Lobbyist or Not
Part II
Part I clearly indicates that the activities surrounding the fibre optic deal constitute a lobby.
Just because a lobby exists does not mean registration under the Act is required. There are under the Act two (2) types of lobbyists; an "in-house lobbyist" and a "consultant lobbyist" - you must fall under one of these categories to be compelled to register. The first category is an "in-house" lobbyist:
6. (1) In this section,
(b) "in-house lobbyist" means a person who is employed by an organization
(i) 20% of whose duties as an employee, as assessed in a 3 month period, are to lobby on behalf of that organization, or
(ii) a part of whose duties as an employee is to lobby on behalf of that organization if the employee's duties to lobby together with the duties of other employees to lobby would constitute 20 % of time at work of one full time employee, assessed in a 3 month period, were those duties to lobby to be performed by only one employee; and
Dean MacDonald has not denied the activity was lobbying - however he is contending that the time spent lobbying does not meet the criteria of an "in-house" lobbyist - therefore registration under the Act was not necessary. His argument surrounds whether or not the percentage of time he and other Persona employees - when added together over a three month period - lobbying for this deal - equalled 20% of the work of one full-time employee. MacDonald contends it was not.
The legislation as it is written is severely flawed and I would contend that any in-house lobby activity could be exempt from meeting this condition simply because it has to be 20% exactly - not 18% or 24% but exactly 20%.
Our legislature failed to put in the words "at least" or "more than" when referencing the 20%. This MAC -donald-TRUCK size loophole is enough for any defence lawyer to feast on and enough for any company to avoid registration.
However - in order to be an "in-house" lobbyist by definition - one necessarily has to be an employee of the company conducting the lobby.
Despite Dean's protestations and the weakness of the Act - Dean admits to being a close friend of the Premier and was also his business partner - business and government ethics should have compelled him to err on the side of caution and to maintain an open and accountable presence in his business dealings with the province. By registering as a lobbyist - he would have demonstrated his understanding of the sensitivities associated with his personal and business ties with the Premier and shown a sense of respect for the public and taxpayer dollars. The spirit and intent - clearly shown in the legislative debate and during the election - would have been upheld - making it easier to swallow that this deal is "squeaky clean" or "clean as a whistle". Instead Dean would have us all argue over technicalities and cause further question to the process used to reach this deal.
Considering Dean would prefer to find technicalities - let's go at it!
Parts III and IV following will give the people - the technicality necessary to compel MacDonald to register.
No comments:
Post a Comment