Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable committee members. Thank you for asking me to appear before you today to provide some information about the Lobbyists Registration Office in Ontario.
I believe you've all been provided a chart that outlines the main provisions in our act, the Ontario Lobbyists Registration Act, which was passed in 1998.
I am the lobbyist registrar as well as the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario. My office is responsible for the following mandates: lobbyist registration; members' integrity, including conflict of interest rules; public service disclosure of wrongdoing, otherwise known as whistle-blowing; ministers' staff ethical conduct; and expenses review for ministers, opposition leaders and their staff, and certain agency employees and appointees.
My office has discharged its duties under the Lobbyists Registration Act with two principles at heart: (1) lobbying is legitimate, necessary, and part of democracy; and (2) transparency is a key goal, as the public has a right to know who is seeking to influence government decision-making.
At the time it was introduced, Ontario was the first province to have a lobbying act. It was, in fact, modelled on the federal legislation that preceded the current framework.
There are differences between the Ontario and federal systems, and between Ontario and its provincial counterparts. In Ontario, the definition of “lobby” is “any communication with a public office holder in an attempt to influence government activities”. For consultant lobbyists, lobbying includes arranging meetings.
A person must register if he or she is paid to lobby a public office holder. The requirement that you be paid captures both in-house lobbyists—or essentially, employees who are paid to lobby—and consultant lobbyists who work for firms, including law firms, on behalf of other organizations or individuals.
In addition, the act mandates our office to maintain an online public record of lobbyists. Not unlike the federal legislation, there is a long list of information that lobbyists must disclose in their registration. For example, they must provide the name of their client or employer, as the case may be; the subject matter of the lobbying effort; to whom the lobbying is directed; the method of lobbying; whether the entity is being funded by any government; and consultant lobbyists must state if they are being paid contingency fees.
As registrar, my duties are to maintain the registry, to verify information submitted, and to make that information available for the public.
In my view, the most important part of the registration process is ensuring that a member of the public can understand what it is that the lobbyist is doing. I often ask for further information about this aspect of the registration process. I've found lobbyists in Ontario have been cooperative in this area, and I will continue to require this level of detail in the future.
There is no code of conduct for lobbyists in Ontario; however, lobbyists are guilty of an offence if they fail to comply with the act or knowingly place a public office holder in a position of real or potential conflict of interest, and they are subject to a penalty of up to $25,000. I believe this is an important rule to have and enforce, though I will say that our approach in Ontario has focused primarily on the requirement of lobbyists to register and not on their specific conduct as lobbyists.
I do not have any investigative or inquiry powers about the conduct of lobbyists or unregistered lobbying. This is obviously a major distinction between the Ontario and federal models. As I just indicated, it is an offence to contravene the Ontario act and there are serious penalties, but to date there have been no prosecutions in this regard.
If necessary, I am prepared to refer information regarding possible offences to the appropriate authorities, leading to a prosecution. However, we do enjoy a high level of cooperation, and it has been my experience that when alleged lobbyists are informed about the registration requirement, they quickly come into compliance, if necessary.
The act also allows me to issue non-binding advisory opinions and interpretation bulletins about the act, which assist lobbyists in better understanding the legislation. Our office recently issued revised interpretation bulletins and has received positive feedback, all confirming my belief that education is key to ensuring the rules are followed. Our office also has a unique ability to encourage compliance through our other mandates, namely the ethical conduct and responsibilities of elected officials, including ministers as well as ministerial staff.
For example, we provide advice to minister's staff who are thinking of leaving their current position. We advise them of their obligations under the Public Service of Ontario Act, including but not limited to the restriction from lobbying their former ministry for a period of one year. We also ensure they are aware of the Lobbyists Registration Act and its obligations.
I would also like to speak to a new amendment to our act, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. It came into force last year and introduced new rules prohibiting certain public sector organizations from using public funds to hire external or consultant lobbyists. The restriction applies to public bodies, hydro entities, and larger and broader public sector organizations such as hospitals, school boards, and universities, as well as publicly funded organizations that receive more than $10 million in provincial funding. It is a new rule that we have been administering since early 2011. Consultant lobbyists can be hired by the above-mentioned organizations if the head of the organization signs and files with our office an attestation stating that the lobbyist is not being paid with public funds.
Apart from this change, there have been no material amendments to the act since it came into force in 1999. I do believe it is time to review and update our legislation, and I've requested that such a review take place. It is time for Ontario to consider such issues as whether the registrar should have investigative powers or whether the current threshold for a significant part of duties should be amended.
If a registrar has the ability to initiate investigations, it stands to reason that he or she should also be able to administer penalties. I can't speak from experience, of course, but I would imagine that both monetary penalties and the ability to name individuals who are found to be in non-compliance would be effective methods of encouraging compliance with the legislation. I also believe that if a registrar has the ability to administer penalties, he or she should have discretion on when and how they are used.
I know that Commissioner Shepherd has recommended the removal of the “significant part of duties” component for in-house lobbyists, and I agree that moving in this direction is the right approach. The best way to ensure transparency about who is lobbying is to require registration for all lobbying activity. However, as lobbyist registrars, it is our responsibility to make sure that registering is easy and accessible.
I am very mindful of the best practices emerging in other jurisdictions: in particular, we benefit greatly from the work that our federal colleagues have undertaken and the court challenges they have endured.
I believe the most important thing that a lobbyists registration system should do is provide a way for the public to know and understand who is influencing government in a way that makes it relatively easy for a lobbyist to comply with the rules. This balance can be difficult to find, but I strive to achieve it in Ontario.
Thank you once again for giving me this opportunity to speak to you today. I hope my remarks have been of assistance, and I welcome your questions.