registrar of Lobbyists Michael Nelson keeps his job, and is also in control of the budget and staffing of the Registrar’s office.  Democracy Watch has filed an application in Ontario Superior Court asking the court to declare the structure of the Registrar’s office biased and illegal.  If the court issues this order, the federal government will be forced to make the Registrar independent of the federal Cabinet. (For details, see Democracy Watch's new release: Group Files Court Challenge of Federal Ethics Commissioner, Registrar of Lobbyists (September 29, 2005) -- (Ethics Court Case 2005 Application (September 20, 2005))

Also incredibly, almost all of the former biased Ethics Counsellor’s senior advisors are now the senior advisers for the current Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro (including former Registrar of Lobbyists Diane Champagne-Paul).  In the same court application mentioned above, Democracy Watch is claiming that several actions and statements by the Ethics Commissioner (including hiring of former Ethics Counsellor staff) show clearly that the Commissioner is biased against enforcing federal ethics rules.  (For details, see Democracy Watch's new release: Group Files Court Challenge of Federal Ethics Commissioner, Registrar of Lobbyists (September 29, 2005) -- (Ethics Court Case 2005 Application (September 20, 2005))

Only the Conservatives have promised to make the Registrar independent of Cabinet control.  Beyond this needed change and the need for a new, unbiased Ethics Commissioner, the federal lobbying regulation system needs to be made effective through the following changes (for each change, the federal parties that have proposed the change are listed)

• Ministers and other senior public officials should be required to disclose on an searchable Internet site who is lobbying them (both paid and unpaid lobbyists) to ensure all lobbying is exposed (NOTE: only the Conservatives have proposed this change);
• the prohibition on ex-Ministers and ex-senior public officials lobbying the government should be increased to 5 years (NOTE: only the Conservatives have proposed this change);
• the Registrar of Lobbyists should be empowered to levy high fines as a penalty for violations of either the Act or the Code (NOTE: the Liberals have proposed high fines for all violations, the NDP for only one type of violation);
• the “whistleblower” protection system established by recently enacted Bill C-11 needs to be strengthened and made comprehensive and effective (NOTE: only the Conservatives have proposed the measures needed to make the system effective);
• the public should have the clear right to file complaints with the Ethics Commissioner (NOTE: only the Conservatives have proposed this change)
• lobbyists should be prohibited by law from working in senior campaign positions for any politician or candidate for public office (as in Maryland and New Mexico), and from working for the government or having business ties to anyone who works for the government (NOTE: while general ethics rules currently prohibit such activities, no federal party has proposed specific rules banning such activities);
• lobbyists should be required by law to disclose total spending on each lobbying campaign, as in 30 U.S. states (NOTE: only the NDP have proposed this change), and “success” or contingency fee arrangements should be banned (NOTE: the Conservatives and NDP have proposed this change), and;
• the limitation period on laying charges should be extended by several years (NOTE: the Conservatives and Liberals have proposed this change).