Enough isn’t being done to ensure companies are following Canada’s weak lobbying and disclosure rules, according to democracy expert Duff Conacher.

Conacher, founder and long-time coordinator of Democracy Watch, told DeSmog Canada there are numerous ways to evade lobby rules.

“Overall, secret lobbying is legal,” he says. “You just have to exploit the loopholes.”

Conacher says the Lobbying Act is rife with loopholes, making it very difficult for citizens to keep track of when and with whom corporations and organizations are meeting.

For one, if a meeting concerns the “enforcement, interpretation or application” of a law or regulation that applies to a company, they don’t have to log it. The Lobbying Act also only requires paid personnel to log lobbying efforts, which can lead to a “hired gun” billing a company for “strategic advice” and the conducting the lobbying for ‘free.’

Also, only the “responsible officer” of a company or organization — usually the president or CEO — is required to list themselves in a lobbying effort. As a result, it’s impossible to know who actually lobbied the government in a meeting.

For instance, on January 11 (improperly listed as January 12 in the registry), the Petroleum Services Association of Canada met with international trade minister Chrystia Freeland about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Mark Salkeld, the president and CEO of the association, is the only person listed in the communication. But seven other people involved in the oil and gas industry also participated in the meeting (as well as two chiefs of staff and a deputy minister from the government of Alberta.)

On paper, it looks like it was a meeting between Freeland and Salkeld. But it actually included a dozen people.

How Secret Lobbying Occurs

But perhaps the biggest loophole of them all is that only “oral, prearranged” communications need to be logged.

That means that any lobbying that occurs via writing doesn’t qualify. Nor does “accidentally” bumping into someone at a fundraiser or in a hallway.

Conacher says such tactics could be used for “any emails or any meeting where both the minister or their staff or any government official and Lone Pine themselves want to get around a disclosure they communicated. And if the person inside government was also wanting that not to be registered, what they would do is have the person call them at a non-prearranged time.”

In 2008, the Conservatives introduced the revamped Lobbying Act, requiring the monthly logging of communications between lobbyists and “designated public officer holders.” In 2010, MPs and senators were added to the list of designated public office holders, meaning a company or organizations would have to log a report if they made a communication with them.

But the aforementioned loopholes were never closed.

Lone Pine Lobbied Without Registering Report

On January 15, Jeff Smith — a lobbyist representing Lone Pine Resources, the company suing Canada for $118.9 million over the Quebec fracking ban — met with Brian Clow, the chief of staff for the ministry of international trade.

We know this because Lone Pine, like with any company or organization that participates in lobbying of high-ranking public officials including MPs, senators, ministers and staff, must register such a communication in the federal lobbying registry.

You can see the report of Smith’s meeting with Clow here.

The nature of the communication was peculiar for a few reasons: If the company is attempting to negotiate a settlement, it’s safe to assume that such conversations would happen between lawyers, not politicians and civil servants (although Lone Pine may be attempting to put internal pressure on the government to settle.)

But stranger still were the results of an access to information and privacy (ATIP) request that DeSmog Canada made in regards to the meeting.

As it turns out, the meeting on January 15 wasn’t the first time that Lone Pine had lobbied Clow: an email exchange from four days earlier referenced a “discussion they had before Christmas.”

According to another email, Nadia Theodore — then a director of trade negotiations with the foreign affairs department — attended the January 15 meeting with Clow (an email noted that her “policy perspective would be appreciated.”)

Neither of these occurrences were logged in the lobbying registry.

Milos Barutciski, partner and co-chair of international trade and investment at Bennett Jones LLP (the firm that’s serving as counsel for Lone Pine in the suit against Canada), replied to a request made to Lone Pine’s CEO: “I can confirm that our client's government relations advisors understand and comply with their Lobbying Act registration obligations.”

“Note that only oral communications described in the regulations are required to be disclosed in monthly filings. The communications you reference are not within the scope of the regulations.”

The “discussion” prior to Christmas could have occurred via email, meaning it would not have to be logged in the database. And while Theodore’s presence at previous meetings with other lobbyists had been logged 22 times, she didn’t occupy a high-ranking enough position to legally require it.

This reality is a very major problem, and one that points to fundamental flaws in the way that lobbying is tracked and publicized.

‘Secret Lobbying is Legal’ if You Know Which Loopholes to Exploit, Says Democracy Watchdog https://t.co/dGh5LKGbWr pic.twitter.com/J8y1VO2CeO

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 8, 2016

Only Two Lobbyists Found Guilty of Breaking Rules Since 1988

The Liberals didn’t mention lobbying in their 2015 platform, although the party pledged to “amend the Access to Information Act so that all government data and information is made open by default in machine-readable, digital formats,” as well as extending the reach of the act to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Conacher says the government has shown no interest in increasing the responsibilities and scope of the lobbying commissioner, meaning many infractions are likely going unnoticed and unpunished.

The current commissioner, Karen Shepherd, doesn’t audit government departments. Since 2004, only 67 lobbyists have been caught violating the Lobbying Act. Almost all have been let off the hook without punishment or public scrutiny.

Only two lobbyists have been found guilty of illegal lobbying since 1988.

Bruce Carson, a former top aide to Stephen Harper, will be receiving a ruling on his alleged prohibited lobbying in the next few months.

Estimated 1,600 Lobbyists Broke Rules Over Past Two Decades

Conacher says there are some 5,000 active lobbyists working at any given time, and that around 25,000 that have registered since 1988. The number of lobbyists over the course of a year — many will deregister as soon as they’ve finished work for a company or organization — has increased in recent years as well.

In 2014-15, Shepherd only conducted 20 administrative reviews, finding one worthy of referring to the RCMP. The identities of lobbyists who violate the code, but aren’t charged, are kept hidden.

“The percentages are so small that our conclusion is only five per cent have been caught,” Conacher says. “And that 1,600 lobbyists have likely violated the code or the act since 2007. But only three have been charged.”

Conacher suggests the lobbying commissioner should be conducting random samples of every government institution: for example, obtaining all communications with ten companies for the last three months, including phone logs for the minister and staff.

Feds Not Interested in Changing Rules

Shepherd’s seven-year term just finished. She’s expressed interest in being reappointed, something that Conacher says “would be a tragedy and continue to undermine transparency in lobbying.”

There’s also talk about merging the responsibilities of the ethics commissioner and lobbying commissioner into one, which could potentially impact the overall effectiveness of the role.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already been accused of getting too cozy with lobbyists (during the campaign, the party’s co-chair had to step down for providing recommendations to TransCanada on how to lobby a Liberal government.)

All up, there’s clearly plenty of work to be done in improving the communication and monitoring of lobbying activities. What’s less obvious if anyone’s going to take such opportunities seriously.

Image: Danny Huizinga/Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Public interest group Democracy Watch released a letter (link to pdf) to ethics commissioner Mary Dawson Friday, requesting she launch an inquiry into former Conservative cabinet minister Chuck Strahl in the wake of revelations that he's working as an Enbridge lobbyist while also serving as Canada’s top spy watchdog.

The letter points to rules in the Conflict of Interest Act that require public office holders to manage their private life to avoid conflicts of interest. Strahl’s work as a lobbyist, Democracy Watch suggests, invites conflicts of interest, rather than prevents them.

Recently the Vancouver Observer revealed Strahl had registered in B.C. as an Enbridge lobbyist. As the chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), some questioned Strahl’s suitability to judiciously oversee the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the spy agency involved in the monitoring of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline hearings.

Democracy Watch also notes that Strahl violated the waiting period meant to prevent former public office holders from using their government contacts to advance private corporate interests.

Enbridge met with Strahl in his role as a cabinet minister on April 29, 2010. Strahl left his position on May 17, 2011. Five months later, in October 2011, Strahl signed an open letter in support of Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline. In December of 2013, Strahl registered as a B.C. lobbyist listing Northern Gateway Pipelines L.P. as his client.

According to Duff Conacher, board member of Democracy Watch and adjunct professor with the University of Toronto faculty of law, Strahl is allowing his work with government departments and Enbridge to overlap in illegal ways.

“There’s a rule that you cannot work for any entity, or any organization, or anyone, that you had significant dealings with during your last year in office… And therefore Strahl should not have been dealing with Enbridge until May 18, 2013, which would have been two years after he left office,” he told DeSmog Canada.

"The open letter Strahl signed on to was illegal,” Conacher said. “You’re not allowed to make representations to anyone for any entity that you had significant official dealings with during your last year in office.”

Yet signing an open letter in favour of Enbridge projects is just the beginning of Strahl’s misdeeds, according to Conacher. Far more serious is Strahl’s position with the oversight committee tasked with protecting citizen rights from CSIS.

“Beyond that though there is a general rule about preventing conflicts of interest…so I don’t think he can work for Enbridge as chair of SIRC because that causes conflicts; it does not prevent them.”

In addition, Conacher worries Strahl’s cabinet position may have exposed him to government information that could be used to benefit Enbridge’s push for the Northern Gateway pipeline.

“There is another rule, that never ever in your entire life after you leave cabinet can you give advice using secret information that you’ve learned on the job,” he said.

“It’s not only that your not allowed to share the secret information; you’re not allowed to do that. But you’re not allowed to even give advice using the secret information. He can’t un-know what he knows and so his advice is based on what he knows. What he knows is secret information, therefore he’s prohibited from giving that advice.”

Canada’s ethics commissioner Mary Dawson has been politely side-stepping the issue, Conacher says. Her track record shows she tends to avoid controversy as well, with over 80 former ethics rulings made in secret. Conacher’s concern is that Dawson, a Conservative-appointed commissioner, is avoiding the hard questions — questions Democracy Watch details in its eight-page letter to her.

“It’s beyond conflict of interest. It’s also these other rules that apply and it’s not resolved by Strahl just recusing himself if a complaint comes forward about CSIS and Enbridge," he said. “And that’s what Mary Dawson has been dodging.”

Dawson is not required to investigate ethics complaints filed by members of the public. She would be required to investigate, however, if a member of parliament made the same complaint.

Strahl’s behaviour, Conacher says, is “very dangerously undemocratic” and “unethical” because it places “the interests of a few private companies way above the public interest.”

“That’s why it’s illegal,” he says. “Thankfully, it’s illegal.”

The Conflict of Interests Act has been reviewed over the past year by the House of Commons ethics committee. A full report outlining the position of each federal party on ethics issues is due out this week or when parliament resumes.

“You don’t have democracy if these rules are not strict, strong and enforced. As everyone knows: if you allow private interests to trump public interests then you don’t have democracy,” Conacher said. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Recent revelations that Canada’s top spy watchdog Chuck Strahl is also a paid lobbyist for Enbridge and Northern Gateway Pipelines have Canadians in a rightful tizzy. The implications are grim, especially for citizens already concerned with federal overreach in the surveillance of environmental groups opposing the Enbridge's Northern Gateway oil pipeline and tanker proposal for B.C.'s coast.

Strahl is the federally appointed chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), an independent and non-partisan oversight agency designed to keep an eye on all activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

In November the Vancouver Observer released internal documents showing the federal government, the RCMP and CSIS had been working closely with the energy industry to address the issue of pipeline opposition and other barriers to energy development. Cross-sector responses between government and industry included the monitoring of environmental groups.

Lorne Sossin, dean of the Osgoode Law School at York University and specialist in constitutional law, regulation of professions and public policy, told DeSmog while Strahl may not be using his role as CSIS watchdog to advance the interests of Enbridge, the overlap of roles poses some threat to his perceived ability to perform as an independent adjudicator.

"I have no reason to think Chuck Strahl would use his position as chair of SIRC to advance interests of his clients as a lobbyist (whether Enbridge or others)," Sossin said. "That said, the nature of lobbying is building close relationships with government in order to advance client interests, while the nature of a regulatory and oversight body such as SIRC is to act independently to hold government accountable."

Sossin continued: "There seems to me to be an inherent challenge in having a lobbyist serve in such a capacity … The standard for impartiality at law is one of perception and I think a reasonable person could certainly see a conflict in this context. It may be that this concern is mitigated by the chair recusing himself in matters where his client's interests could be at stake but there may also be a perception of an inherent conflict in these roles." 

Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch called Strahl's lobbying "problematic" since "CSIS is investigating the people who oppose Enbridge."

“We need a full examination by ethics commissioner Mary Dawson into whether he used any information gained as a member of the Privy Council," Conacher said.  

On Wednesday, Dawson dismissed questions around conflict of interest in an exchange with the Vancouver Observer.

In December Strahl’s private consulting company took Enbridge on as a client to lobby on behalf of the company’s subsidiary Northern Gateway Pipelines L.P.

Strahl has previously publicly stated that he will not lobby and will take care to avoid conflicts of interest arising from his move to the private sector.

Recently the Vancouver Observer reported Strahl’s support of Enbridge can be traced back to an open letter signed in 2011.

The letter, entitled “A Choice for British Columbia” states:

Canada has talked about a “Pacific Gateway” for years: a tantalizing dream to position British Columbia as the leader of a coordinated national effort to leverage our strategic position into jobs, investment and prosperity for many decades to come.

Turning that dream into reality will require large, responsibly managed investments. It’s time to build the ports and pipelines, create the transportation systems, develop the skills and assemble the financial muscle to lead our country in tackling the challenges of global economic change.

…

Timely completion of natural gas pipeline and liquefaction capacity, as well as pipelines such as Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipelines Project, is essential for our economic future. 

Strahl’s open support of the pipeline has many concerned CSIS powers used to advance Enbridge interests above those of British Columbians will remain unchecked.

“Canadians were already concerned about the federal government using CSIS and the Canada Revenue Agency to target environmental groups and charities — now we learn the chair of CSIS’ civilian oversight committee is a paid pipeline lobbyist,” Nathan Cullen, NDP House Leader, said.

“This just further undermines people’s confidence in the fairness of the pipeline approval process.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault has announced that she is launching an investigation into the “muzzling” of scientists.

The announcement comes in response to a letter sent by the non-partisan citizen advocacy group Democracy Watch and The Environmental Law Centre (ELC) at the University of Victoria earlier this year. The letter included a 126-page report signed by ELC Legal Director Calvin Sandborn that called to attention several instances in which communication between scientists and media had been delayed, discouraged or prohibited.

“There are few issues more fundamental to democracy than the ability of the public to access scientific information produced by government scientists—information that their tax dollars have paid for. We as a society cannot make informed choices about critical issues if we are not fully informed about the facts,” the letter argued.

In a March 27 letter to Sandborn, assistant information commissioner Emily McCarthy wrote that notice of the investigation has been sent to seven separate government agencies, including:

• The Ministry of the Environment
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans
• Department of Natural Resources
• Department of National Defence
• National Research Council of Canada
• Canadian Food Inspection Agency
• The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

According to McCarthy, the latter is included in the complaint because of “its role in relation to the development and implementation of government policies.”

In February, Legault told CBC Radio’s Sunday Edition that the Harper administration is “not the most transparent.”

“We are at a record low in terms of timeliness,” she said. “The percentage of information being disclosed is also low.” 

Democracy Watch Coordinator Tyler Sommers announced, “We’re very pleased with the fact that this investigation has been called and we will continue to push the Information Commissioner to get to the bottom of this situation, publicly release the results, and push the federal government to change these policies. We will also continue to push for the democratic changes to we need to Canada’s access to information law.”

The author of the original report, law student Clayton Greenwood, says many of his subjects had misgivings about speaking openly about their experiences. He hopes that this investigation will give scientists the freedom they need to express themselves.

“There were concerns of getting fired,” he says. “With all these job cuts and budget cuts, there aren’t a whole lot of government scientists now that are going to come out publicly and criticize the government's policies. On the contrary, the commissioner has the power, similar to judges, to compell a testamony from a scientist under oath. That's a guarantee that people are going to be able to speak truthfully about this.”

Although he acknowledges that the commissioner’s powers are limited, he believes that her report to parliament will get the truth into the public eye.

“We feel that these sorts of policies can only exist if nobody knows about them, if they're done quietly behind the scenes,” he says. “Our primary goal from all this is just to get all this information out there. Then we feel that the public will put enough pressure for them to have to make a change.”

Image Credit: NASA ICE via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A letter from the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre (ELC) and citizen advocacy group Democracy Watch asks Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault to investigate “the systematic efforts by the Government of Canada to obstruct the right of the media—and through them, the Canadian public—to timely access to government scientists.”

It argues, “There are few issues more fundamental to democracy than the ability of the public to access scientific information produced by government scientists—information that their tax dollars have paid for. We as a society cannot make informed choices about critical issues if we are not fully informed about the facts.”

This investigation is necessary, the groups claim, “because Canadians cannot make smart choices about critical issues such as climate change, oil sands development and environmental protection if the public does not have full access to the Government’s best scientific knowledge on those issues.”

The impetus for this letter came in the form of a 128-page report from the ELC entitled Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy, which outlines the numerous documented cases of interference from Government of Canada Media Relations in journalists’ efforts to attain accurate statements from scientists on political hot button issues such as climate change.

Examples from the report include the case of scientist David Tarasick who, documents show, was prevented from speaking about the research he published in Nature Magazine under the title “Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011” for two weeks.

It also cites examples involving from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources Canada, the National Research Council, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the Department of National Defence.

The evidence of muzzling reached a new level in the case of scientist Scott Dallimore who was forbidden to communicate with journalists about a study that involved a flood that took place in Northern Canada “almost 13,000 years ago.”

According to the report, Natural Resources Canada’s “media relations manager wrote to Dallimore ‘we will have to get the minister’s office approval before going ahead with this interview’ because the reporter represented a 'national news outlet' and the subject matter of the interview had ‘wide-ranging implications.’”

The report also contrasts American and Canadian policies, pointing out that while American scientific policies have made significant movement toward transparency under the Obama administration, “Canada has moved in the opposite direction under Prime Minister Harper. Since 2006, Prime Minister Harper’s government has gradually tightened the media protocols that federal scientists and other government workers must comply with.”

Commissioner Lagault has admitted in the past that the Canadian government is “not the most transparent,” and lags in the area of Access to Information, though she has yet to respond to the call for an investigation. 

Meanwhile, Minister of State for Science and Technology Gary Goodyear told The Province via e-mail "we reject the premise of the accusations." He claimed that the "government provides significant access to federal scientists."

This comes just two weeks after American scientist Andreas Meunchow reported on his blog that he refused to sign a Canadian confidentiality agreement saying, “it threatens my Academic Freedom and potentially muzzles my ability to publish data and interpretation and talk timely on science issues of potential public interest without government interference.”

In response to the many loopholes that exist in the access to information laws across Canada, as well as the lack of enforcement and audits to ensure people are following the law in some jurisdictions, Democracy Watch and the Open Government Coalition call for the following 8 key changes:

1. any type of record created by any entity that receives significant funding from or is connected to the government, or was created by the government and fulfills public interest functions, should be automatically covered by access to information laws and systems (as in the United Kingdom);
2. all exemptions under access to information law should be discretionary, and limited by a proof of harm test and a public interest override (as in B.C. and Alberta);
3. the access to information law and system should require every entity covered (as in the United Kingdom, U.S., Australia and New Zealand): to create detailed records for all decisions and actions and factual and policy research; to routinely disclose records that are required to be disclosed; to assign responsibility to individuals for the creation and maintenance of each record, and; to maintain each record so that it remains easily accessible;
4. the access to information law and system should allow anyone who does factual or policy research for the government to speak to the media and publicly about the topic;
5. severe penalties should be created for not creating records, for not maintaining records properly, and for unjustifiable delays in responses to requests;
6. the Information Commissioner should be given explicit powers under the access to information: to order the release of a record (as in the United Kingdom, Ontario, B.C. and Quebec); to penalize violators of the law, and; to require systemic changes in government departments to improve compliance (as in the United Kingdom);
7. funding to the access to information system and enforcement should be increased to solve backlog problems instead of increasing administrative barriers, and fees for access should be lower overall and standardized, and;
8. Parliament must be required to review the ATI Act every 5 years to ensure that problem areas are corrected.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.