Democracy Watch is joined by 26 citizen groups and more than 30 lawyers and professors in opposition to the changes proposed by Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger.
Cooling-Off Period
Bélanger has said that she seeks to change the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct because it needs to be clarified to make it more enforceable. For example, the current code says there should be a cooling-off period between “political activity” in support of a politician and then lobbying that politician. It doesn’t say how long, only a “specified period.”“There is no definition of political activity, or what is meant by a specified period,” Manon Dion, a spokesperson for the Office of the Commissioner, told The Epoch Times via email. Bélanger’s new code seeks to define political activity and set specific time periods.
High-risk activities refer to those that create a sense of obligation on the part of the person benefiting from them, such as serving as campaign chair or soliciting donations for someone who is or becomes a public office holder.
Conacher criticizes Bélanger for taking a step back, making the cooling-off period only one or two years in her revised version of the code.
“Somebody helps you get elected, raises a whole bunch of money for you—when do you ever stop owing them? You owe them forever. It’s just ridiculous to say that it magically disappears after one to two years,” Conacher said in an interview with The Epoch Times in February, when the ethics committee began hearing testimony from stakeholders on the issue.
The letter noted Democracy Watch’s concern that under Bélanger’s revised code, a registered lobbyist could, in theory, fundraise large amounts of money for an official and lobby that official at the same time. That’s because fundraising itself isn’t prohibited, only “full-time” and “nearly full-time” political work for or “frequent and interactive interactions” with that official.
The committee suggested updating the definition of “political work” to include any significant fundraising.
Charter Rights
“The updated rule was carefully crafted to achieve its objective of restricting lobbying where a sense of obligation could reasonably be seen to exist and to provide the greatest clarity for lobbyists, all while complying with the Charter,” Dion said.Lawyers who have joined Democracy Watch’s coalition against the code changes contest this claim. The claim is based on a legal opinion given to the commissioner’s office by one law firm. The office has declined to share details related to that opinion, “in light of the importance of client-solicitor privilege,” Dion said.
Gifts and Hospitality
Another point of contention in the revised code is a limit on how much lobbyists can spend on gifts and hospitality for public officials.Bélanger proposed a limit of $80 per year. She had originally said $30 per year, but raised it after lobbying groups opposed it during the public comment period.
Lobbying groups continued to oppose this limit in their testimony to the ethics committee in February, saying it is difficult to tell how much an official consumes at a banquet, for example, and to keep track of the worth for each person.
The ethics committee suggested changing the limit to $200. It suggested adding language to allow for certain types of gifts beyond the limit, “such as sponsored travel or gifts of reasonable value given as expressions of cultural tradition.” It gave moccasins as an example of a cultural gift that might cost more than the $80 limit.
“The Committee agrees that sponsored travel, where it serves a legitimate purpose, should be exempted from the application of the low-value limit and the annual limit,” it wrote.
Democracy Watch said in its March 27 release, “The Committee wants a loophole so lobbyists can continue to give ’sponsored travel' junket trips to MPs and their family members and associates.”
The group said that more than 20,000 voters signed on to its petition or its letter-writing campaign to stop the changes, and that it will file a lawsuit challenging the changes if they go through.