Be mindful of parties under a corporate thumb

In principle, our governing institutions provide us as a citizenry with control over our own destiny. And ideally, government as our collective voice should serve as a counterweight to the concentrated wealth and power of the corporate sector.

In support of that goal, lobbying rules are supposed to let us know which outside parties are influencing government choices. Accessto-information legislation is intended to allow us to examine a government’s own decisionmaking processes — as well as to compare what we’re told publicly with the information available to our political leaders. And fundraising rules should give us confidence that political donations aren’t buying access to power.

Unfortunately, there’s growing evidence that the systems intended to protect our political system from secret corporate takeovers are failing. And instead, we’re being left in the dark until it’s too late to have any meaningful input into government decisions.

The failure of the combination of lobbying disclosures and access to information can be seen in recent revelations about the development of climate change policy in British Columbia.

In 2015, Christy Clark’s Liberals loudly trumpeted the establishment of a “Climate Leadership Team” that included environmental and First Nations representatives as well as business voices. But that group’s recommendations were ignored when the province’s plan was finally revealed a year later.

Now, new documents have revealed that provincial officials held secret meetings in Calgary with Liberal donors among the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. And those meetings, not the public consultation process, effectively set the province’s climate policy.

The CAPP meetings weren’t covered by lobbying legislation since the province invited CAPP to participate. And they weren’t made public through an access-to-information request until after a change in government.

Yet even more significant than the revelation that CAPP was allowed to rewrite British Columbia policy behind closed doors in Calgary is its blithe dismissal of the news. For CAPP (like many corporate mouthpieces), the expectation that governments will allow corporate giants to exert secret influence is just business as usual.

And while CAPP provides the most obvious recent example, it’s far from the only offender on that front.

This week, news also emerged that the federal lobbying regulatory system is being attacked directly by Barry Sherman, the CEO of drug manufacturer Apotex who hosted one of the big-money, cash-for-access fundraisers attended by Justin Trudeau.

Canada’s lobbying commissioner announced last year that she’d at least investigate whether those fundraisers represented a breach of lobbying rules which prohibit lobbyists from assisting a party with fundraising or campaigning. But Apotex is now trying to prevent the commissioner from even investigating the legality of that event and any subsequent lobbying.

Finally, in a jarring example of government power being used to facilitate bad corporate behaviour, engineering and construction firm SNC-Lavalin is asking the federal government to ensure that fraud and corruption by its subsidiaries have no impact on its ability to win public contracts. And so far, Trudeau seems happy to oblige.

Now, there are some immediate fixes to the problems raised by these types of cases. The invitation exception to lobbying rules could be eliminated. Access to information laws could include stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure that information isn’t suppressed until a government deigns to release it. And the federal government can reject the current pleas for special treatment.

But these cases also signal an obvious — and unfortunately well-founded — expectation on the part of big business that governments will bow to their will.

And the only answer to that is electing governments which will instead represent the public interest.