Lobbyist Code Changes Will Allow ‘Corrupt Favour-Trading’ in Ottawa, Say Citizen Groups

Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger speaks during an interview in her office in Ottawa on June 12, 2018. Justin Tang/The Canadian Press

Proposed changes to Canada’s lobbying rules has prompted pushback from citizen groups which allege the new Lobbyist Code of Conduct would allow lobbyists to secretly fundraise and campaign for politicians while lobbying them, among other concerns.

Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger announced in November 2022 she would change the code to make it clearer, and thus more enforceable. The commissioner’s job is to ensure lobbyists adhere to a code of ethics—particularly regarding favours they may provide to officials in hopes of influencing policy-making.

Opposition to the changes sprang up, however, leading to House Ethics Committee meetings on the matter. Duff Conacher, the co-founder of Ottawa-based Democracy Watch, testified on behalf of 27 citizen groups at a meeting on Feb. 14.

“[Bélanger] is gutting these rules. She’s trying to say, ‘I’m just clarifying them.’ No, you’re not. You’re gutting them,” Conacher told The Epoch Times ahead of the committee meeting.

He said the changes are “going to allow for corrupt favour-trading.”

For example, he said, someone who significantly helps an official get elected is currently prohibited from lobbying that official for a full election cycle, which is four years. This cooling-off period is meant to put distance between the favour (campaign help) and the lobbyist’s request for policy action.

Bélanger’s new rules knock the cooling-off period down to two, one, or zero years, depending on the circumstances.

“Somebody helps you get elected, raises a whole bunch of money for you—when do you ever stop owing them?” Conacher said. “You owe them forever. It’s just ridiculous to say that it magically disappears after one to two years.”

Democracy Watch has called for an increase in the cooling-off period from the current four years, up to 10 years.

Conacher gave the hypothetical example of someone raising $45,000 for a minister’s riding association. That person could send the minister an email showing how much money was raised, then go lobby the minister right away.

That would be the case, he said, as long as that person had limited contact with the minister while doing the fundraising, and did the fundraising work less than “near-full-time”—a term Bélanger uses to define the threshold amount of political work that requires a cooling-off period.

Bélanger did not reply to an Epoch Times inquiry by publication time. She testified at a House Ethics Committee meeting on Feb. 3 that she was trying to strike a balance between those who call for long cooling-off periods (like Democracy Watch) and those who say any cooling-off period is an infringement on charter rights.

Charter Rights

Bélanger sought legal advice from Goldblatt Partners LLP regarding possible infringements upon charter rights when limiting lobbyists (the consultation contract increased from an initial $11,300 to $90,400 by the time it was finished).

The lawyers told her that restricting lobbyists from approaching certain officials could infringe upon the right to work, the right to participate in the democratic process, and “what is most problematic, limiting freedom of expression by preventing a person from communicating with you [MPs],” she told the committee.

Charter rights are, however, subject to restrictions if properly justified. Bélanger said her restrictions of a one- or two-year cooling-off period could be justified. “Our rule was intended to restrict rights as little as possible, in very specific situations.”

Democracy Watch said in a release on Feb. 14, “Given several Supreme Court of Canada and other court rulings have clearly stated that Charter rights must be restricted to protect government integrity, Democracy Watch is asking the Committee to force the Commissioner to make the Goldblatt opinion public.”

That request was also made during the Feb. 6 committee meeting. Bélanger told the committee she would consider making it public. “I am very much in favour of transparency, but I also know the great importance of confidentiality. I would not want to create a precedent, so I will think about it.”

She recommended that the committee go above the code and review the Lobbying Act itself. “The act calls for a review every five years, but nothing has been done since 2012. So it is high time for a review,” she said.

By the end of March, Bélanger told the committee, she hopes the new code will be in place. After the Feb. 14 meeting, more meetings are expected for other concerned groups to testify, Conacher said. After that, a 30-day public comment period will be required before any changes become final.

During the comment period on a previous iteration of the code last spring, 63 stakeholders shared submissions.

One common point of concern, raised by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) among others, was limits Bélanger set on gifts and hospitality (food, drink) that can be offered to officials.

$80 Gift Limit

Bélanger had proposed a limit of $30 per year on how much each lobbyist could spend on each official.

CLC said it was “unreasonable and unworkable” for organizations to monitor all officials attending their banquets or events and to make sure each only has $30-worth of food and drink. It would also limit the engagement officials could have with them, as they could only attend perhaps one event per year if they consumed their $30 quota there.

Bélanger raised the amount in her revisions to $80 per year.

Conacher said that if more than $80 is thought to create a conflict of interest, what about his hypothetical lobbyist who raises $45,000 in donations for an official while simultaneously lobbying him or her?

“If $80 can buy you off, then of course so can fundraising tens of thousands of dollars for you or your party. How could you possibly not have created a conflict of interest by raising that money?”