1 Report to/Rapport au: Governance Renewal Sub-Committee and Finance and Economic Development Committee Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance et Comité des finances et du développement économique and Council / et au Conseil June 29, 2012 29 juin 2012 Submitted by/Soumis par : M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor / Greffier municipal & chef du contentieux Contact Person / Personne ressource: Leslie Donnelly, Deputy City Clerk / Greffier adjoint (613) 580-2424 x28857, [email protected] CITY WIDE / À L‟ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Ref N°: ACS2012-CMR-CCB-0033

SUBJECT:

LOBBYIST REGISTRY - UPDATE

OBJET :

REGISTRE DES LOBBYISTS - MISE À JOUR

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Joint Meeting of the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee and the Finance and Economic Development Committee recommends that Council approve the establishment of a Lobbyist Registry, including the Lobbyist Code of Conduct, as described in this report, to come into effect on September 1, 2012. 2. That the Joint Meeting of the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee and the Finance and Economic Development Committee receive the definition of a Community Association as described in this report. 3. That staff be directed to amend the Employee Code of Conduct to incorporate the provisions related to lobbying and disclosure as described in this report.

2 RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT 1. Que le Comité mixte du Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance et du Comité des finances et du développement économique recommande au Conseil d’autoriser la création d’un registre des lobbyistes, incluant le Code de conduite des lobbyistes, selon ce qui est décrit dans le présent rapport qui doit entrer en vigueur le 1er septembre 2012. 2. Que le Comité mixte du Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance et du Comité des finances et du développement économique reçoive la définition d’association communautaire selon ce qui est écrit dans le rapport. 3. Qu’on demande au personnel de modifier le Code de conduite des employés

afin d’y inclure les dispositions liées au lobbying ainsi que la divulgation telle qu’elle est décrite dans le rapport.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Assumption and Analysis On November 18, 2011, the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee tabled a staff report on a proposed model for a Lobbyist Registry. Employing research from existing lobbyist registries at the federal, provincial and municipal level as well as testimony and recommendations from both the Toronto and Mississauga Judicial Inquiries, staff proposed a model for a low-cost lobbyist registry for the City of Ottawa. The Lobbyist Registry report was tabled for approximately two weeks to provide Members of Council, interested stakeholders and the public with an opportunity to review and provide comment on the proposed model. During this time-frame, a conversation began regarding the merits of the first proposed model, what elements best suited the City of Ottawa and what needed to change in order for the Lobbyist Registry to be successful. The Governance Renewal Sub-Committee considered the staff report and directed staff to revise the proposed Lobbyist Registry as follows: Clarify the distinction between advocacy and lobbying such that advocacy activities, which are those communications that state a position for the purpose of a general community benefit, either city-wide or local, are defined and exempted from the Registry; Prepare a definition of a lobbyist based on individuals/organizations who are paid for their activity; Ensure that lobbying activities, which are those communications that seek to influence a decision for the direct benefit of an individual or the group they represent, are clearly defined and included in the Registry;

3 Provide a high level overview of options for disclosure, including pros and cons of disclosure by Public Officials only, disclosure by lobbyists only, and dual disclosure; Confirm that communications with Community Groups/Associations is not deemed to be lobbying; Develop options for a definition of a community association; Ensure that the Registry is designed to register only lobbying activities and actions (e.g. meetings, emails, letters, phone calls), and that these activities are registered; Further clarify that, for the purposes of planning and development applications, Managers in Planning are included as Senior Public Office Holders for the purposes of disclosure and only the single, formal pre-consultation meeting be exempted for the purposes of the Registry; and, Investigate and prepare an option that would see the reporting of meetings involving planning staff, where changes are sought to the existing law on height and land use for the subject property. Staff have reviewed the proposed model in light of the direction from the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee as well as the feedback received from individual Members of Council, community representatives, interested stakeholders and the public and are recommending a revised model as outlined in this report. Specifically, the report recommends: A revised definition of lobbying that places an emphasis on communication by an individual who is paid or who represents a business or financial interest. A definition of advocacy being communications for or against a policy or program that states a position where the primary focus is a broad community benefit or detriment, whether city-wide or local. Advocacy is not considered lobbying. A revised definition of voluntary unpaid lobbyist. The report clarifies that it is not the intention of the Lobbyist Registry to have community groups/associations register for their advocacy work. The definition now specifies that a voluntary unpaid lobbyist is someone who, without payment, lobbies on behalf of a business or forprofit organization for the benefit of the interests of the for-profit entity or organization. Disclosure of lobbying activity would be required only by lobbyists. Members of Council and City staff will be required to monitor the Lobbyist Registry monthly to ensure that instances where they have been lobbied have been registered. If efforts to have the lobbyist disclose the activity are not successful, the Member of Council or staff member shall inform the Integrity Commissioner, who will assess whether a breach has occurred.

4 As directed by the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee, only substantive activities such as meetings, telephone calls, emails and letters would be disclosed through the Registry. There will be an annual review of the operations of the Lobbyist Registry including an analysis of the disclosure requirements. Enforcement of the Lobbyist Registry would fall under the Integrity Commissioner in order to control costs and maintain consistency with the application of Code of Conduct provisions. Staff recommends a guideline of sanctions of breaches to be used at the Integrity Commissioner‟s discretion. In addition to the above-noted recommendations, the report attempts to clarify what activities require disclosure in relation to planning and development activities. Staff has assessed options for an online solution and have been working on the development of a low-cost, web-based application based on the direction from the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee. The application will be refined based on Council‟s final decision of the requirements of the Lobbyist Registry and it is expected that it would be operational by the end of August 2012. Staff recommends that the Lobbyist Registry By-law come into effect on September 1, 2012. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications associated with this report as staff has been able to develop the web-based application in-house by repurposing an existing tool. There will be a cost for the Integrity Commissioner assigned to oversee the Lobbyist Registry, which is outlined in an accompanying report and will be funded out of existing budgets. Other activities will be supported by Clerk‟s staff who can be given new duties if the recommendations related to the Renewal of Advisory Committees are adopted. Public Consultation/Input The original report on the proposed Lobbyist Registry (ACS2011-CMR-CCB-0091) was tabled with the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee on November 18, 2011 and considered by the Sub-Committee on December 1, 2011 to allow for the public review and comment. The Governance Renewal Sub-Committee heard from fourteen delegations and received a significant amount of correspondence on the proposed model.

RÉSUMÉ Hypothèse et analyse Le 18 novembre 2011, le Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance a déposé un rapport du personnel au sujet d‟un modèle proposé de registre des lobbyistes. À

5 partir d‟études de registres existants à l‟échelle fédérale, provinciale et municipale et de témoignages et de recommandations issus des enquêtes judiciaires de Toronto et de Mississauga, le personnel de la Ville d‟Ottawa a proposé un modèle abordable de registre des lobbyistes. Le rapport sur le registre des lobbyistes a été déposé pendant environ deux semaines pour permettre aux membres du Conseil, aux intervenants concernés et au public d‟examiner et de commenter le modèle proposé. Durant cette période, nous avons débattu des mérites du modèle proposé, des éléments qui convenaient le mieux à la Ville d‟Ottawa et des changements à apporter au modèle pour en assurer le succès. Le Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance s‟est penché sur le rapport et a demandé au personnel d‟apporter les modifications suivantes au modèle de registre des lobbyistes : Différencier clairement les activités de lobbying des activités de promotion et de défense des intérêts citoyens, en expliquant que ces dernières sont des communications qui visent à prendre position sur une question dans l‟intérêt de l‟ensemble de la collectivité, qu‟il s‟agisse d‟un quartier ou de l‟ensemble de la ville, et qui ne doivent donc pas être inscrites dans le registre. Rédiger une définition d‟un lobbyiste qui comprend toute personne ou organisation rémunérée pour mener ses activités. Veiller à ce que les activités de lobbying, soit les communications qui visent à influencer une décision qui profite directement à une personne ou au groupe qu‟elle représente, soient clairement définies, et que cette définition figure au registre. Fournir un portrait global des trois modèles de divulgation possibles, soit par les fonctionnaires seulement, par les lobbyistes seulement ou par les deux parties, et dresser une liste de leurs avantages et inconvénients respectifs. Confirmer que les communications avec les associations et les groupes communautaires ne sont pas considérées comme des activités de lobbying. Proposer des définitions possibles pour le terme « association communautaire ». S‟assurer que le registre vise l‟inscription des activités de lobbying seulement (p. ex. rencontres, courriels, lettres et appels), et que celles-ci soient consignées. Préciser que, dans le cadre de la planification urbaine et des demandes d‟aménagement, les gestionnaires en urbanisme sont considérés comme des titulaires d‟une charge publique de haut rang aux fins de divulgation et que seule la consultation préalable officielle n‟a pas à être inscrite au registre. Effectuer des recherches en vue de préparer un modèle qui exigerait la déclaration des rencontres réunissant des membres du personnel de planification et portant sur des modifications aux lois existantes relatives à la hauteur et à l‟utilisation du sol sur la propriété visée. Le personnel a réévalué le modèle proposé à la lumière des instructions du Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance, des commentaires individuels des membres du Conseil ainsi que des commentaires des représentants communautaires,

6 des intervenants concernés et du public. Il recommande un modèle révisé, tel qu‟il est indiqué dans le présent rapport. Plus précisément, voici les recommandations du rapport : Une définition du lobbying révisée qui met l‟accent sur des communications par un individu rémunéré ou qui représente une entreprise ou des intérêts financiers. Une définition des activités de promotion et de défense des intérêts citoyens comme étant des communications qui visent à prendre position pour ou contre une politique ou un programme dans l‟intérêt de l‟ensemble de la collectivité, qu‟il s‟agisse d‟un quartier ou de l‟ensemble de la ville. Les activités de promotion et de défense des intérêts citoyens ne sont pas considérées comme du lobbying. Une définition révisée du lobbyiste bénévole. Le rapport précise que le registre des lobbyistes n‟a pas pour but d‟exiger l‟inscription des activités des associations ou des groupes communautaires. La définition précise maintenant qu‟un lobbyiste bénévole est quelqu‟un qui, sans obtenir de rémunération, fait du lobbying pour une entreprise ou une organisation à but lucratif au profit des intérêts de cette entité ou de cette organisation à but lucratif. Seuls les lobbyistes seraient dans l‟obligation de divulguer leurs activités de lobbying. Les membres du Conseil et le personnel de la Ville devront faire un suivi mensuel du registre des lobbyistes pour s‟assurer que toutes les activités de lobbying dont ils ont fait l‟objet y sont consignées. Si les efforts pour veiller à la divulgation des activités d‟un lobbyiste échouent, les membres du Conseil ou les membres du personnel en informeront le commissaire à l‟intégrité, qui déterminera s‟il y a eu manquement. Selon les instructions du Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance, seules les activités significatives seraient consignées dans le registre, telles que les rencontres, les appels, les courriels et les lettres. Il y aura une révision annuelle des opérations du registre des lobbyistes, dont un examen des exigences de divulgation. La mise en œuvre du registre des lobbyistes est confiée au commissaire à l‟intégrité pour qu‟il puisse contrôler les coûts et assurer la cohérence avec l‟application des dispositions du Code de conduite. Le personnel recommande l‟élaboration de lignes directrices concernant les sanctions qui pourraient être appliquées par le commissaire à l‟intégrité en cas de manquement. En plus de ces recommandations, le rapport tente de préciser quelles activités de planification et d‟aménagement devront être divulguées. À la demande du Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance, le personnel a évalué les possibilités de solutions en ligne et a travaillé à la création d‟une application

7 Web abordable. L‟application Web sera revue en fonction des décisions définitives du Conseil quant aux exigences pour le registre des lobbyistes, et devrait être fonctionnelle d‟ici la fin août 2012. Le personnel recommande l‟entrée en vigueur du Règlement sur le registre des lobbyistes le 1er septembre 2012. Répercussions financières Le présent rapport n‟a aucune répercussion financière, puisque le personnel a pu créer une application Web à l‟interne en adaptant un outil existant. La surveillance du registre des lobbyistes par le commissaire à l‟intégrité entraînera des frais, dont un aperçu est fourni dans un rapport connexe et qui seront imputés aux budgets actuels. Les autres activités seront prises en charge par le personnel du Bureau du greffier, qui pourra se voir confier de nouvelles tâches si les recommandations en lien avec le renouvellement des comités consultatifs sont adoptées. Consultation publique et commentaires Le rapport original sur le registre des lobbyistes proposé (ACS2011-CMR-CCB-0091) a été soumis au Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance le 18 novembre 2011, qui l‟a étudié le 1er décembre 2011 pour permettre au public de l‟examiner et de le commenter. Le Sous-comité du renouvellement de la gouvernance a entendu quatorze intervenants du public et reçu une quantité importante de communications écrites au sujet du modèle proposé.

BACKGROUND In its commitment to accountability and transparency, City Council endorsed an Accountability Framework as part of the 2010-2014 Governance Review. The Accountability Framework includes a Code of Conduct for Members of Council, an Integrity Commissioner, public disclosure of office expenses, a gift registry and a lowcost lobbyist registry. To summarize the legislative history, the City of Ottawa‟s authority to establish a lobbyist registry was added to the Municipal Act, 2001 in 2007, along with several other accountability and integrity tools. The statutory discretion to enact such a Registry as well as other integrity tools mirrors Toronto‟s mandatory requirements. Both the discretionary accountability and integrity tools for Ontario municipalities and the mandatory provisions for Toronto were directly related to events that led up to, and the recommendations from, two City of Toronto judicial inquiries resulting from what is commonly known as the MFP Computer Leasing scandal. In September 2005, Madam Justice Denise Bellamy‟s four-volume report included 241 recommendations relating to the broad themes of ethics, governance, lobbying, and procurement (as well as 3 additional recommendations related to Public Inquiries). Another relevant judicial inquiry was requested in November 2009 by Mississauga City Council to investigate issues of conflict of interest. As part of the judicial inquiry, in December 2010, Mr. Justice J. Douglas Cunningham held a two-day expert panel

8 discussion on municipal ethics with three professionals considered to be authorities in municipal ethics: Professor David Mullan, Mr. Gregory Levine, and Dean Lorne Sossin. The testimony of these three experts in municipal ethics not only informed Justice Cunningham‟s analysis and recommendations but also provided valuable insight for staff‟s development of a proposed lobbyist registry model. Further, in his final report, Justice Cunningham did not recommend a lobbyist registry for the City of Mississauga given its size and the existence of other measures that can be taken to improve accountability and transparency. On November 18, 2011, the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee tabled a staff report on a proposed model for a Lobbyist Registry. Employing research from existing lobbyist registries at the federal, provincial and municipal level as well as testimony and recommendations from both the Toronto and Mississauga Judicial Inquiries, staff proposed a model for a low-cost lobbyist registry for the City of Ottawa. The Lobbyist Registry report was tabled for approximately two weeks to provide Members of Council, interested stakeholders and the public with an opportunity to review and provide comment on the proposed model. During this time-frame, a conversation began regarding the merits of the first proposed model, what elements best suited the City of Ottawa and what needed to change in order for the Lobbyist Registry to be successful. On December 1, 2011 the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee considered the staff report, including hearing from fourteen public delegations. Following consideration of the staff report, the Sub-Committee approved the following motions/directions: Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to develop options for a definition of a bonafide community association. CARRIED Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be asked to prepare additional options that would include the following: 1. A definition of a lobbyist based on individuals/organizations who are paid for their activity. 2. An option that would seek reporting of meetings involving planning staff, seeking changes to existing law on height and land use on the subject property. CARRIED

9 Moved by Mayor J. Watson WHEREAS, since the tabling of the proposed Lobbyist Registry on November 18, 2011, Members of Council have received feedback asking for more clarity and simplicity regarding several aspects of the proposal; and WHEREAS it is important that such a significant step in the City’s Accountability and Transparency Framework be easy to understand and easy to implement at the beginning to ensure its success; WHEREAS it is not the intent to have recognized Community Groups/Associations categorized as lobbyists while they are engaged in advocacy work that has a community or public interest; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to revise the proposed Lobbyist Registry as follows: 1. That the difference between advocacy and lobbying be further clarified such that advocacy activities, which are those communications that state a position for the purpose of a general community benefit, either city-wide or local, be defined and exempted from the registry and; 2. That lobbying activities, which are those communications that seek to influence a decision for the direct benefit of an individual or the group they represent, are defined and included in the registry; 3. That staff provide a high level overview of options for disclosure, including pros and cons of disclosure by Public Officials only, disclosure by lobbyists only, and dual disclosure; 4. That communications with Community Groups/Associations not be deemed to be lobbying; 5. That the Registry be designed to register only lobbying activities and actions (e.g. meetings, emails, letters, phone calls), and that these activities be registered; 6. That, for the purposes of planning and development applications, Managers in Planning be included as Senior Public Office Holders for the purposes of disclosure and only the single, formal pre-consultation meeting be exempted for the purposes of the Registry; 7. That, at the end of one year, the Integrity Commissioner reviews and makes recommendations on the operations of the Registry; And report back to the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee in Q1, 2012.

10

Staff have reviewed the proposed model in light of the direction from the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee as well as the feedback received from individual Members of Council, community representatives, interested stakeholders and the public and are recommending a revised model as outlined in this report. As noted above, lobbyist registries operate at the federal level and now in seven provinces. Manitoba's lobbyist-disclosure law has been passed and came into effect on April 30, 2012. The province of New Brunswick is presently working on a joint lobbyist registry with Nova Scotia and was expected to be bringing forth legislation this spring. Saskatchewan and P.E.I. continue to be the only provinces without a lobbyist registry. The Manitoba Lobbyist Registry requires that lobbyists disclose who they are lobbying and details of their lobbying efforts including particulars to identify any relevant legislative proposal, bill, resolution, regulation, program, policy, contract or financial benefit. The deadlines for filing returns (for lobbying endeavours which begin after April 30th) are as follows: Consultant lobbyists must file within 10 days of the start of an undertaking; Senior officers filing on behalf of organizations with in-house lobbyists must file within two months. If a lobbyist is found to have contravened the Lobbyists Act, s/he is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000. In the months since the November 2011 report, there have been no new municipal lobbyist registries established in Canada.

DISCUSSION The Governance Renewal Sub-Committee was established at the beginning of the 2010-2014 Term of Council as a working group of Council, led by the Mayor, to work with staff on matters related to governance structures and processes including the development of an Accountability Framework. Ottawa City Council has chosen to employ its discretionary authority to establish a Lobbyist Registry as part of an overall commitment to accountability and transparency by way of an Accountability Framework. The proposed Lobbyist Registry should reflect the needs and expectations of Members of Council, interested stakeholders and the public. The Sub-Committee was specifically tasked to work with staff on the development of a Lobbyist Registry. Beginning with the tabling of the Lobbyist Registry staff report (ACS2011-CMR-CCB0091) with the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee on November 18, 2011, a thoughtful and extensive dialogue occurred surrounding various aspects of the proposed model. Members of Council, interested stakeholders and staff had the opportunity to ask questions, consider scenarios and flesh out what elements were desired in a Lobbyist Registry for the City of Ottawa. During its consideration of the proposed model, the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee heard from fourteen

11 delegations. The delegations ranged from community groups and volunteers, representatives speaking from a professional perspective and a subject-matter expert on Canadian lobbying legislation. This report proposes a Lobbyist Registry model that has been amended to address the concerns raised by Members of Council and community members about the original as well as the specific direction to staff from the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee. Staff has focused the report on those areas of the recommended Registry model that required amendment based on the feedback received. Where there was a thorough explanation in the November 2011 report, and no changes were recommended, staff have provided limited explanatory notes. 1. Definition of Lobbying (vs. Advocacy) First and foremost, the Lobbyist Registry is not intended to hinder citizen engagement or community activism. The intent of a Lobbyist Registry is to provide transparency for those activities that serve to benefit a specific individual or group of individuals with a business or financial interest that occur outside of the public eye. The feedback received on the proposed model for the Lobbyist Registry was that the definition of lobbying required further clarification. There was a particular desire expressed to more clearly indicate how lobbying communication differs from advocacy communication. In addition to clarifying the definition of lobbying, it was recommended that an emphasis be placed on those who are paid to lobby or those who represent a business or financial interest. The draft Lobbyist Registry By-law has been updated with the revised definition of lobbying as well as a definition for advocacy communication and specific exemption of this type of communication from the requirement for disclosure. Definition of Lobbying Lobbying activities are those communications where there is a discernible direct or indirect benefit for an individual or group of individuals. Lobbying is any communication with a public office holder by an individual who is paid or who represents a business or financial interest with the goal of trying to influence any legislative action including development, introduction, passage, defeat, amendment or repeal of a by-law, motion resolution or the outcome of a decision on any matter before Council, a Committee of Council or a Ward Councillor or staff member acting under delegated authority. The following are a couple examples of lobbying activities: A consultant who works for a government relations company and is hired by a client to communicate with public office holders to explore business opportunities with the City;

12 The CEO of a high-tech company contacts the Chief Information Officer to promote a new client support system; A developer approaches a Ward Councillor regarding a planning application s/he has submitted to the City in their Ward; and, A local union representative meets with Members of Council to discuss an upcoming collective agreement negotiation. Definition of Advocacy Advocacy involves communications for or against a policy or program that state a position where the primary focus is a broad community benefit or detriment, whether city-wide or local. Advocacy is generally carried out by community groups and associations who seek to change policy for the betterment of their local community or the City as a whole. Examples of advocacy communications would include: A local union contacting Members of Council to support an extension of the smoke-free by-law for parks and patios; A community group urging the development of an Equity and Inclusion Lens to encourage diversity within City processes; A Neighbourhood Watch group demanding action from the Ward Councillor‟s office regarding individuals who are partying in parks late at night and damaging public and private property; and A local community association supporting the construction of a pedestrian bridge in the community. 2. Who needs to register with the Lobbyist Registry? The focus of this proposed Lobbyist Registry is on the activities that need to be more transparent rather than who specifically should be identified as a lobbyist. This approach builds on the notion that advocacy is not considered lobbying and does not require disclosure. A given individual may be an advocate with respect to one subject, and a lobbyist with respect to another. The feedback that was provided in December 2011 focussed on the concern that the proposed definition of the voluntary unpaid lobbyist would broadly apply to the interaction between Members of Council and community groups/associations or residents. While the advocacy work carried out by community groups and associations was never intended to be captured by the Lobbyist Registry, it is evident that the initial proposal nonetheless created a perception by community groups/associations that they would be required to register their advocacy work. It is therefore recommended that the definition of a lobbyist be predominately focused on individuals or organizations that are paid to lobby. The two main categories of lobbyist are consultant lobbyist (an individual who is paid to lobby on behalf of a client)

13 and in-house lobbyist (an individual whose position entails lobbying on behalf of their employer or who lobbies on behalf of their own business interests). Not-for-profit organizations who represent business, professional or trade union interests, or who are funded by a for-profit entity, will need to register those activities that fall under the definition of lobbying. Advocacy activities carried out by a not-forprofit organization will not need to be disclosed through the Lobbyist Registry. Under this definition, the Lobbyist Registry would no longer apply to community groups and associations, even if they are lobbying for funding: A consultant lobbyist: someone who – for payment – lobbies on behalf of a client (another individual, company, partnership or organization). Additionally, if the consultant lobbyist arranges for a meeting between a public office holder and a third party, that is lobbying. An in-house lobbyist: an employee, partner or sole proprietor who lobbies on behalf of their own employer, business or organization. A voluntary unpaid lobbyist: someone who – without payment – lobbies on behalf of a business or for-profit organization for the benefit of the interests of the for-profit entity or organization. Additionally, if the voluntary unpaid lobbyist arranges a meeting between a public office holder and a third party, that is lobbying. What is a bonafide Community Association for the City of Ottawa? As part of the discussion of lobbying activities by community associations/groups, staff was directed to develop a definition of community association. The City of Ottawa does not have a formal definition of a community association, as many groups operate in the City in various capacities and with varying levels of formality. In its constitution and bylaws, the Federation of Urban Neighbourhoods (Ontario) defines a neighbourhood association as “any voluntary, not-for-profit, community organization that has the objective of serving the interests of a geographically-defined urban area in the Province of Ontario.”1 Similarly the Federation of Community Associations of Ottawa‟s by-law provides that membership in the federation is extended to “[a]ny non‐profit, voluntary community, neighbourhood, property owners', tenants' or other association or group based in Ottawa having as its objective to serve community interests.”2 The Federation of Community Association‟s definition is accepted by that group‟s member associations, and it is provided here for Committee and Council‟s information. As community associations are not included in the Lobbyist Registry, there is no requirement for Council to approve a definition as part of this report. 1

Constitution and By-laws of the Federation of Urban Neighbourhoods (Ontario) http://urbanneighbourhoods.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/f-u-n-constitutionbylawsasofmay72011.pdf 2 Constitution and By-laws of the Federation of Community Associations of Ottawa http://fcafac.ca/about/Const.pdf

14

3. Who is responsible to disclose lobbying activity? Part of the discussion around the proposed lobbyist registry was who should be responsible for reporting lobbying activity. Below is a brief analysis of the three options for disclosure: by Public Officials only, by Lobbyists only, and dual disclosure. Disclosure by Public Officials Only: The City of Toronto‟s former voluntary lobbyist registry involved disclosure by Members of Council only and Professor David Mullan also suggested that a similar public log might be useful as part of his submission to the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. While this type of registry would apply to individuals who might be more effectively sanctioned, it would lack information about the individuals initiating the contact and the clients, businesses and organizations who would be affected by the outcome of legislative actions. A lobbyist registry is not only meant to increase transparency regarding who is communicating with public office holders, but also whether there is a monetary or proprietary interest motivating these efforts. This type of disclosure again places the onus on those who are subject to the unsolicited lobbying efforts. Disclosure by Lobbyists Only: This is the most common method of disclosure of lobbying activity. As noted previously, it places the onus on the individual who is generally compensated for lobbying public office holders (but not on the success of the lobbying) and whose client, business or organization will be affected by the outcome of the legislative action in question. These individuals generally understand that their communication with public officials is lobbying and would be best to judge whether their communications require disclosure with the Lobbyist Registry. Enforcement of the Lobbyist Registry becomes more of a challenge especially in the case of pursuing a contravention under the Provincial Offences Act. Dual Disclosure: The November 2011 proposal recommended dual disclosure of lobbying activity. This meant that both those individuals that lobby as well as those who are lobbied would be required to enter the lobbying activity. The perceived benefit was an integrated system of checks and balances of lobbying activity. However, the feedback from many was that dual disclosure added unnecessary complexity to a Lobbyist Registry and further placed an onus on those individuals who are subject to unsolicited communication to disclose. Recommended Disclosure Requirements Following on the direction for simplicity and clarity, and taking into consideration what has worked in other jurisdictions, staff recommends that the first iteration of the Lobbyist Registry require disclosure only by lobbyists. While Senior Public Office Holders (e.g. Members of Council and senior City staff) would not be required to disclose instances

15 where they have been lobbied, staff are recommending that, as outlined in the next two sections, Members of Council, their Staff, citizen members of the Transit Commission and city staff be required to review the Lobbyist Registry on a monthly basis to ensure that those instances where they have been lobbied have been disclosed through the Registry. Staff further recommends that the Integrity Commissioner include a review of the disclosure requirements of the Lobbyist Registry, and in particular the practicality and the value-add of dual disclosure, as part of the one-year review of the Lobbyist Registry. As proposed in the initial staff report, lobbyists would be required to register their lobbying activity within fifteen (15) days of commencing an undertaking. Further, in order to build on the direction to make the proposed Lobbyist Registry easier and more user friendly, staff is recommending that there be no requirement for pre-registration, meaning that lobbyists may begin lobbying public office holders before submitting the registration of the activity to the Lobbyist Registry. This would be in line with the registration process at the federal level and of other provincial models (British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia). The City of Toronto is the only Lobbyist Registry that requires pre-registration. As it stands in Toronto, a Member of Council is expected to confirm either through the Lobbyist Registry public search tool or directly with the Office of the Lobbyist Registrar if the individual they intend to meet with has submitted their registration and that it has been approved by the Office. This process can be time-consuming and cumbersome for both the public office holder and staff supporting the Lobbyist Registry. Finally, in developing a web-based tool that serves the needs of the City of Ottawa, staff is working to make the registration process more efficient. In discussions with the City of Toronto Lobbyist Registrar, staff discovered that a lobbyist cannot submit their registration and log an undertaking and specific activity related to that undertaking at the same time. Approval of the initial registration must occur before a lobbyist can proceed on to the next step. Toronto‟s Lobbyist Registrar acknowledged that this has been a complaint or criticism of the process that they have heard from their users. It is anticipated that the City of Ottawa Registry would allow a user to submit all the relevant information in one session. 4. Requirements for Members of Council, their Staff and Citizen Transit Commissioners As noted in the initial staff report, as part of the Council Code of Conduct that staff is proposing as an additional part of the Accountability Framework, Members of Council will have a responsibility to ensure that those who are lobbying them are aware of their responsibilities to register as a lobbyist. In addition, Members of Council will be required to review the Lobbyist Registry on a monthly basis to ensure that instances where they have been lobbied have been registered. In the event that a Member finds that lobbying activity has not been disclosed, the Member will be expected to inform the lobbyist of their obligation to do so. If the activity

16 remains undisclosed, the Member of Council will inform the Integrity Commissioner, who will assess whether a breach has occurred and a sanction is required. Finally, the Code of Conduct for Elected Representatives will provide that Members of Council will not knowingly communicate with a lobbyist who has been found to have contravened the Lobbyist Registry rules and upon whom a sanction has been applied. Staff is recommending the following Code of Conduct provision concerning “Conduct Respecting Lobbying” be approved together with the Lobbyist Registry. This provision would also pertain to citizen members of the Transit Commission when acting in their capacity as Commissioners and Members‟ staff when acting on behalf of the Member. Recommended Code of Conduct Provision for Members of Council, their staff and Citizen Transit Commissioners: CONDUCT RESPECTING LOBBYING Members of Council, as public office holders, are routinely approached by various individuals attempting to influence decisions before Council or under the delegated authority of the Ward Councillor. While lobbying is an acceptable practice, disclosure of lobbying activities enhances the transparency and integrity of City business. In accordance with the City‟s Lobbyist Registry, Members of Council shall review the Lobbyist Registry monthly to confirm that instances where they have been lobbied on a particular matter, including the specific matter and date, have been registered. Where lobbying activity has not been disclosed, the Member shall first remind the lobbyist of the requirement to disclose and, should the activity remain undisclosed, advise the Integrity Commissioner of the failure to disclose. Further, Members of Council should ensure that individuals who are lobbying them are aware of their requirement to register as required under the requirements of the Lobbyist Registry. Members of Council shall not knowingly communicate with a lobbyist who is acting in violation of the requirements of the Registry. If a Member of Council is or at any time becomes aware that a person is in violation of the rules related to lobbying, the member should either refuse to deal with the lobbyist or, where appropriate, either terminate the communication with the lobbyist at once or, if in the member‟s judgment it is appropriate to continue the communication, at the end of the communication, draw that person‟s attention to the obligations imposed by the Registry and report the communication to the City Clerk and to the Integrity Commissioner. Members of Council will be bound by this provision should the draft Code of Conduct be approved by Council and will be accountable for their interactions with lobbyists. The Integrity Commissioner will be responsible for receiving and investigating complaints regarding Members of Council and their conduct respecting lobbyists under the Code of Conduct.

17 5. Other City Staff as Public Office Holders As noted in the original staff report, there are many city staff members whose positions fall below the level of senior management who have some reduced amount of delegated authority or influence on decision-making. Whether it‟s through a role in a particular approval process or the provision of advice individually to councillors or senior staff, a Committee of Council or City Council as a whole, these staff may be subject to unsolicited lobbying by interested stakeholders. Efforts to lobby City staff at all levels shall be logged with the lobbyist registry by the lobbyist as a mandatory requirement. Staff will be expected to routinely review the Lobbyist Registry, in the same manner as elected officials and citizen members of the Transit Commission, to ensure that lobbying activity involving them has been disclosed. If staff observes that disclosure has not occurred or if the disclosure is inaccurate, contact should be made with the Integrity Commissioner to resolve the matter. Staff will also be required to refrain from communicating with lobbyists who have been found in contravention of the Lobbyist Registry. It is recommended that the Employee Code of Conduct be amended to reflect the obligation of City staff as public office holders to review the Lobbyist Registry and to avoid knowingly communicating with a lobbyist who has breached the Lobbyist Registry. 6. What activities must be disclosed? In an effort to make the Lobbyist Registry process simpler and more understandable, staff recommends that only substantive activities are required to be disclosed. These activities would include: meetings, emails, letters and phone calls. Communication that falls under the definition of lobbying that occurs in an informal setting will not be captured by the Lobbyist Registry at this point in time. This recommendation not only makes the disclosure process more simple and understandable, but it is also reflective of best practices in other jurisdictions. The City of Toronto‟s Lobbyist Registry By-law defines communication as “any form of expressive contact, and includes oral, written or electronic communication”. In her 2008 Annual Report, the Lobbyist Registrar addressed informal gatherings where lobbyists and public office holders are both in attendance and concluded that, “[c]asual conversations at a public gathering (such as a charitable event, community or civic event, or festival) that do not materially advance a matter that is defined as „lobbying‟ do not require registration.” 7. Planning and Development Applications As identified in the November 2011 proposed model, there are certain types of communication that do not require disclosure through the Lobbyist Registry. Specifically, communication with certain planning staff that is part of a Council-approved or legislative planning process [i.e. processes mandated by the Planning Act (e.g. zoning), processes initiated by the Official Plan (e.g. the Urban Design Review Panel

18 Process), and other design and approval processes approved by City Council (e.g. the Lansdowne Design Review Panel Process)] does not require disclosure through the Lobbyist Registry. This is due to the specific nature of certain parts of the planning process. To illustrate, there are several steps to submitting a planning application, including a formal preapplication consultation, the filing of the application and the application review process. These steps all involve communication between an application, interested stakeholders, the public and planning staff to varying degrees. Certain types of development applications require a Pre-Application Consultation with City staff. Specifically, Pre-Application Consultation with City staff is mandatory for all potential Official Plan Amendments, (Major) Zoning By-law Amendments, Plans of Subdivision, Plans of Condominium (for vacant land or common elements) and Site Plan applications involving public consultation. The formal pre-application consultation phase generally consists of potential applicants meeting with City staff, Ward Councillors, community associations and/or key stakeholders to discuss their proposed development application. However, there are “informal” pre-application consultations that do occur and, as they are outside of the Council-approved or legislative planning process, these would need to be disclosed through the Lobbyist Registry. What does require disclosure? Any communication that forms part of an informal pre-application consultation [outside of the prescribed or legislative process]; Any communication with the Ward Councillor or his/her staff on a planning matter; With respect to an appeal following Council‟s decision on a planning matter, communication with a Member of Council and his/her staff with respect to a planning matter under appeal; and Any communication with planning staff who are not specifically assigned to the planning application, from the level of Manager and up. What does not require disclosure? Communication with planning staff assigned to the specific application that forms part of the formal pre-application consultation, the filing of the application and the application review process; With respect to appeals following Council‟s decision on a planning matter, communication between the Legal Representative or agent for an applicant and Legal Services with respect to a planning matter under appeal; and

19 Communication with planning staff that is initiated by a Council approved or legislative planning process (e.g. Urban Design Review Panel Process). Staff is also recommending that, where the informal or formal pre-application consultation does not involve notice or discussion with the Ward Councillor, the planning staff involved in the pre-application consultation are required to notify the Ward Councillor of the forthcoming application (especially where a change is being sought to the existing restrictions on height and/or land use of the subject property). 8. Breaches/Sanctions In order to control costs and to streamline processes, staff recommends the enforcement of the Lobbyist Registry would initially fall under the authority of an independent Integrity Commissioner. The appointment of an Integrity Commissioner is to be addressed in a forthcoming report regarding a Code of Conduct for Members of Council. In contemplating sanctions and penalties for the Lobbyist Registry, staff felt practical and reasonable sanctions should be available to the Integrity Commissioner. Without limiting the Integrity Commissioner‟s discretion, the following is the proposed guideline for sanctions of breaches of the Lobbyist Registry rules: 1st Breach – The Lobbyist is barred from communicating with public office holders for one month; 2nd Breach – The Lobbyist is barred from communicating with public office holders for three months; and 3rd Breach – The Integrity Commissioner shall determine an appropriate sanction for continued breaches of the Lobbyist Registry rules, including the creation of a fine at a later date. If the Integrity Commissioner finds that a lobbyist has breached the Lobbyist Registry, notice would be circulated to Members of Council and staff advising of temporary ban imposed by the Integrity Commissioner on communication with the particular lobbyist. Notice of the temporary ban would also be posted on the City‟s website. This type of prohibition is consistent with the federal Commissioner of Lobbying‟s authority to prohibit a lobbyist from communicating with public office holders for a period of not more than two years.3 Members of Council and staff, by way of codes of conduct, would be obligated to abstain from communicating with lobbyists who have been found in contravention of the Lobbyist Registry By-law.

3

Section 14.01 of the Lobbying Act.

20 9. Annual Review Further to the direction of the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee and appreciating that lobbyist registries at the municipal level are relatively new, it is recommended that following a year of operation, the Integrity Commissioner conduct a review and make recommendations on the operations of the Registry. As noted earlier in the report, staff recommends that part of this review include an analysis of the disclosure requirements. Staff will provide the Integrity Commissioner with all research gathered to date. 10. Going Forward and Implementation Shortly after the consideration of the proposed model and the direction to staff for further review, staff in the City Clerk and Solicitor Department began a dialogue with staff in the Information Technology Services Department (ITS) regarding what sort of application could be developed that respected the main tenets of a lobbyist registry identified in the initial staff report, incorporated the direction to staff from the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee and observed the previous direction to establish a low-cost registry within existing budgets. As part of this dialogue, City Clerk and ITS staff connected with the Lobbyist Registrar‟s Office in the City of Toronto to better understand not only the tool used in Toronto but also the behind the scenes administration involved. Part of this exchange included an examination of the viability of implementing the Toronto Lobbyist Registry tool here in Ottawa. Staff discovered that the Toronto Lobbyist Registry system was created inhouse based explicitly on the Lobbyist Registry By-law approved by Council. This meant that Toronto‟s Lobbyist Registry tool was specifically customized and did not lend itself well to adaptation. Unless the City of Ottawa was prepared to implement the Lobbyist Registry tool in its present form, a significant amount of staff resources and IT infrastructure (e.g. software licences, hardware, etc) would be necessary. Subsequently, the project team assessed whether there were any in-house solutions that could fairly easily be adapted to the requirements of a bilingual Lobbyist Registry. An in-house solution has been identified and staff has begun to develop the basic structure. Staff has continued to work on the development of the application based on the direction from the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee and will refine the final application based on Council‟s final decision of the requirements of the Lobbyist Registry. Particular emphasis has been placed on ensuring that the application is easy to use both for those required to register and disclose lobbying activity as well as those searching the Registry. Depending on the final requirements approved by Council, staff anticipates that the Lobbyist Registry could be operational by the end of August 2012. It is therefore recommended that the Lobbyist Registry By-law come into effect on September 1, 2012 to coincide with the effective date of the Council Code of Conduct and the Integrity Commissioner.

21 In addition to the tool, staff learned that the administrative processes at the City of Toronto are somewhat onerous. The Lobbyist Registrar‟s Office includes a staff complement of seven people including the Lobbyist Registrar herself. The workflow of lobbyist and subject matter registrations require a fair amount of intervention from staff including approvals/refusals and follow-up that would not be possible if the administration of the registry was to be low-cost. The Toronto Lobbyist Registrar‟s Office has a budget of just over $1 million in 2012. For the City of Ottawa, it is anticipated that Clerk‟s staff will be repurposed (should Council decide to streamline the current Advisory Committee structure) to help support the Integrity Commissioner. As the implementation of the Lobbyist Registry will present a learning curve for many stakeholders, the City Clerk‟s Office will work with the Integrity Commissioner to prepare information and educational material to ensure that the Registry is simple, straightforward and easy to use.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS There are no rural implications associated with this report.

CONSULTATION The original report on the proposed Lobbyist Registry (ACS2011-CMR-CCB-0091) was tabled with the Governance Renewal Sub-Committee on November 18, 2011 and considered by the Sub-Committee on December 1, 2011 to allow for the public review and comment. The Governance Renewal Sub-Committee heard from fourteen delegations and received a significant amount of correspondence on the proposed model.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S) This is a city wide report.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no legal impediments to implementing the recommendations in this report.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS There are no risk management implications associated with this report.

22 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no additional financial implications associated with this report. The solution that has been developed by Information Technology Services has been built in-house and does not require the purchase of any additional hardware or software. There is a cost associated with the appointment of the Integrity Commissioner assigned to oversee the Lobbyist Registry which is outlined in an accompanying report. The Integrity Commissioner will be funded out of existing budgets, predicated on Council approval of recommendations in the report related to the restructuring of Advisory Committees. Specifically, $190,000 will be applied to support the Accountability Framework (including the remuneration of the Integrity Commissioner).

ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS The online solution that will be used for the Lobbyist Registry is in a web accessible format.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications associated with this report.

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS Information Technology Services was successful in finding an in-house solution that could be reworked for the purposes of a Lobbyist Registry. ITS staff has been working in conjunction with City Clerk‟s staff to begin development on the basic structure of the Registry which will be refined following Council‟s approval of the specific requirements.

TERM OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES This report supports the Term of Council Priority related to Governance, Planning and Decision Making (GP1: Improve the public‟s confidence in and satisfaction with the way Council works).

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Document 1 – Draft By-law (including Lobbyist Code of Conduct) Document 2 – Original Lobbyist Registry Report (ACS2011-CMR-CCB-0091)

DISPOSITION Upon Council approval, the City Clerk and Solicitor Department will continue to work with the ITS Department to develop and implement the Lobbyist Registry solution.

23 Document 1A DRAFT BY-LAW A by-law of the City of Ottawa to establish a lobbyist registry and establish the position and duties of the Lobbyist Registrar of the City of Ottawa. The Council of the City of Ottawa enacts as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS In this by-law, (1) “Business Day” means a day when the offices of the City are open during its regular hours of business, other than a Saturday or a Sunday or other holiday. (2) “Code of Conduct” means the Lobbyists‟ Code of Conduct set out in Appendix “A”. (3) “Communication” means any substantive form of communication including a formal meeting, email, letter or phone call. (4) “Grass-roots communication” means an organized effort to solicit the public to contact legislators to influence a specific outcome for legislation. (5) “Lobby” means any communication with a public office holder by an individual who is paid or who represents a business or financial interest with the goal of trying to influence any legislative action including development, introduction, passage, defeat, amendment or repeal of a by-law, motion, resolution or the outcome of a decision on any matter before Council, a Committee of Council, or a Ward Councillor or staff member acting under delegated authority. These communications can take place at any time, in both a formal and informal setting. (6) “Lobbyist” means, (a) Consultant lobbyist: an individual who lobbies for payment on behalf of a client (another individual, company, partnership or organization). Additionally, if the consultant lobbyist arranges for a meeting between a public office holder and a third party, that is lobbying. (b) In-house lobbyist: an individual who is an employee, partner or sole proprietor and who lobbies on behalf of their own employer, business or organization. (c) Voluntary unpaid lobbyist: an individual who lobbies without payment on

24 behalf of a business or for-profit organization for the benefit of the interests of the for-profit entity or organization. Additionally, if the voluntary unpaid lobbyist arranges a meeting between a public office holder and a third party, that is lobbying. (7)

“Public Office Holder” means (a) A Member of City Council and any person on his or her staff; (a) A citizen member of the Transit Commission; and, (b) An officer or employee of the City and specifically the following: i.

The City Manager, the Deputy City Managers, the City Treasurer and the City Clerk and Solicitor;

ii.

The City‟s Auditor General and Meetings Investigator;

iii.

A general manager, director or manager;

iv.

A person authorized to act in the place of an official listed in Subsections (a) to (c) by Council or by the City Manager or another official under delegated authority;

v.

Employees in other management positions who are in a position to influence programs and services and have direct contact with Members of Council or the Transit Commission;

vi.

Employees who are not in management positions but who are in direct contact with Members of Council or the Transit Commission and whose work for the City includes the following: Advice to Members of Council, to Council or the Transit Commission, including, but not limited to, employees who provide legal, financial, personnel and policy advice; and Approval or enforcement services, including, but not limited to, employees who provide planning, building, licensing, inspection, grants and purchasing services;

vii.

Employees who are in direct contact with Members of Council in the operation of Council, Committees of Council and the Transit Commission; and

viii.

Employees who work on municipal elections in a supervisory capacity or who are employed in the Elections Branch of the City Clerk and Solicitor Department.

25 (8) “Senior Public Office Holder” means, (a) A Member of City Council and any person on his or her staff; (b) A citizen member of the Transit Commission; and (c) The following officers and employees of the City:

PART I

i.

The City Manager, the Deputy City Managers, the City Treasurer and the City Clerk and Solicitor; and

ii.

A general manager or director. ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOBBYIST REGISTRY

2. GENERAL (1) The Lobbyist Registry is established pursuant to Section 223.9 of Part V.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001. (2) The City Clerk and Solicitor Department shall develop and maintain a registry, under the oversight of the Registrar, in which shall be kept all registrations and returns filed under this by-law. (3) The registry shall be available for public inspection through electronic, webbased access at all reasonable times. 3. EXEMPTED PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS This by-law does not apply to the following persons when acting in their public capacity: (1) Government or public sector, other than the City, (a) Members of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada, the legislative assembly of a province, the council or legislative assembly of a territory, or persons on the staff of the members; (b) Members of a First Nation council as defined in the Indian Act or of the council of an Indian band established by an Act of the Parliament of Canada, or persons on the staff of the members; (c) Employees of the Government of Canada, the government of a province or territory, or a First Nation council; (d) Members of a council or other statutory body, including a local board, charged

26 with the administration of the civil or municipal affairs of a municipality in Canada other than the City, persons on staff of the members, or officers or employees of the municipality or local board; and (e) Members of a national or sub-national foreign government, persons on the staff of the members, or officers, employees, diplomatic agents, consular officers or official representatives in Canada of the government. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the following school boards: (a) Ottawa-Carleton District School Board; (b) Ottawa Catholic School Board; (c) Conseil des écoles publiques de l‟Est de l‟Ontario; and (d) Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (3) Officials and employees of the City and other municipal bodies : (a) Public office holders; (b) Officers, directors or employees of a local board of the City and acting in their public capacity; and (c) A member of an Advisory Committee, acting in their public capacity and appointed by City Council. 4. RESTRICTION OF APPLICATION FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES This by-law does not apply to the following activities: (1) Communication that is a matter of the public record or occurs during a meeting of Council, a Committee of Council or the Transit Commission. (2) Communication that occurs during a public process such as a public meeting, hearing, consultation, open house or media event held or sponsored by the City or a public office holder or related to an application. (3) Advocacy communication for or against a policy or program that state a position where the primary focus is a broad community benefit or detriment, whether citywide or local. (4) Communication that is restricted to a request for information. (5) Communication that is restricted to compliments or complaints about a service or program.

27

(6) Communication with a public office holder by an individual on behalf of an individual, business or organization about: (a) The enforcement, interpretation or application of any Act or by-law by the public office holder and with respect to the individual, business or organization. (b) The implementation or administration of any policy, program, directive or guideline by the public office holder and with respect to the individual, business, organization. (c) A personal matter of the individual, business or organization unless it is communication that is in respect of a matter that falls under the definition of lobbying, that is for the special benefit of the individual, business or organization. (7) Communication by an applicant, an interested party or their representatives with respect to an application for a service, grant, planning approval, permit or other license or permission: (a) With an employee of the City or a Member of Council if the communication is restricted to providing general information on an application, including a proposed or pending application, or to inquire about the application review process. (b) With an employee of the City if the communication is part of the normal course of the approval process. (c) With respect to planning and development applications, if the communication is with an employee of the City who has a role in the processing of a planning application during the formal pre-application consultation, the filing of the application and the application review process, including the preparation of development agreements. (8) Submitting a bid proposal as part of the procurement process and any communication with designated employees of the City as permitted in the procurement policies and procurement documents of the City. (9) Communication with a public office holder by an individual on behalf of an individual, business or organization in direct response to a written request from the public office holder. (10) Communication to a Member of Council by a constituent of the Member of Council, or an individual on behalf of a constituent of the Member of Council on a general neighbourhood or public policy issue.

28 5. GRASSROOTS EXEMPTION PERIOD (1) If a lobbyist has registered the intention to lobby a public office holder by means of a grassroots communication, the Integrity Commissioner may approve an exemption period and shall specify the period in writing. (2) The Integrity Commissioner may approve extensions to the exemption period approved under subsection (1). (3) Before approving an exemption period under subsection (1) or an extension of an exemption period under subsection (2), the Integrity Commissioner may require additional information on the proposed grassroots communication necessary to provide for additional transparency in the use of this communication technique. (4) During the exemption period approved under subsection (1) and any extension approved under subsection (2), communications with a public office holder by the members of the public targeted by the grassroots communication do not have to be registered, if the communication is in support of the particular opinion in the grassroots communication and is direct result of the grassroots communication. (5) Except as provided in subsection (4), a member of the public must comply with the registration requirements of this by-law to communicate with a public office holder on a subject matter, unless the member of the public or the communication is otherwise exempt from the registration requirements. PART II

REGISTRATION AND REPORTING OF LOBBYING ACTIVITY

6. CONTINGENCY FEES PROHIBITION (1) A person, on whose behalf another person undertakes lobbying activities, shall not make a payment for the lobbying activities that is in whole or in part contingent on the successful outcome of any lobbying activities. (2) A person who lobbies a public office holder shall not receive payment that is in whole or in part contingent on the successful outcome of any lobbying activities. 7. LOBBYISTS (1) All lobbyists shall file a return regarding a specific lobbying undertaking within fifteen (15) business days of the undertaking commencing. (2) Consultant lobbyists shall identify in the return the client for which the lobbying has been undertaken. (3) Lobbyists shall disclose if they have held a senior position at the City and the date the individual ceased to hold the position.

29 (4) Lobbyists shall disclose if they hold a position on a local board of the City. PART III

AUTHORITY OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AS REGISTRAR

8. APPOINTMENT OF INTEGRITY COMMISSER AS REGISTRAR (1) The City of Ottawa Integrity Commissioner is appointed as the Lobbyist Registrar in accordance with section 223.11 of the Municipal Act, 2001. (2) If the Office of the Integrity Commissioner is vacant, the City Clerk and Solicitor is authorized to assume the role of Registrar for an interim period. 9. ACCOUNTABILITY (1) As the Registrar, the Integrity Commissioner is independent of the City administration. (2) The Integrity Commissioner shall report to City Council, or to a Committee of Council as may be directed by City Council. 10. RESPONSIBILITIES The Integrity Commissioner is responsible for: (1) Overseeing the administration of the lobbyist registration system; (2) Providing advice, opinions and interpretations pertaining to the administration, application and enforcement of this by-law; (3) Conducting, in private, investigations or inquiries to determine whether contraventions of this by-law have occurred, as permitted under section 223.12 of the Municipal Act, 2001; (4) Suspending or revoking a registration; (5) The enforcement of this by-law; (6) Advising Council on lobbying matters and recommending improvements and amendments to this by-law; (7) Providing an annual report to Council and any periodic reports and information as the Registrar considers appropriate; and (8) Performing other duties as may be assigned by Council.

30 PART IV

SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES

11. REFUSAL TO ACCEPT OR SUSPEND REGISTRATION OR RETURN (1) The Integrity Commissioner may impose a temporary ban on communication in accordance with the following scheme if the Integrity Commissioner finds that the requirements of this by-law have not been met: i. First breach: the Lobbyist is banned from communicating with public office holders for one month; ii. Second breach: the Lobbyist is banned from communicating with public office holders for three months; and iii. Third breach: The Integrity Commissioner to determine an appropriate sanction. (2) If the Integrity Commissioner decides to impose a temporary ban on communication, the Integrity Commissioner shall inform the individual of the suspension and the reason for the suspension in the manner that the Integrity Commissioner determines. (3) If the Integrity Commissioner imposes a temporary ban on communication, the Integrity Commissioner shall notify all Senior Public Office Holders and notice of the temporary ban shall be posted on the city‟s website. 12. REMOVAL FROM REGISTRY (1) The Integrity Commissioner may remove a registration or return from the registry if the individual who filed the registration or return if the Integrity Commissioner finds that the lobbyist has not complied with the requirements of this by-law. (2) When a registration or return is removed from the registry, the individual who filed it shall be deemed, for the purposes of his or her existing and future obligations under this by-law, not to have filed the registration or return. 13. REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES Pursuant to subsection 223.12(7), should the Integrity Commissioner determine, when conducting an inquiry, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has contravened any other Act or the Criminal Code (Canada), the Integrity Commissioner shall immediately refer the matter to the appropriate authorities and suspend the inquiry pending the outcome of any resulting police investigation.

31 DOCUMENT 1B Appendix “A” LOBBYISTS‟ CODE OF CONDUCT Lobbyists are expected to comply with the standards of behaviour for lobbyists and the conduct of lobbying activities set out in this Code of Conduct when lobbying public office holders. 1. HONESTY Lobbyists shall conduct with integrity and honesty all relations with public office holders, clients, employers, the public and other lobbyists. 2. OPENNESS Lobbyists shall, at all times, be open and frank about their lobbying activities, while respecting confidentiality. 3. DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITY AND PURPOSE (1) Lobbyists communicating with a public office holder shall disclose the identity of the individual or organization on whose behalf they are acting, as well as the reasons for the communication. (2) Lobbyists shall register the subject matter of all communication with public office holders that constitutes lobbying under the Lobbyist Registry By-law. 4. INFORMATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY (1) Lobbyists shall inform their client, employer or organization of the obligations under the Lobbyist Registry By-law and their obligation to adhere to the Lobbyists‟ Code of Conduct. (2) Lobbyists shall provide information that is accurate and factual to public office holders. (3) Lobbyists shall not knowingly mislead anyone and shall use proper care to avoid doing so inadvertently. (4) Lobbyists shall not divulge confidential information unless they have obtained the informed consent of their client, employer or organization, or disclosure is required by law. (5) Lobbyists shall not use any confidential or other insider information obtained in the course of their lobbying activities to the disadvantage of their client, employer

32 or organization. 5. COMPETING INTERESTS (1) Lobbyists shall not represent conflicting or competing interests without the written consent of those whose interests are involved. (2) Lobbyists shall advise public office holders that they have informed their clients of any actual, potential or apparent conflict of interest and obtained the informed consent of each client concerned before proceeding or continuing with the undertaking. (3) Lobbyists shall not lobby public office holders on a subject matter for which they also provide advice to the City. 6. IMPROPER INFLUENCE (1) Lobbyists shall avoid both the deed and the appearance of impropriety. (2) Lobbyists shall not knowingly place public office holders in a conflict of interest or in breach of the public office holders‟ codes of conduct or standards of behaviour.