Local issues. Ontario-wide lessons. Follow County First on Facebook.
Word on the Street: Snippets | Bruce | Dufferin | Elgin | Frontenac | Grey | Haliburton | Hastings | Huron | Kawartha Lakes | Lanark | Leeds & Grenville | Lennox & Addington | Middlesex | Norfolk | Northumberland | Oxford | Perth | Peterborough | Prince Edward | Renfrew | Simcoe | Wellington
Toronto recorded 6,905 lobbying communications in 2025. The Blue Mountains publishes details of lobbying by developers, community organizations and ratepayer associations. Yet residents in many Ontario communities cannot readily assemble a comparable record of who is seeking to influence municipal decisions. County First examines what a lobbyist registry can reveal, what it costs, and whether smaller municipalities should consider one.
County First | All Counties Investigation | October 2026
Executive Summary — What Residents Should Know
What is a lobbyist registry?
A municipal lobbyist registry is a public record of specified communications intended to influence municipal government decisions. Depending on local rules, it can identify the lobbyist, represented organization, subject matter, public official contacted, communication date and method of contact.[1]
Lobbying itself is a lawful and often valuable part of democratic participation. Registration does not imply misconduct.
What is happening in other Ontario municipalities?
Toronto’s Lobbyist Registrar reported 6,905 lobbying communications in 2025. The Blue Mountains, a smaller municipality in Grey County, launched a registry in November 2024. Collingwood, in Simcoe County, has operated one since January 2020.[2][3][4]
These examples demonstrate that lobbying disclosure is not confined to Ontario’s largest cities.
Does Prince Edward County have a registry?
PEC has a Council Code of Conduct and an Integrity Commissioner. County First did not identify a separate public lobbyist registry in the County’s accountability materials examined for this article.[5]
That finding does not establish that the County lacks internal meeting records, that its officials have breached any requirement, or that a registry is currently mandated by law.
Can PEC legally establish a registry?
Yes. Sections 223.9–223.11 of Ontario’s Municipal Act, 2001 authorize municipalities to create lobbying registration systems, define registrable activities, establish exemptions and appoint independent registrars.[6]
The decision to establish such a system remains discretionary.
Would ordinary residents have to register to contact councillors?
Not necessarily. Municipalities can exempt routine constituent inquiries, public presentations and other specified activities. PEC could design a system focused on organized attempts to influence particular decisions rather than every conversation with an elected representative.
Does a recorded meeting prove influence?
No. A lobbying record identifies a reportable communication. It does not establish whether the official agreed with the lobbyist, whether a decision was changed or whether anyone acted improperly.
What should county residents be asking?
Which attempts to influence important municipal decisions are already visible in public records, which are not, and whether additional disclosure would provide enough public benefit to justify its costs.
What Ontario’s Largest Lobbyist Registry Revealed in One Year
Ontario municipalities make decisions involving billions of dollars in infrastructure, land development, procurement, housing, roads and public services.
Businesses, developers, unions, associations, charities and individual residents all have reasons to communicate with municipal officials about those decisions.
But how much of that communication becomes visible to the wider public?
Toronto provides an unusually detailed example.
Its Lobbyist Registrar’s 2025 Annual Report, presented to City Council in July 2026, records 6,905 reported lobbying communications across categories of public office holders.[2]
The report also provides information about registrations, subject matters, municipal divisions contacted and compliance activity.
Table 1. Toronto’s reported lobbying activity, 2025
| Indicator | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Lobbying communications reported | 6,905 |
| Communications involving City staff | 2,437 |
| Communications involving councillors’ staff | 2,336 |
| Communications involving councillors | 1,738 |
| Communications involving local-board employees | 367 |
| Communications involving local-board members | 27 |
| Registrar’s revised 2025 operating budget | $1.437 million |
Source: Toronto Lobbyist Registrar, 2025 Annual Report.[2]
The figures describe reported activity under Toronto’s own regulatory definitions. They should not be interpreted as the total number of informal contacts involving municipal officials or compared directly with another municipality operating under different rules.
The staffing distribution is revealing. Lobbying is not limited to elected councillors. Municipal employees and councillors’ staff receive substantial attention from registered lobbyists.
That makes sense. Technical recommendations, procurement requirements, infrastructure studies and proposed policies are often developed by administrators before they reach Council.
A registry can provide visibility into qualifying representations directed at those stages of government decision-making.
The question for smaller Ontario municipalities is whether some of that transparency could be achieved through a less costly system.
The More Surprising Example Is in Grey County
The Town of The Blue Mountains adopted a municipal lobbyist registry on November 12, 2024, followed by an education period before enforcement began in May 2025.[3]
The Town’s online records identify lobbyists, affiliations, officials contacted, subject matters and descriptions of communications.
Its disclosed entries demonstrate that lobbying is not confined to commercial developers.
For example, the registry contains entries concerning the Blue Mountain Ratepayers’ Association and discussions involving planning policy, infrastructure, municipal strategy and sustainability.
Other entries concern developers, tourism interests, historical organizations, housing initiatives and short-term-accommodation policies.
Table 2. Examples of subjects disclosed in The Blue Mountains registry
| Type of interest | Examples of disclosed subjects |
|---|---|
| Ratepayer associations | Official Plan review, municipal strategy and infrastructure |
| Development interests | Planning policies, development charges and servicing |
| Housing organizations | Long-term rental housing proposals |
| Historical organizations | Heritage signs and municipal support |
| Short-term-accommodation interests | Licensing and regulatory policy |
| Environmental interests | Sustainability initiatives |
Source: Town of The Blue Mountains, public Lobbyist Registry, entries available in 2025–2026.[3]
These entries do not establish that any listed organization acted improperly. They record declared communications under the Town’s framework.
The example also exposes a difficult policy choice.
If a municipality requires commercial developers to disclose organized lobbying, should ratepayer associations advocating opposing positions face similar obligations?
Consistent treatment can strengthen transparency, but it can also impose administrative burdens on volunteer organizations.
That is why the definition of lobbying matters as much as the existence of a registry.
Collingwood Shows That Smaller Municipalities Can Operate a Registry
Collingwood established its lobbyist registry on January 20, 2020.[4]
It recognizes consultant lobbyists, in-house lobbyists and certain voluntary unpaid lobbyists. Registrable communications can include meetings, telephone calls and emails.
Qualifying lobbying activity must generally be reported within ten business days of the initial communication.
The Town also requires specified information concerning the lobbyist’s identity, represented interest, subject, public office holder contacted and communication period.
Collingwood’s framework demonstrates that a municipality need not replicate Toronto’s administrative structure to require disclosure.
But adopting a registry involves more than launching a form on a website.
The municipality must explain the rules, determine exemptions, review registrations, address errors, provide oversight and maintain public access.
Those functions carry costs even when administrative work is contracted or shared.
Five Municipal Approaches to Lobbying Disclosure
Ontario municipalities have not adopted a single uniform model.
Some require registration before lobbying occurs. Others allow disclosure after a qualifying communication.
The distinction affects both compliance and administrative burden.
Table 3. Selected Ontario municipal lobbyist registries
| Municipality | Start date | Disclosure model | Relevant feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Toronto | 2008 | Registration before lobbying, with communications subsequently disclosed | Extensive searchable data and independent registrar |
| Ottawa | September 2012 | Disclosure within 15 business days | Centralized electronic registration |
| Hamilton | August 2015 | Registration at least one business day before communication | Advance-registration requirement |
| Brampton | January 2016 | Public lobbying disclosures | Separate public gift and hospitality registry |
| Collingwood | January 2020 | Within ten business days | Smaller-municipality model |
| The Blue Mountains | November 2024 | Within ten business days | Rural and tourism-community example |
Sources: Official municipal registry and by-law materials.[1][3][4][7][8][9]
These are operating examples, not evidence that any particular model is more effective.
A system requiring advance registration can encourage early transparency but may complicate spontaneous conversations.
A system permitting disclosure afterward may be simpler to use, while requiring reliable monitoring to ensure records are filed.
Ontario law allows municipalities to design the details within their statutory authority.
Prince Edward County Already Has Accountability Rules. What Would a Registry Add?
Prince Edward County publishes its Council Code of Conduct and identifies Boghosian + Allen LLP as its Integrity Commissioner.[5]
The Integrity Commissioner addresses specified responsibilities relating to Council conduct and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
Those functions should not be confused with lobbyist registration.
A Council member may comply fully with the Code of Conduct while meeting representatives who advocate particular policy choices.
Likewise, a lobbyist may communicate lawfully with municipal staff without creating a conflict of interest.
The separate question is whether qualifying communications should be recorded in a standardized public database.
That would provide residents with information that may not be evident from Council minutes or ordinary planning application records.
It could also help officials and organizations demonstrate that particular interactions were part of a documented, transparent process.
The existence of a meeting, however, is not proof that a decision was influenced or that the meeting required disclosure under any law currently applicable to PEC.
The Legal Distinction: A Private Meeting Is Not Necessarily a Closed Council Meeting
Some transparency debates assume that all private discussions involving councillors should be publicly recorded.
Ontario law is more specific.
Section 239 of the Municipal Act establishes the general open-meeting requirement for municipal councils, local boards and committees, subject to statutory exceptions.[6]
That framework is different from the rules governing private communications between an individual official and an outside organization.
In London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc., 2007 SCC 29, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the quashing of an interim control by-law where the municipality had breached applicable open-meeting requirements.[10]
The decision reinforces the importance of observing statutory transparency obligations.
It does not establish that every individual discussion between an elected official and a resident, consultant or business must occur publicly.
A lobbyist registry addresses a separate accountability question: identifying specified communications intended to influence municipal decisions.
These mechanisms are complementary.
Table 4. Different forms of municipal accountability
| Mechanism | Principal function |
|---|---|
| Open-meeting legislation | Public access to qualifying Council and committee proceedings |
| Code of Conduct | Standards governing the conduct of members within its scope |
| Municipal Conflict of Interest Act | Obligations concerning specified pecuniary interests |
| Access-to-information legislation | Rights to request municipal records, subject to exemptions |
| Lobbyist registry | Disclosure of qualifying lobbying communications |
| Gifts and hospitality registry | Disclosure of specified benefits received by public office holders |
A lobbyist registry would not replace existing requirements. Nor would it establish that existing officials had failed to comply with the law before the registry was adopted.
The Question of Development and Infrastructure
Planning and infrastructure decisions are among the most consequential choices made by many rural municipalities.
A new subdivision can affect local roads, water and wastewater infrastructure, servicing capacity and long-term financial obligations.
It is normal for developers to communicate with municipal staff about technical requirements. It is equally legitimate for ratepayer groups and environmental organizations to advocate policies they believe serve the community.
A registry should distinguish the ordinary technical administration of an application from registrable attempts to influence broader municipal decisions.
For example, answering a planner’s request for a missing engineering drawing should not automatically be treated as lobbying.
A separate representation seeking a change to infrastructure financing policy, development-charge treatment or an applicable municipal by-law may raise a different question.
The precise distinction would depend on the wording of the adopted registry by-law.
For PEC, the objective should be to make qualifying organized advocacy visible without making ordinary planning administration unnecessarily difficult.
The Problem With Registering Every Conversation
A poorly designed lobbyist registry could discourage participation rather than improve transparency.
Consider a resident asking a councillor about a pothole, a farmer discussing drainage, or a volunteer seeking clarification about a municipal program.
Those interactions should not automatically generate formal reporting obligations merely because government policy is discussed.
Public deputations and statutory planning submissions also operate through established procedures and may already be disclosed through public records.
The County should examine exemptions for such activities while preserving consistent treatment of organized advocacy.
Table 5. A possible proportional approach for PEC and similar municipalities
| Communication | Possible treatment |
|---|---|
| Ordinary resident service inquiry | Exempt |
| Public Council deputation | Exempt from duplicate registration |
| Submission made through a statutory planning process | Exempt from duplicative reporting, subject to precise rules |
| Routine technical exchange during application processing | Generally outside lobbying registration |
| Paid consultant privately advocating a policy amendment | Registrable |
| Business association lobbying for infrastructure or regulatory changes | Registrable |
| Organized residents’ association privately advocating a particular policy decision | Consider proportionate registration based on defined scope |
| Personal or incidental conversation with no lobbying purpose | Exempt |
| Private discussion of a confidential matter | Apply lawful disclosure and confidentiality protections |
These are proposed policy distinctions, not statements of existing PEC law.
The most difficult category is organized unpaid advocacy.
The Blue Mountains’ experience shows that a registry can capture such communications. Whether PEC should adopt the same breadth requires public consultation and consideration of compliance burdens.
What Does Transparency Cost?
The 2025 Toronto Lobbyist Registrar operating budget was originally approved at $1.420 million and later adjusted to $1.437 million.[2]
That figure supports a comprehensive office in Canada’s largest municipality. It is not a defensible estimate for Prince Edward County.
Small municipalities have fewer resources and different organizational structures.
Before creating a registry, Council should examine several options, including the use of existing municipal software, a contracted registrar, shared administration and a phased implementation.
Table 6. A practical PEC registry business case
| Cost or design decision | Evidence Council should obtain |
|---|---|
| Technology | Setup, hosting, security and ongoing maintenance quotations |
| Administration | Estimated registrations and review hours |
| Registrar | Independent oversight arrangements and annual costs |
| Legal drafting | By-law preparation and exemption design |
| Training | Staff, elected official and public education |
| Enforcement | Complaint handling, review and appeal procedures |
| Reporting | Annual publication and record-retention costs |
| Evaluation | Two-year review of usage, benefits and compliance |
No reliable PEC-specific implementation cost has been established in the records reviewed for this article.
It would be premature to describe a lobbyist registry as inexpensive without obtaining actual estimates.
What Should a Public Registry Reveal?
A proportionate registry could identify the lobbyist, the organization or client represented, the decision or policy concerned, the official contacted and the date and method of the communication.
It need not publish complete meeting transcripts or every document exchanged.
Privacy, solicitor-client privilege, protected commercial information and statutory confidentiality obligations must be considered.
Ontario’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act establishes relevant access and privacy rules for municipal records.[11]
A registry should be designed to disclose useful public information without unnecessarily exposing personal or legally protected material.
The 22-County Question: Who Actually Controls the Decision?
County First covers 22 Ontario county regions, but they do not share identical municipal structures.
Prince Edward County, Norfolk County and the City of Kawartha Lakes are single-tier governments.
Most other regions contain separate lower-tier municipalities responsible for local planning, zoning and other functions, alongside upper-tier county responsibilities.
For example, The Blue Mountains is a lower-tier municipality in Grey County. Collingwood is a lower-tier municipality in Simcoe County.
A county government and its local municipalities may have separate councils, staff, policies and potential lobbying activities.
Consequently, a comparison of lobbying transparency must identify which municipal institution makes the decision.
Table 7. County First’s Ontario comparison coverage
| County First region | Municipal governments or areas to examine |
|---|---|
| Bruce | Saugeen Shores, Kincardine, South Bruce Peninsula |
| Dufferin | Orangeville, Shelburne, Mono |
| Elgin | Central Elgin, Aylmer, Bayham |
| Frontenac | South Frontenac, Central Frontenac, Frontenac Islands |
| Grey | The Blue Mountains, Meaford, Grey Highlands, Owen Sound |
| Haliburton | Dysart et al, Minden Hills, Highlands East |
| Hastings | Bancroft, Centre Hastings, other local municipalities |
| Huron | Central Huron, South Huron, Bluewater |
| Kawartha Lakes | City of Kawartha Lakes |
| Lanark | Perth, Carleton Place, Mississippi Mills |
| Leeds & Grenville | North Grenville, Rideau Lakes, Leeds and the Thousand Islands |
| Lennox & Addington | Loyalist, Greater Napanee, Stone Mills |
| Middlesex | Strathroy-Caradoc, Middlesex Centre, Thames Centre |
| Norfolk | Norfolk County |
| Northumberland | Brighton, Cobourg, Port Hope, Trent Hills |
| Oxford | Woodstock, Tillsonburg, Ingersoll |
| Perth | North Perth, Perth East, West Perth |
| Peterborough | Selwyn, Trent Lakes, Havelock-Belmont-Methuen |
| Prince Edward | Prince Edward County |
| Renfrew | Arnprior, Renfrew, Petawawa |
| Simcoe | Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Tiny, Innisfil |
| Wellington | Centre Wellington, Wellington North, Guelph/Eramosa |
This table identifies County First’s research coverage. It does not establish whether every listed municipality presently has or lacks a lobbyist registry.
A complete comparison would require verification of each municipality’s current by-laws, public records and governance arrangements.
Five Measures for a Municipal Lobbying-Transparency Comparison
A meaningful comparison should avoid assigning simplistic labels such as transparent or secretive based solely on the presence or absence of a registry.
Municipalities may publish different types of information or operate under different service arrangements.
County First proposes five factual indicators.
Table 8. Municipal lobbying disclosure framework
| Indicator | What should be recorded |
|---|---|
| Registry availability | Whether a current municipal by-law establishes a lobbyist registry |
| Scope of disclosure | Which lobbyists, officials and communications are covered |
| Public accessibility | Whether records can be searched and downloaded |
| Oversight | Who reviews registrations and enforces the rules |
| Performance reporting | Whether annual activity, costs and compliance results are published |
Such a framework would allow residents to examine the evidence without assuming that a municipality without a registry is necessarily less ethical or that a municipality with a registry is free from misconduct.
A Registry Is Not a Substitute for Good Government
The case for lobbying disclosure should be assessed alongside its limitations.
Registration does not establish whether a public official acted properly, whether an argument was persuasive or whether a final decision was correct.
An incomplete registry may give a false impression of transparency. A complex registry may discourage participation. An expensive system may deliver little public benefit if records are difficult to search or enforce.
Conversely, a well-designed system can make municipal advocacy more visible, support consistent practices and reduce reliance on speculation about private access.
The experience of The Blue Mountains and Collingwood shows that smaller municipalities can adopt operational registries.
Toronto’s published 2025 figures illustrate the type of analysis available when communications are systematically recorded.
Prince Edward County provides a useful starting point for asking whether an additional disclosure mechanism would improve an existing accountability framework.
One Town. One Lesson.
Residents should be able to communicate freely with their elected representatives, and municipalities should welcome information from organizations with differing perspectives.
The question is not whether lobbying should be permitted.
It is whether defined efforts to influence significant municipal decisions should be publicly recorded, with appropriate exemptions and independent oversight.
For Prince Edward County, the first step would be a documented assessment of existing disclosure practices, options for a proportionate registry and the estimated cost of implementation.
For other Ontario municipalities, the same questions apply, adjusted to their structure and responsibilities.
The most productive reform would create useful transparency without burdening ordinary civic participation.
What should residents be able to know about organized efforts to influence decisions at their own town hall?
That is a question every county can examine.
Footnotes and Primary Sources
[1] City of Toronto, Lobbyist Registrar — Registration and Disclosure Requirements. Official explanation of qualifying lobbying communications and the City’s disclosure system.
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer-service/accountability-officers/lobbyist-registrar/
[2] City of Toronto, 2025 Annual Report of the Lobbyist Registrar, July 22, 2026. Reports 6,905 lobbying communications in 2025, categories of public office holders contacted, compliance activities and the revised $1.437-million 2025 operating budget.
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-289788.pdf
[3] Town of The Blue Mountains, Lobbyist Registry. Registry established November 12, 2024; public records include lobbying by ratepayer associations, developers, community organizations and other interests.
https://www.thebluemountains.ca/town-hall/accountability-customer-service/lobbyist-registry
[4] Town of Collingwood, Lobbyist Registry. Established January 20, 2020. Explains lobbyist categories, searchable disclosure and ten-business-day reporting.
https://www.collingwood.ca/governance-engagement/lobbyist-registry
[5] Prince Edward County, Code of Conduct and Integrity Commissioner. Official information about the County’s existing accountability arrangements.
https://www.thecounty.ca/government/clerks-office/code-of-conduct-2/
[6] Government of Ontario, Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, particularly sections 223.9–223.11 concerning lobbyist registries and section 239 concerning open municipal meetings.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25
[7] City of Ottawa, Lobbyist Registry — Information About the Registry. Registry established September 1, 2012, with reporting within 15 business days.
https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/open-transparent-and-accountable-government/lobbyist-registry/information-about-registry
[8] City of Hamilton, Lobbyist Registry. Established under By-law 14-244, effective August 1, 2015. Requires registration at least one business day before qualifying communications.
https://www.hamilton.ca/city-council/accountability-transparency/lobbyist-registry
[9] City of Brampton, Lobbyist Registry and Gift Registry. Registries established January 1, 2016; explains their distinct disclosure purposes.
https://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/Lobbyist-Gift-Registries/Pages/Welcome.aspx
[10] Supreme Court of Canada, London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc., 2007 SCC 29, [2007] 2 SCR 588, June 21, 2007. Addresses an improperly closed municipal process and the statutory requirement for public Council meetings.
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/2368/1/document.do
[11] Government of Ontario, Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56. Statutory access-to-information and privacy protections applicable to municipal records.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m56
Methodology and Editorial Notice
This article examines public lobbying-disclosure systems, Ontario municipal legislation, official registry records and published municipal reports.
It distinguishes statutory requirements from policy proposals, recorded lobbying communications from proof of influence, and the presence or absence of a publicly identified registry from broader conclusions concerning municipal integrity.
The article does not allege that Prince Edward County, its councillors or employees, any developer, business, residents’ association or other person has engaged in undisclosed unlawful lobbying, improper influence or misconduct.
The comparative table identifies municipal jurisdictions for further examination. It does not constitute a verified inventory of registry status across all 22 county regions.
County First welcomes factual corrections, updated municipal by-laws, relevant disclosure records and substantive responses. Material new evidence will be evaluated and incorporated as appropriate.