Ottawa Sun
Published: Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Pandora's box: The reality of lobbyist registries is a quagmire of infinite questions

The recent fuss over a city contract and the role played by Bob Chiarelli who lobbied his former colleagues on behalf of a vendor has raised the issue of a municipal lobbyist registry. 

As someone who lobbies city hall occasionally, a city registry would not alter my conduct. However, council should be careful as a registry is not a transparency panacea; it could be a Pandora’s box. 

If council wants to bolster confidence in how it conducts its affairs vis-a-vis former politicians and city staff, it would be better to implement a post-employment code of conduct that governs future lobbying activities by politicos and city staff. As well, asking the province to bring councillors’ activities (e-mail, budget and agenda disclosure) in line with the freedom of information provisions that already apply to the mayor’s office would be another positive step.   

Yes, more transparency at City Hall would be a welcome antidote to the oft repeated refrain that votes can be bought by developer X or contractor Y in exchange for a campaign donation come election time.

This facile view of City Hall is an insult to the consultants, lawyers, planners, engineers and others who routinely interact with (read: Lobby) councillors and staff. More troubling still, it is a defamatory perception that damages each member of council, not to mention city staff.

Lobbying is a legal activity as defined by federal law.

Government at all levels is complex, growing and ever-changing in terms of policies and regulations. The key decision makers who make laws, manage programs and deliver services are also in flux. And as long as government insists on creating new regulations, bylaws or debating issues ad nauseam (sound familiar?), the need for business, labour and others to engage help to navigate this domain will endure. 

If a local lobbyist registry is adopted, city council must avoid Toronto’s example (which selectively captures lobbying) and avoid implementing the forms-based excess of our federal regime.

In fact, the federal registry is hardly used by the public. It is a taxpayer-funded tool predominantly used by journalists, students and advocacy organizations. Ironically, its greatest value is as a source of competitive intelligence for the lobbying community itself.

A local registry must also reflect the activities of everyone from lobbyists, engineers, businesses, development lawyers (no hiding behind solicitor-client privilege), enviro-activists and union reps, right through to community association types, whether one is being paid or not.

And the onus should be on councillors to report who is attempting to influence them. In theory, reporting should be as simple as Councillor O met with firm P or lobbyist Q on date R, re: Issue S. Monthly or quarterly disclosure of meetings on the city’s website would suffice. 

Sadly the reality of lobbyist registries and reporting is a quagmire of infinite questions.

Do you just report formal meetings at City Hall? How about a week of detailed e-mails between a councillor and a lobbyist? Or a chance meeting on the street that turns into a 10-minute conversation? Then there’s the sidebar gallery chat during a committee meeting, is it reportable? What about lobbying a councillor’s EA? 

Who will interpret these rules and arbitrate disputes? What if a councillor fails to disclose a meeting? Will he or she be penalized with an office budget deduction or lose debate time at council? What about contacts with city planners and other policy folks in the bureaucracy? And is this truly transparency or just reporting?

To paraphrase Mackenzie King, a registry of lobbyists if necessary, but not necessarily a lobbyist registry, for it is indeed a Pandora’s box.