As a debate about government transparency brews, David Peterson says he had nothing to do with Ontario’s about-face on mixed martial arts
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Aug. 17, 2010 11:17PM EDT
In Ontario political circles, most everyone has heard the rumour that David Peterson played a role in persuading Dalton McGuinty to open the door to mixed martial arts.
It’s not been hard to get that impression. Several news reports have explicitly said the former premier “lobbied” on behalf of Ultimate Fighting Championship, and his own law firm’s website actively highlighted one of those reports late last year.
Now, Mr. Peterson is vigorously denying that he did any such thing, telling The Globe and Mail on Tuesday that “I don’t lobby the Premier on anything.” Government officials back up his claim to have had no influence. It was Consumer Services Minister Sophia Aggelonitis, they insist, who helped persuade Mr. McGuinty to allow MMA. Mr. Peterson’s law firm is acknowledged to have been engaged last year, when the prospect first surfaced and was rejected, but not more recently in changing the Premier’s mind.
But it may be too late for Mr. Peterson to avoid getting caught up in a growing dispute over just what it means to be a lobbyist – and whether the government’s decision-making process is really as transparent as we’ve been led to believe.
Among registered lobbyists, there’s been considerable grousing about what they claim is a disturbing trend, in which some of the most influential government-relations help comes from people who trade on relationships without going through the motions of disclosing it. Even if that doesn’t include Mr. Peterson, they say it includes other senior Liberals, who have some of the best access and influence.
Since the late 1990s, provincial lobbyists have been expected to disclose who they’re lobbying, and on whose behalf, so that the information can be listed in a public registry. But it seems to be left to the discretion of lobbyists whether they want to bother registering, with inadequate penalties or public pressure to dissuade them from failing to do so.
“The media and opposition focus is on those who register,” one veteran lobbyist said this week. “It’s actually not the problem. Those who don’t are way worse.”
As evidence of the murkiness, critics point to a letter sent earlier this month by the Ontario Hospital Association to hospital executives. In it, the OHA cautions that Conservative and NDP researchers are sniffing around lobbying contracts, and advises hospitals to retain “professional public affairs counsel” who are not required to register.
The letter does draw a distinction between lobbyists and consultants, spelling out the activities formally considered “lobbying.” But given that many consultants seem to straddle the line, the OHA’s advice can be interpreted as encouraging an end-around.
Of course, there’s a strong degree of self-interest in the complaints by registered lobbyists. They’re annoyed to be going through all the paperwork if others aren’t bothering. And more importantly, they’re worried about losing business to people who could to some extent make them redundant.
But they also have a point. A lobbyists’ registry that only achieves transparency from those who want to be transparent seems rather beside the point.
Ultimately, it may be up to public officials to demand that lobbyists are registered before dealing with them – and the opposition to call them on it if they’re not. Of course, it’s exactly because those relationships are unreliable that the registry was set up in the first place. But, if these stories are true, it doesn’t appear to have entirely served its purpose.
