Inside Politics

Lobbying Loophole Watch: Adventures in ante-upping with Stockwell Day

by Kady O'Malley Posted: May 5, 2010 11:11 AM Last Updated: May 5, 2010 12:09 PM
First off, a confession/disclaimer: At the moment, we -- or I, at least -- can't be entirely certain of exactly what changes Treasury Board President Stockwell Day has in mind, as far as the existing Lobbying Act goes. We know the government intends to support the Liberal motion, which would add parliamentary secretaries to the list of designated public office holders, and "require ministers and senior government officials, including parliamentary secretaries, to proactively record and report their contacts with lobbyists," although it's not clear if that would be instead of, or in addition to the current rule, which requires lobbyists to file monthly reports on all pre-arranged communications with DPOHs. 

But Day went further than that -- he also mused about expanding the DPOH list to include all MPs and senators. Of course, judging from the hundreds of meetings with MPs that show up in the current registry, many, if not most lobbyists were under the impression was already the case, at least as far as the reporting requirements, to the point that the commissioner's office actually sent out a notice last fall reminding them that they don't have to report communications with non-ministerial parliamentarians, and pleading with those who have done so in error to "amend or cancel them."

So far, so good -- at least for those who believe that more transparency is always a good thing. But here's where it could get sticky: Adding MPs to the list would also automatically put them -- and very possibly their staff -- under the same five-year post-employment lobbying ban that currently covers former ministers and senior government officials. Now, I say "very possibly" because it actually gets a bit confusing at that point, since the Lobbying Act applies to all persons appointed under Section 128.1 of the Public Service Employment Act, which covers ministers and the leader of the opposition in both the House and the Senate, but not -- at least at the moment -- MPs or senators. Still, Day specifically mentioned "staff," in the context of MPs and opposition leaders' offices, and as far as I can tell, there's no way to tweak the ban so that it applies to some, but not all DPOHs -- not without reopening the Act, that is.

Under Day's proposed changes -- which, incidentally, can be accomplished without legislation, since the DPOH list is amended by Order in Council -- virtually all political staffers would now be forbidden to seek employment in the possibly-soon-to-be-slightly-less-thriving lobby sector for a full five years after leaving the Hill, which could make it considerably trickier for MPs -- particularly backbenchers -- to find good help. It would also make it harder for lobby firms, industry associations, advocacy groups and other organizations with an interest in public policy to recruit Ottawa-savvy staff, since the ban applies to both in-house and consultant lobbying. 

What it wouldn't do, of course, would be anything at all to stop a former MP or staffer from simply failing to register as a lobbyist -- as Rahim Jaffer is alleged to have done. That's already against the rules. It also wouldn't force ministers to appear before committee to field questions on their dealings with lobbyists, unregistered or otherwise.

So, commenters -- what do you think? Is the government hoping that this gambit will up the ante to a point that the Liberals, at least, will back down from their current clarion call to tighten up the Act -- and if they do, will Day go ahead and change the rules anyway? 

This one, I suspect, is going to be fascinating to watch. 

UPDATE: Well, points to Day for scrumming after caucus, but I'm not sure if we really learned much from his latest comments. He mentions "all members of parliament," as well as opposition leaders' offices, but doesn't explicitly state that MPs' staff would be covered as well. He also spent at least as much time decrying Ignatieff's "hypocrisy" on the issue as he did explaining what, exactly, it is that he wants to change, although he made it very clear that he thinks the leader of the opposition -- in fact, possibly all opposition leaders, although Ignatieff was the only one he mentioned by name --  should be covered as well. 

ANOTHER QUESTION: Going back to the Liberal motion for a moment, I'm not sure how, precisely, the proposal to have ministers "proactively record and report their contacts with lobbyists" would work. Currently, lobbyists have to file reports on pre-arranged communication, which means that if they happen to run into a deputy minister at the grocery store, they don't have to include that encounter in their next monthly report. Would the same rules apply to ministers, or would their offices be expected to keep a complete log of any and all interaction with lobbyists, even if it consisted of a two-word exchange over the buffet table at a reception? Also, to whom would they be reporting -- the lobby commissioner? Parliament? The public, using the same approach as the proactive disclosure regime? 

Tags: blackberry jungle, chess or chicken?, lobbying act, stockwell day, unintended consequences