Ontario is in the early stages of open season on lobbyists. And by the time it's over, the role of their profession in provincial politics may have changed dramatically.
Seeking to paint Dalton McGuinty's second-term government as beholden to insiders, the opposition has submitted reams of Freedom of Information requests. The aim is largely to give the impression that organizations reliant on public dollars, such as hospitals, are spending large sums to buy access.
Some such claims have already surfaced; in late August, for instance, it was reported that Mississauga's Credit Valley Hospital is paying tens of thousands of dollars to former senior Liberal staffers at StrategyCorp to lobby the provincial Health Ministry. (One of the lobbyists, Andrew Steele, writes a blog for The Globe and Mail's website.) While the opposition focused most of its attention on controversies about energy billing during the first week of the legislature's fall sitting, other lobbying stories will crop up before long.
It's expected that Andrea Horwath's New Democrats will lead the way in bringing those stories to light. That's partly because, having been nowhere near government since 1995, the third-place NDP is the only party entirely comfortable with this topic. But the other two parties seem poised to respond by engaging in a contest to prove which is more committed to accountability.
Seeking to capitalize on any controversy, Tim Hudak's Conservatives will probably put forward an approximation of the sweeping Accountability Act brought in by their federal cousins when they took power in 2006. It's unlikely they'll propose the same ban on lobbying for fully five years after leaving government - a measure that's had a negative effect on the calibre of staff Ottawa's politicians can attract. But that doesn't mean the Tories won't promise to erect some modified firewall, while mimicking other aspects of the Accountability Act such as fundraising restrictions and stronger enforcement powers for watchdogs. (Helpfully, Mr. Hudak can seek the counsel of friend and former provincial colleague John Baird, the federal minister who introduced the legislation.)
Hoping to avoid being put too far on the defensive, the Liberals will likely try to pre-empt opposition promises by announcing new accountability measures of their own. What those will involve remains unclear. But one obvious possibility is restricting the hiring of lobbyists by publicly funded organizations.
It's good politics to target lobbyists. Although they can play a useful role helping outsiders navigate their way through Byzantine layers of government, it's a profession for which there's little public sympathy. But whether targeting them will prove good policy is less certain.
Arguably the biggest challenge in regulating lobbyists is to determine who is and isn't lobbying. At present, it seems to be left largely up to those doing the work whether or not they disclose it, because it's very hard to prove that a well-connected "consultant" - or a staff member hired on a full-time basis for his or her connections - isn't pulling some strings.
There's already some disincentive to be forthcoming, because it's easy for media and opposition to check the registry and make hay about what they find. That will be all the more the case if there are new restrictions on what registered lobbyists can do. So unless the government finds a way to weed out those who don't disclose, it risks driving more influential people underground - something believed to have happened, to some extent, in post-Accountability Act Ottawa.
There's a danger, in other words, of new rules creating more problems than they solve. The lobbying industry is too murky and complex to lend itself to quick fixes. But in the year before an election, neither government nor opposition tend to be known for their patience.
Adam Radwanski