What role did backroom lobbying play in unnecessary city purchases of airport lands or in the subsequent urban boundary expansion for the aerotropolis or in the OMB Elfrida appeal which promises to provide windfall profits to speculators? Would Hamilton’s proposed lobbyist registry help to limit improper influences on politicians and city staff?
Residents have until May 30 to submit written comments about the registry that was resurrected earlier this month after a council attempt to quietly bury it backfired. The comments will be reported to councillors at a special meeting on June 18.
A Toronto Star review of that city’s registry last summer – five years after it was established – found over 550 lobbyists listed as representing nearly 1000 clients. No councillor had been lobbied fewer than 50 times with the highest exceeding 300. All together nearly 6500 instances of lobbying were reported in Toronto.
A registry has also existed in the city of Ottawa since 2012 and it listed 500 lobbyists in the first four months of operation. But the bylaw being considered in Hamilton has been subject to extensive councillor resistance and is substantially weaker than the well-established Toronto registry.
Unlike the Toronto system, the proposed registry in Hamilton will not require reporting of each individual instance of lobbying, or who was lobbied when, or a description of what benefit was being sought each time. Lobbyists will simply be required to register at least 15 days before beginning to lobby and to identify the general subject matter and the individuals expected to be lobbied. The lack of a requirement to report each specific instance may make it difficult for a citizen to determine how intensive the lobbying was, or whether a specific observed instance of apparent lobbying was appropriate.
The Hamilton proposal also sharply limits which city staff are defined as “public office holders” and therefore subject to the lobbying rules. In Hamilton these are restricted to elected officials and their hired personal assistants plus eight senior staff. In both Ottawa and Toronto, the definition extends at least to the level of director in recognition that many lower-ranking staff can make financial and policy decisions.
Unlike Toronto’s system, the responsibilities of Hamilton staff and councillors “do not include gathering or providing information concerning lobbying of him or her,” except when specifically asked to do so by the lobbyist registrar. To reduce costs, there also won’t be a dedicated registrar in Hamilton. Instead, the task is proposed to be given to the integrity commissioner who will only act on complaints.
A widespread council objection to any registration of lobbyists is that this may drive away businesses who don’t want their interests in Hamilton to be made public. Many councillors argue that the completely secret deal that brought the Maple Leaf wiener plant to Hamilton would not have occurred if transparency was required.
In response to these concerns, a special clause has been added to the draft bylaw stating: “The Lobbyist Registrar may exempt lobbying from some or all the requirements of this by-law if he or she is satisfied in advance by a lobbyist that registration could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the city of Hamilton or the competitive position of the city of Hamilton.”
Another difference is the lack of a written code of conduct that lobbyists are required to follow. Toronto’s code forbids lobbyists from “offering, providing or bestowing entertainment, gifts, meals, trips or favours of any kind” and prohibits “lobbying activities at a charitable event, community or civic event, or similar gathering.”
Such activity appears to occur in Hamilton. For example, two councillors have publicly refused to continue the “tradition” of having private dinners with the Hamilton Halton Home Builders Association (HHHBA) and senior staff. One of those councillors has publicly stated he has refused multiple offers of free dinners; another has reported refusing multiple gifts from developers. Senior staff also appear to be wined and dined.
“It is part of our job in terms of networking, and being part of industry celebrations and community celebrations,” explained the former head of economic development and planning in arguing that senior staff should not be subject to a rule against receiving gifts. “We’re finding ourselves one or two nights a week going to dinner, and these are business meetings, and they have to take place in order for us to attract this investment.”
It’s not clear from the city’s notice of public consultation whether residents will be allowed to make oral presentations at the June18 meeting where the fate of the registry is determined, but that is usually permitted if a written request is made to the clerk in advance.