More than four years after Mayor David Miller instructed staff to begin drafting legislation for the first municipal lobbyist registry in Canada, it’s finally here.
Monday will mark the first day lobbyists will be required to register before seeking to influence public office holders at the City of Toronto.
The lobbyist registry, which is based on the principle that “lobbying is a legitimate business activity,†is an outcome of the inquiries undertaken by the City of Toronto between 2002 and 2005 that examined the MFP computer leasing scandal. The registry also became a legal requirement for the City of Toronto when it was included in the City of Toronto Act legislation that came into force last year.
Among other things, lobbyists will be required to disclose who they are, who their client is, what the subject matter is that they are lobbying on, who they are lobbying, how they will lobby and what, if any, elected or senior bureaucratic office the lobbyist has held.
For those caught lobbying unregistered, the penalties are stiff. A first offense will cost you $25,000 while a second offense will be $100,000.
Few debate the merits of a lobbyist registry (there have been registries for years at the provincial and federal levels of government) but defining what lobbying is and who is a lobbyist are contentious. Try this multiple choice quiz on for size:
Question: Which of these two entities will be required to register their activity in the lobbyist registry?
a) a homeowner who needs a variance to erect a fence
b) a manufacturer that wants to sell widgets to City Hall?
c) neither A or B
d) both A and B
Answer: It depends. If the homeowner has hired a lobbyist, architect, lawyer or other professional to advocate on their behalf, the professional will have to register. And, if the manufacturer is only responding to an RFP and does not seek to influence decision-makers outside the pre-determined process then no registration will be required. (For clarity, there are a set of rules [PDF] that have to be followed when an RFP is issued, registering is not a way of legitimately violating those rules.)
But the waters become even murkier when not-for-profits come into play. As the lobbyist registry legislation [PDF] sees it, not-for-profits should be able to lobby without registration so long as they don’t cross one of four lines. First, they cannot have a mandate to support a for-profit corporation. Second, they cannot use a consultant lobbyist or other professional who is not an employee or volunteer for the organization to make their case. Third, the not-for-profit can’t be lobbying for a for-profit entity. And, fourth, the not-for-profit isn’t advocating outside of the designated process for their grant application. (Some consultant lobbyists are on the record supporting a different approach.)
Not-for-profits come in many shapes and sizes. They can be the conscience of our city (United Way and FoodShare, for example) or they can be shells for big business, like all the Big Tobacco-funded “smokers rights†groups that have been started over the years, including MyChoice.ca. But if you take MyChoice.ca as an example, you’ll see quickly why some lobbyists are privately saying they could drive a truck through the loopholes in this legislation.
Though MyChoice.ca essentially advocates positions that are in the interest of Big Tobacco (officially known as the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council) and receives money from CTMC, it states boldly that while it does acknowledge the financial assistance of CTMC, “we do not promote the CTMC or any tobacco companies or products.†As I read the lobbyist legislation about to be enacted, so long as MyChoice.ca doesn’t hire a consultant lobbyist, they would not have to register to lobby with the money of CTMC if a debate were to come up about, say, banning smoking in cars or increasing taxes on cigarettes because of the line quoted above.
To be sure, the intention in the not-for-profit section of the legislation is good. I wouldn’t want a grassroots cycling advocacy group, for example, to be considered lobbyists if it received donations from cycling manufacturers. But, nonetheless, this loophole exists and it will take time to see if and how it is exploited.
Notwithstanding the “devil in the details†issues like the one I explored above, a lobbyist registry is long overdue at the City of Toronto. Though I’m sure that within the next couple of years it will be necessary to review the registry to see if it needs a few screws tightened or loosened, right now, I’m just happy the registry survived the many attacks of councillors from across the political spectrum.
To register as a lobbyist, click here. For more information on the registry, visit Toronto.ca/lobbying. If you aren’t sure whether you are required to register your political activities as lobbying, contact the Office of the Lobbyist Registrar at (416) 338-5858.
Photograph by HiMY SYeD.
8 comments
thanks for the clear analysis
This is confusing stuff. Thanks for the info Adam.
The Toronto Cyclists Union will be partially funded by the bicycle industry, through donations or ad sales in our new magazine.
On one hand, I feel that we should not have to register because we have a social mandate, we are primarily supported by our members, we are an incorporated Non-Profit. I don’t want to be mixed up with the suited riffraff.
On the other hand, I’m almost excited about registering. I’m proud to be a lobbyist. And I’m proud to have found ways to get paid to do it. Activist burnout is a dangerous thing and I think good organisers should get paid a living wage. Sometimes we work on issues that attract private money. Sometimes we don’t. The Public Space Committee for example didn’t attract much corporate interest. haha. Not that we would have taken it.
But the bike union’s mandate is to bring together all the cycling stakeholders in the city such as activist groups, non-profits, recreational clubs, couriers, and also stores and manufacturers. I guess that makes me a professional lobbyist. Great. I’m proud to be a paid lobbyist for such a sexy, green and fun machine.
Instead of trying to keep social activists outside of the lobbyist world, let’s just all sign up. It’ll be fun. Besides, based on my experience City Councillors ignore intelligent activists and listen to sneaky lying lobbyists. So now I can walk in their door and say “activist? No, I’m a lobbyist”. Maybe they’ll listen now. haha.
Mez, while I appreciate your sentiment around the difference between “activists” and “lobbyists,” the advantage of not having to register can be quite strategic.
Hypothetically, say the Bike Union was lobbying for a new city-wide plan that would instantly approve every bike lane you wanted and all the resources to make that happen within a year. It would be to your advantage to not have a group like the CAA know about that lobbying right away because then they could dispatch their own lobbyist to try to crush your plans before they get too far in the political process.
Because of this dynamic, groups like the TPSC will have a big advantage because companies in, say, the outdoor advertising industry will have to register and declare what they’re doing. Provided they follow the rules (a big caveat given that industry’s history), the registry will allow TPSC to head off the behind-the-scenes influence that the Astrals, Pattisons and CBS Outdoors of the world try to leverage.
Adam, your argument sounds like “transparency is only valuable when applied to people I don’t agree with”. You give mirror images of the exact same scenario, applauding it when used by TPSC and condemning it when used by the CAA. Surely the CAA’s ideas are silly enough to be defeated on a level playing field.
Given the fines involved, Dave should presumably get an official or professional opinion on whether the ads make him technically a lobbyist. If not, I’m not saying he should feel compelled to register, but if he chooses to make a voluntary disclosure I think that’s a noble step.
Matt: Look at page 3 of the sample scenarios [PDF] on the City’s website. Considering the nature of the activist work I do and I’ve done, they could have not given me a clearer example.
Let the CAA try to crush us!
Bikes are way more agile than cars. We’ll crush them before they can even turn on their ignition.
Just jokin’. Adam’s got a good point. The private sector will always have way more financial resources than us, so we need to have systems in place that at a minimum create a level playing field, if not actually grant preference to non-profits and individuals too.
On the other hand Matt’s got a good point too. Do we believe in Democracy, or only when it’s convenient? Why shouldn’t the CAA know that I’m lobbying? Why should I be scared of them trying to counter-lobby? Their message is out-of-date, dangerous to our health, and conflicts with the city’s official plan. My message is clean and green. I shouldn’t be worried.
Or should I? We all know that many Councillors make very poor decisions. But let’s not blame the lobbyists. Let’s blame the Councillors. Let the CAA do their job, and let the Councillors do theirs. If we don’t like the outcome, let’s fire the Councillors.
I fully support the right of any lobbyist, representing any interest, to engage with elected officials. And I support our right, as the employers of City Council, to get rid of them.
(this used to happen every three years. Now it’s every four years, even though this was never put to a referendum. Who ever heard of an employees group changing their term of contract without asking their employer? It’s as if we have completely forgotten who works for who…..)
Matt, though I make no bones about disliking the presence the CAA has at City Hall, I think you’ve misinterpreted my comments. I’m only providing an analysis of the legislation and pointing out how it could be used by some people as a strategic advantage over others. The legislation is what it is.
The fact is, this legislation favours not-for-profits over for-profits because it maintains the ability of not-for-profits to be as covert as they like about their lobbying while for-profits can’t. As you and Mez point out, that means some entities are subject to more transparency (and “democracy”) than others. Is that good or bad? I think we need some time to see what sort of effect this has on City Hall before coming to a conclusion. But I’m glad that they’ve erred on the side of not-for-profits rather than treating every little activist group like they’re the hired guns for a mega developer.
Reading the lobbyist regulations, I find them lacking in clarity. For example, they speak not of members of the public communicating with councilors, but of constituents. Does than mean that I can talk to my councilor without registering, but if I want to talk to the council member for an adjacent ward, I have to register? The way I read it, it makes sense for any involved member of the public to register, simply to avoid the ambiguities in the law.