You've got to be kidding me

The Chronicle Herald is reporting that several 'deregistered' lobbyists are working for the Conservative campaign and that the Commissioner of Lobbying has suggested that registered lobbyists are prohibited from participating in the campaign. It seems that the latter portion of this story broke a few days ago on the Canadian politics blogs.

The Chronicle Herald quotes Shepherd, in an email to registered lobbyists, as suggesting that

"Working on a political campaign to support the election of a public office holder is, in my opinion, advancing the private interest of that public office holder," she wrote. "A real or apparent conflict of interest can be created when a lobbyist engages in political activities that advance the private interest of a public office holder, while at the same time, or subsequently, seeking to lobby that public office holder."

It seems that the same, if not more, problems are likely present when 'deregistered' lobbyists (particularly those who just don't happen to be lobbying at the moment) participate in political campaigns. It should also be noted that all kinds of people who engage in lobbying activities that don't require reporting could also be participating in various political campaigns - there just isn't a good way of knowing.

That a situation could be created where an MP/Minister/Prime Minister feels that they owe their position to the campaign efforts of a particular lobbyist is scary and seems to completely undermine any attempt that has thus far been implemented to regulate lobbying. This loophole seems to provide a way for 'deregistered' lobbyists to have more access to political actors than they would be able to have if they were registered and thus provides a potential incentive to 'deregister' as a way of gaining more access to politicians.

So not only does this practice provide us with more evidence that the effectiveness of the lobbying regime likely quite limited, it also demonstrates that a number of individuals have figured out ways to get close to politicians that aren't obviously in contravention of the lobbying rules.

I guess we can now wait and see whether or not this becomes a big story or if it just blows over. Given the recent Bruce Carson pseudo-lobbying thing it wouldn't surprise me if this got at least a little traction.

Lobbying in Canada

On Tuesday the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada spoke at Dalhousie. And while the talk was very poorly attended, I think those of us in attendance got a pretty good sense of the lobbying regime in Canada.

For the most part, the regime was pretty underwhelming and almost seemed designed to provide blatant loopholes to allow for unreported lobbying activities. Notable problems include the requirement that companies only have to register as in-house lobbyists if they conduct a certain quantity of lobbying. Furthermore, certain types of contact, such as unarranged contact, do not have to be reported (bumping into someone in a hall or an after hours phone call can count as unarranged). Another area worth noting relates to the activities of former public office holders. While the appearance is given that these individuals are prohibited from lobbying, that is only the case if they pass a 'significant duties test.' Oh, and the Lobbying Commissioner has very little ability to enforce the Act which, in any event, doesn't prohibit 'private citizens' from communicating with MPs.

To clunkily seque to a recent development, the Bruce Carson/water contract story seems to be a particularly good example of the weakness of the regime. The current lobbying regime does not monitor the lobbying activities of an individual not employed as an in-house lobbyist or a consultant lobbyist, even if person has ties to a company that might benefit from such action.

Anyway, this story will likely provide further ammunition to those claiming that the current lobbying regime is less than effective. Oh, and a may lead to a host of other political ramifications for those involved.

Big Names on Campus

This afternoon Bob Rae, the Liberal's foreign affairs critic, spoke at Dalhousie. Much to my surprise, Mr. Rae's talk was a generally pleasant experience. For the most part Mr. Rae outlined his cosmopolitan view of the world and how Canada should understand its place in such a world. While I realize there are likely many criticisms of this understanding of the world, it is a view that I find increasingly appealing and worthy of consideration.

When compared to Siobhan Coady and Maxime Bernier, the other two MPs I have heard speak recently, Mr. Rae definitely wins as most engaging and thoughtful speaker. Actually, of these three Mr. Rae is the only one I might say I have a better opinion of now than I had before the speech. In some ways, Mr. Rae also seemed to be the only one of the three to really have a good sense of what he was talking about. The other two didn't seem to have as a strong a grasp on their material.

Tomorrow Dalhousie will be treated to a presentation Karen E. Shepherd, Canada's Commissioner of Lobbying. I am curious to see what she will have to say and if her appearance on campus draws much of a crowd (I hope it doesn't draw too much of a crowd as the room they have booked isn't particularly large).

The ability of the university (and King's) to draw speakers of this nature, as well as people like Rex Murphy and John Ralston Saul (among others), is one of the few ways in which Dalhousie outshines Memorial, the university I was fortunate enough to attend for my undergraduate degree. That Memorial wasn't regularly able to bring in speakers of this nature always frustrated me. How can one have a full education if they don't get a chance to hear some of the influential thinkers (understood in the broadest of terms) of their time?