Debates of May 4th, 2010

Opposition Motion--Lobbying Act

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had already addressed that. The very first act of Parliament we brought in was the Federal Accountability Act. It is an act that has been regarded in this country and others as one of the foremost pieces of legislation demanding accountability from government.

My friend across the way who has introduced this particular initiative is trying to dismiss keeping track of the myriad contacts we have during the day, as some kind of minor administrative item. I cannot keep track of the number of people during a day who come up to me outside of this building, whether at the airport, at home in the constituency or at an event. The number of people could be in the hundreds, who shake our hands, get their pictures taken with us and tell us they hope things go well with legislation.

I have asked my hon. friend how to keep track of that. That is what we need to know. That is why the law requires that if people are lobbyists, defined as such in the act, they have to not only register but also report their monthly activity. I am not saying we would not do this other thing, but how would we handle it? I am not hearing from the opposition about how we could possibly manage that.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does the President of the Treasury Board think there is a problem with the job descriptions for parliamentary secretaries? We know that different parliamentary secretaries are given different responsibilities according to the ministers with whom they work. Some of them seem to have a relatively little role in terms of the work of the government, but others seem to have very direct responsibilities, perhaps even going up to decisions about the awarding of government contracts.

Does he think that needs to be clarified? Does the document that the Prime Minister produced called “Accountable Government” need to be revised to clarify expressly what jobs and decision-making abilities a parliamentary secretary should have in our system?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question. I can only answer from personal experience that in my ministerial duties, as I see the definition of parliamentary secretary, I have not had a problem in working with parliamentary secretaries and defining what they do.

I find it is a huge advantage for me and a huge help to have somebody so named who can assist in carrying the load. As my hon. friend knows, in any area of administration I have had, I have immediately contacted the critics from the opposition and offered them the opportunity to meet with me, with officials and with the parliamentary secretary to assist in the ongoing good operation of the democratic process.

I would suggest that if, in his time here in Parliament, he has seen some problem areas where a clearer definition would be helpful, he should bring those suggestions to us. I am not saying we would adopt every single one, because I do not know what they are, but if he has defined some areas that he thinks could be improved by a clearer definition, we would look forward to seeing them.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his speech. Does he feel that anything would change if this motion were passed and parliamentary secretaries were included on the list of designated public office holders, thus forcing them to be accountable under the Lobbying Act?

The act currently includes public office holders. There is a whole list of them, including ministers and political staff, but the information is not shared. It is a constant, non-stop, never-ending culture of secrecy. This motion would add one more public office holder to the list. Realistically, what will this change?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I appreciate the question, but that I do not agree with the information put forward. I believe that our governmental deliberations and operations are very transparent. We have different opinions on that.

The member is asking what would change if we added parliamentary secretaries to the list. The people who are now registered would have to not only report the contracts they sign with ministers but also those they sign with parliamentary secretaries. That is the first difference. There may be others, but for now, that is one difference.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the suggestion the President of the Treasury Board made and the idea that all members of Parliament would then be responsible for keeping track or lobbyists would have to report when they had spoken to any member of Parliament.

Today, when I came into the House of Commons, there were some lobbyists who were prepared to go into the opposition lobby to meet with some of the members of the opposition and lead critics. We are in a minority Parliament. The numbers are about 143 in government and more than that in opposition. In every committee, the opposition outnumbers the government. Indeed at committee level, we see many new agendas being brought forward, ideas being brought forward. How are we to know, when the opposition outnumbers the government, that opposition members are not being lobbied by professional lobbyists who never have to report?

In this Parliament, I would suggest there is more lobbying done of lead critics in the opposition than of parliamentary secretaries or other members of Parliament.

I am intrigued by that, and I ask the President of the Treasury Board if he would elaborate a little more. Would this mean that all lobbyists would have to report when they have met with any member of Parliament? What would be the role of members of Parliament in this?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not only is it intriguing but it is a very insightful question that has come up, because let us be honest, that little room behind where members of the opposition now sit is called a lobby. We sat in that lobby as opposition members. Lobbyists go into that lobby. They talk to opposition members. They talk to the leaders of the opposition. They talk to the critics. They lobby for their business position.

As my colleague has mentioned, we are in a minority government. We have seen a number of things passed, which government members voted against but which passed because there are more opposition members than government members. That is how it works.

We have not seen one member of Parliament come forward in a voluntary way to demonstrate sincerity by saying, “I just want you to know; I was lobbied by such and such a business person”, or “I was lobbied by such and such an agriculture council”, or “I was lobbied by such and such a labour group”. Have they told us about the various labour representatives who have met with them to get them to push for changes in the Labour Code, for instance? How about certain business codes? Why have we not had one member of the opposition, in a voluntary way to show sincerity, come forward and say, “Here are all the lobbyists I have been meeting with”? I think that would be a wonderful demonstration of that sincerity and I appreciate the member's raising that question.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

As Bloc Québécois critic for ethics and access to information, I am pleased to speak today to this official opposition motion stating that there is a major loophole in the Lobbying Act currently in force in Canada, .

The motion states that parliamentary secretaries are simply not included in the list of “designated public office holders” who are subject to this Lobbying Act, unlike the ministers whom they assist.

A lobbyist must be registered in order to speak with a minister or a member of their staff, but not with a parliamentary secretary, who is in fact a member for the party in power appointed by the Prime Minister and responsible for helping a minister in the performance of their parliamentary functions and for liaising between ministers and other parliamentarians.

Do I need to tell you that parliamentary secretaries wield obvious power and undeniable influence in the offices of the ministers they assist? The individuals who consult them or seek their help are not subject to the present Lobbying Act? How can a loophole like this have gone unnoticed before today?

For the benefit of members of the public who are following this debate, I think we need to remind them of a few points of information concerning this legislation.

Until July 2008, lobbying at the federal level was governed by the Lobbyist Registration Act, which provided for a registration system designed to protect the public’s right to know who was trying to influence government policy. It is a fundamental piece of legislation, if ever there was one, for any self-respecting democratic society. And yet the famous Federal Accountability Act instituted by this Conservative government, which was supposed to guarantee perfect transparency on the part of this Conservative government, made major amendments to the Lobbying Act in December 2006, amending its title and replacing the simple director of lobbying position with the position of Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, a senior independent official in the Canadian administrative structure.

Our Lobbying Act was apparently not improved sufficiently, from what we can see. The new Lobbying Act has been in force since July 2, 2008.

I would point out that Canada's Commissioner of Lobbying is responsible for publicizing and enforcing the rights and obligations set out in the Lobbying Act. In fact, that act quite simply requires that lobbyists register and report certain information each month to the commissioner, which information is then recorded in a public record that everyone can consult on the Internet.

The registry discloses information about lobbyists and their lobbying activities. The law requires lobbyists to produce returns if there has been oral arranged communication by mail, email or telephone with designated public office holders such as ministers or ministers of state, their political staff, assistant deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers. The commissioner also has the power to verify information provided by lobbyists.

However, there is a major loophole in the law because it does not consider the parliamentary secretaries attached to various government ministers to be designated public office holders. This loophole appears to have enabled certain well-informed individuals to get around the law and gain privileged access to some departments.

How did we discover that such a loophole exists in a law that is supposed to ensure transparency with respect to lobbying activities on Parliament Hill, with ministers' offices and with various elements of Canada's government?

I hardly need to remind anyone that on April 9, the media broke the story that the Minister of Status of Women resigned or had been directed to resign—which is how these things work—and had been expelled not only from the Prime Minister's cabinet, but also from the Conservative Party of Canada. The Prime Minister never revealed any information whatsoever about why she was expelled.

The Prime Minister abruptly fired the member for Simcoe—Grey from her cabinet position because of what he described as “serious allegations”, which he passed on to RCMP investigators.

Apparently, the RCMP was called in because of questionable meetings involving the former minister's husband and the inappropriate use of House of Commons resources.

Mr. Jaffer contacted a number of ministers' offices using his wife's ministerial email address. Documents show that Mr. Jaffer also openly contacted people he knew in at least six different departments to discuss business proposals. During his testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Mr. Jaffer, who is not a registered lobbyist, denied undertaking any illegal lobbying activity.

But at the end of April, following their former colleague's testimony, Conservative ministers, one after the other, contradicted him openly and mercilessly.

We now know that Mr. Jaffer and his associate increased their contacts with government members in recent months.

These documents provided evidence of contacts with the offices of ministers and officials from various federal departments and agencies, including the offices of the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of State for Seniors and the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification. Mr. Jaffer even lobbied departments and their ministers, particularly the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and his parliamentary secretary, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Industry and of course, the former minister for the status of women. This is a great deal of lobbying for someone who is not a registered lobbyist.

Rahim Jaffer also communicated with these ministers' parliamentary secretaries, because he knew that parliamentary secretaries are not subject to the Lobbying Act. This also needs to be investigated.

One thing is certain: this whole mess surrounding the unregistered lobbying activities of Rahim Jaffer, a former Conservative member and former chair of the Conservative caucus, has given us the opportunity to speak to this Liberal motion. It also gives me a chance to remind the House that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have the political will to change anything when it comes to ethics.

The Liberal Party refuses to completely turn its back on the sponsorship legacy and the Conservative Party is sinking deeper and deeper into favouritism and secrecy. The Bloc Québécois can make such observations because it does not award any contracts, hand out any grants or make any appointments within the government. The Bloc Québécois has the leeway and credibility needed to keep an eye on how public money is spent and to denounce favouritism.

The Liberals and Conservatives have promised again and again to clean up politics in Ottawa, but they have not kept their promise. The Bloc Québécois has always maintained that the problem in Ottawa is not the lack of rules, but rather the lack of political will to follow the rules.

If we look at what the Liberals and Conservatives actually do, it is impossible to think there will be any real change in the political culture in Ottawa. The evidence is all around us. Just look at the entourage of the Leader of the Opposition, which still includes people tainted by ethical issues, such as the president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Alfred Apps, who took advantage of a loophole in the Elections Act to encourage Liberal supporters to contribute twice as much money to the Liberal Party as allowed.

Another example is the Quebec Liberal caucus. Ten of the 14 Liberals from Quebec were members and in some cases even ministers under Jean Chrétien, but not one of them managed to prevent the sponsorship scandal.

The Conservatives, for their part, can hardly cast any aspersions because their record also demonstrates a complete lack of political will and lack of respect for the existing rules, even though they claimed they would end the political culture of secrecy and lack of transparency. But it still continues to rule the roost in Ottawa.

The crooked sponsorship program lasted more than six years because of the culture of secrecy. Adequate access to information and an effective method of protecting whistleblowers are absolutely essential if we are to have a reasonably transparent system.

By breaking its electoral promises to reform the Access to Information Act and to protect whistleblowers, the Conservative government has perpetuated the culture of secrecy inherited from the Liberals. The Liberals and Conservatives are only interested in power. They have no interest in ending the culture of secrecy in Ottawa.

The Conservatives promised to implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations to reform the Access to Information Act but have never tabled a bill to do so.

The Minister of Justice just informed the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that he would not implement most of its recommendations to improve the Access to Information Act, closing the door again.

The Bloc’s demands regarding access to information are well-known. In June 2008 it tabled a bill that was similar to the one proposed by the Information Commissioner in 2005.

Governments of various hues have been consulting for 20 years now. It is time to act.

We will support the Liberal motion, but small changes like this will not do anything to change an entire culture. Action is needed to end the culture of secrecy and lack of transparency that still holds sway in Ottawa.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the President of the Treasury Board was just trying to confuse the issue and muddy the waters.

The fact of the matter is that government members have decision-making authority. Mr. Jaffer lobbied no fewer than seven ministers who had that decision-making authority. He lobbied people whom he knew and who knew him well. They should have known enough at least to do some investigating. They should have asked him whether he was registered as a lobbyist.

Mr. Jaffer did not lobby the member for Burnaby—Douglas. He did not lobby the member for Winnipeg Centre. He knows that members of the opposition have no decision-making power. They could not give him what he wanted. They could not give him the contracts he was looking for.

The President of the Treasury Board was doing a disservice to this House by trying to confuse the issue and muddy the waters.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. I must say that the minister's comments earlier were indeed inappropriate. I do not see why members of Parliament should be subject to the Lobbying Act, especially since, if we are referring to Bloc Québécois MPs, we have absolutely no contracts to award, absolutely no subsidies to grant and absolutely no monetary or financial influence. It is a ridiculous concern and a step in the wrong direction.

I respectfully submit to the minister that he instead ensure that greater effort is made to enhance transparency in various departments and in the way in which the Conservative Party manages information.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion presented by our Liberal colleagues. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for her presentation and the very good work she does on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on all things related to ethics and on the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee.

As my colleague stated, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion for a number of reasons. Unfortunately, the time allotted to me is too short to speak in detail about each one. Therefore, I will outline the reasons and spend more time on certain points.

One of the Bloc's reasons for supporting this motion is that we condemn the fact that a program such as the green infrastructure fund, which has a $1 billion budget—yes, that is the figure—is administered by a parliamentary secretary.

Furthermore, the Conservatives have not kept their promises to the people and democracy. I remember well that, in 2006, in the wake of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, the Conservatives played the transparency and ethics card. They boasted that their party would set things right, clean house, and champion ethics. They almost called themselves the Mr. Cleans of federal politics. They promised to wash everything cleaner than clean. That was the Conservative claim.

In 2006, when the current Prime Minister came to power, one of the first bills, Bill C-2, known as the Federal Accountability Act, sought to clean house in a number of areas.

Unfortunately, with time, we realize cannot see any difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. They conduct themselves exactly the same way. Anyone who was not out of the country or cut off, for whatever reason, from modern communications such as the Internet, or traditional media such as newspapers, radio or television, will have seen how the Conservatives conducted themselves in the case of Mr. Jaffer and the member from Simcoe—Grey. The more witnesses who appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the more we learn about the illegal lobbying activities of Rahim Jaffer.

Members will recall that Rahim Jaffer is the husband of the former status of women minister, who was kicked out of the Conservative caucus for unknown reasons. When he was in opposition, the Prime Minister accused the Liberals of hiding things, but since he took power, he has done exactly the same.

The Conservatives' actions now make it clear that they have not kept their promises to the people and democracy. When opposition members demand answers in a parliamentary committee or ask questions during question period, they are not doing it for themselves; they are asking on behalf of the people who elected them democratically in each riding to represent them and their needs in Ottawa.

That is democracy. People trust Bloc Québécois members and our party because we defend their interests in Ottawa. That is surely why the Bloc Québécois has won a majority of the seats in Quebec since 1993, in the last six elections. The public realizes that the only party who can truly defend the interests of Quebec in Ottawa is the Bloc Québécois.

Unlike the members of the old, traditional parties, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, we have no majority to protect in the west, in Ontario or in the Maritimes. Our only loyalty lies with Quebec, all the regions of Quebec, and with Quebeckers.

The Conservatives have hardly made ethics and transparency a government priority. Instead, they have promoted the culture of secrecy and cronyism, expressed as “Tell me who you know, and I will tell you how I can help you.” That is exactly what Rahim Jaffer does when he makes contact with his former Conservative Party buddies, the people he sat here with.

Let us not forget that Rahim Jaffer is a former chair of the Conservative caucus. That is why the government cannot turn a blind eye and wash its hands of this situation like Pontius Pilate by saying that meeting with a parliamentary secretary is not the same as meeting with a minister. That is why I made it clear from the outset that this Conservative government has a parliamentary secretary that manages a fund worth about $1 billion.

When Mr. Jaffer, an illegal lobbyist, has a meeting with this parliamentary secretary, there is no denying that some lobbying is going on. That is why the Liberal motion to include parliamentary secretaries makes sense and that is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

We are pleased to see the Liberals take this approach and we hope that if they return to power one day, they will remember that the wrongdoings in the sponsorship program went on for more than six years because of the culture of secrecy in Ottawa.

For that reason, we in the Bloc Québécois are calling for two things that go hand in hand: first, an appropriate access to information system, because the public has the right to know and to be informed; and second, effective whistleblower protection. These two conditions are indispensable for true transparency. We do not want superficial transparency nor transparency based on complacency just because the Federal Accountability Act has been passed. That is why the Conservatives are literally laughing in our faces. In the absence of those two things, the Federal Accountability Act is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

In closing, in supporting the motion, the Bloc Québécois is calling on the Conservatives to keep their election promises on ethics, and those on lobbying in particular. There are other loopholes in the act. I do not have enough time to go over them, but the different parties will be talking about this all day. For these reasons the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colourful member and chief whip has taught us a lot about cleanliness. He talked about being cleaner than clean and he said that when it comes to the Liberals and the Conservatives, we cannot see the difference. He also said that the former minister of state for the status of women, for unknown reasons, was told to clean out her desk as a minister and caucus member, a caucus her husband once chaired. And we never know what parts of this story have been scrubbed clean, to keep the theme going.

We know that Mr. Jaffer, who was denied the clean sweep of contracts he was hoping for, got caught with some dirty white powder. I would like to ask my colleague and chief whip, this colourful man, a question. Is the fact that parliamentary secretaries are not on the list, which this motion wants to correct, something that needs to be cleaned up?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the mental agility of my colleague from Hochelaga, who listened closely to my speech, especially since I am only a few centimetres away from his poor ears. I tend to raise my voice when I get wound up.

Since we have used the theme of cleanliness, it would be good to reveal some other things along that line, and I am convinced that we will have the opportunity to do so during the next election campaign. However, I think that the Conservatives' hypocrisy about the Rahim Jaffer affair demonstrates that we need to actively work on the Conservatives' black book.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Liberal opposition day motion tabled by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. To remind us, the wording of the motion is:

That, given the apparent loophole in the Lobbying Act which excludes Parliamentary Secretaries from the list of “designated public office holders”, the House calls on the government to take all necessary steps to immediately close this loophole and thus require Parliamentary Secretaries to comply fully with the Lobbying Act, in the same manner as Ministers are currently required to do.

The Liberals have also introduced an amendment to that. The member for Beauséjour added the following amendment:

And further calls on the government to immediately implement the 2006 Conservative platform promise to require ministers and senior government officials, including parliamentary secretaries, to proactively record and report their contacts with lobbyists.

It looks as if the Liberals did not quite get their communications strategy together and had to add something to their motion, but the NDP will support both the motion and the amendment.

It is really crucial in this debate that we understand the difference between civic engagement and paid lobbying. With the Lobbying Act, we are really focusing on the whole question of paid lobbying.

The Lobbying Act's preamble states:

Free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest;

Lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity;

It is desirable that public office holders and the public be able to know who is engaged in lobbying activities; and,

A system for the registration of paid lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government.

Currently, a designated public office holder is defined in the Lobbying Act as a minister of the Crown, or a minister of state and any person employed in his or her office. It also includes senior executive position holders such as deputy ministers or chief executive officers, associate deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and those of comparable ranks.

The Lobbying Commissioner has issued an interpretation bulletin to further clarify the definition of a designated public office holder in the Lobbying Act.

Parliamentary secretaries are members of Parliament assigned by the Prime Minister to assist cabinet ministers, but who are not part of the ministry. They are not cabinet members. Parliamentary secretaries are not included in the definition of a designated public office holder in the Lobbying Act.

Parliamentary secretaries, however, are public office holders, as are members of Parliament, senators and their staff, Governor-in-Council appointees, officers, directors and employees of federal boards, commissioners or tribunals, members of the Canadian armed forces and the RCMP. Therefore, the definition of public office holder is much broader than designated public office holder.

The Lobbying Act sets down different requirements of lobbyists when it comes to designated public office holders and public office holders. The key difference is that when a lobbyist is communicating with a designated public office holder they must report those contacts to the Lobbying Commissioner on a monthly basis and within a stipulated time frame. This is not required when a lobbyist is communicating with a public office holder. Therefore, there are different provisions for ministers, cabinet ministers and ministers of state than there are for ordinary MPs, for instance.

However, in both cases the lobbying is considered a registerable activity; that is the lobbyist must be registered with the Lobbying Commissioner. Registration is required when the lobbyist is paid to communicate for the making, development or amendment of any proposal or legislation, bill or regulation, or the awarding of any federal grant or contribution. It also includes written and oral communication.

All paid lobbyists must be registered. Paid lobbyists who approach ministers and ministers of state must file monthly reports on their activities. Paid lobbyists who approach parliamentary secretaries do not have to include those communications in their monthly reports. That is because parliamentary secretaries are not included in the definition of a designated public office holder.

In “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State”, and that is the Prime Minister's ethical guidelines essentially for members of the cabinet, the role of a parliamentary secretary is described and it includes the following. It talks about their responsibilities are carried out within the policy and program frameworks set out by their minister. It notes that there is a fundamental link between ministers and Parliament. It goes on to say that they play a liaison role within the caucus and throughout the House of Commons and its committees and between committees and the public service.

Parliamentary secretaries are expected to facilitate departmental appearances at committees by representing the views of the ministers and addressing political issues that may arise. Parliamentary secretaries may be called upon to answer policy questions during question period in a minister's absence. It notes that, given that parliamentary secretaries work under the direction of a minister, they do not introduce their own private members' bills or motions and a minister may delegate to parliamentary secretaries specific duties for parliamentary development issues.

It is very clear from the Prime Minister's guidelines that parliamentary secretaries have a close relationship with their ministers. It is also clear that it was thought that some restrictions on the activities of parliamentary secretaries were necessary, the example being that they cannot introduce their own private members' bills or motions.

The problem is parliamentary secretaries are perceived to be, and indeed can in reality be, people who have inside knowledge of the departments with which they work and special access to the ministers with whom they work. The role of parliamentary secretaries likely varies across governments. Some are given more responsibilities than others. Some will be closer to ministers than others.

The occasion for this opposition motion today, the case of Rahim Jaffer and his lobbying efforts, has raised the possibility that a parliamentary secretary was delegated a key role in the decision-making process, perhaps up to and including a role in the awarding of government contracts in a key government program. However, given the current status of the Lobbying Act, as it stands, contacts with a parliamentary secretary are outside the purview of the Lobbying Act and are therefore not subject to the reporting and scrutiny that is implied in the Lobbying Act.

The concern is it is therefore possible to delegate key responsibilities and possibly decision-making responsibilities to a parliamentary secretary to make him or her a direct point of entry for lobbyists to government. The concern is that where this is done, access to a key decision maker would take place outside the requirements of the Lobbying Act.

The Lobbying Act was designed to deal with decision makers, and this is an important point to make, especially given some of the debate this morning about who actually should be covered. The Lobbying Act was designed to deal with people who actually made the decisions. That is why it talks about ministers and ministers of state. The Lobbying Act was designed to deal with the decision makers. It appears from our recent experience that some parliamentary secretaries are exercising or coming very close to exercising some decision-making powers.

Given the discretion involved in establishing the duties of a parliamentary secretary, the best option would be to include them as designated public office holders under the terms of the Lobbying Act. The motion we are debating today calls on the government to do that without delay. It would also be incumbent on the government to review the job description for parliamentary secretaries in an accountable government and clarify whether they should have any decision-making powers at all.

It is really no stretch of the imagination that this is the only aspect of the Lobbying Act that requires attention. The Lobbying Act is just about due for its required five-year review. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has already made preliminary plans to begin that review this coming fall. There is no doubt that the Lobbying Act can be improved and there are many issues that should be considered in preparation for or as part of that review process.

A few years ago, at the end of his time as a member of Parliament, Ed Broadbent made proposals for democratic accountability, which included the need for tougher laws requiring disclosure of fees and expenditures of lobbyists and the need to make illegal the acceptance of profit-based fees or fees based on the outcome of the lobbying effort. He also called on the government to initiate reforms with tough sanctions applicable to wrongdoing in the public sector. At the time, Ed Broadbent said, “we need institutions that work against that culture of entitlement” and that rules were important to ensuring that this effort was successful.

We have often heard from the government that there was no problem in the current controversy because the unregistered lobbyists' efforts did not result in the awarding of a contract, but it is pretty clear that this is really not the point. The point is access to the decision makers. It is not whether they are good at their job, but that they were undertaking the effort at all.

Ed Broadbent also said that political cronyism must end. The perception that some people have better access to government officials runs absolutely counter to our hopes for a democratic society.

Those were issues that were highlighted by Ed on behalf of the NDP just a few years ago. There are many other issues that should be considered when we look toward the reform of the Lobbying Act.

The current Lobbying Act emphasizes the duties and responsibilities of lobbyists as opposed to those of designated public office holders. For example, while paid lobbyists who communicate with a designated public office holder must report those contacts monthly, there is no similar requirement for designated public office holders to file a similar report with the lobbying commissioner.

The only requirement for designated public office holders is that if the Lobbying Commissioner requests that they verify a communication entry made by a lobbyist, the designated public office holder must reply. In a sense, we have a system that monitors the lobbyists but does not keep track of what designated public office holders do when it comes to the efforts of lobbyists.

This is the issue that the Liberal amendment gets to. It is a very important amendment and that is why we will support it.

This two-way direction of keeping track of the lobbying efforts is very important. The Lobbying Commissioner has reported that, right now, there is over-reporting given the existing requirements of the Lobbying Act. Some lobbyists report their contacts with senators and MPs, which is not required presently. Changing the emphasis of the system to having designated public office holders report contacts might address this and should be considered as part of the review of the legislation.

There is also the very confusing aspect of dealing with definitions around public office holders and designated public office holders. It varies across different pieces of legislation. The Lobbying Act, the Conflict of Interest Act, the MPs' Conflict of Interest Code and the Prime Minister's “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State” should all have a consistent definition so confusion is reduced and hopefully eliminated. Right now, it is very complicated to explain exactly who one is talking about and in what context. The language that talks about inquiries and investigations should also be standardized as much as possible to eliminate the kind of confusion that exists today.

There is no requirement for lobbyists to disclose the amount of money they spend on specific campaigns and no requirement for financial disclosure. In fact, there are no spending limits for lobbying campaigns. This issue has come up many times in the past and it should be discussed again when we have a review of the legislation.

We see the need for the ability of the Lobbying Commissioner to undertake speedy and fair investigations all the time. There is frustration when an issue arises and there is not a speedy conclusion. We need to ensure the commissioner has the resources needed to accomplish both an expeditious and fair investigation into any concerns with regard to the Lobbying Act.

One thing we might consider is administrative penalties as a tool for the Lobbying Commissioner to enforce the act. Right now, an infraction of the act is a criminal infraction, but there is nothing in terms of administrative penalties that might help in things like filing late reports, for example.

The current Lobbying Act deals only with people who were considered decision makers. Some believe, and we have heard it in the debate this morning, that it should be extended to include others, including party leaders, committee chairs, caucus chairs and people who have other specific responsibilities in Parliament. Some would go even further and extend it to all MPs and senators. Again, this is idea merits discussion so we are clear on the intent and what the Lobbying Act is about.

The commissioner of lobbying must also have the resources to analyze the situation with regard to lobbying. For instance, the commissioner recently reported that the number of registered lobbyists has stabilized at around 3,500, which is a reduction of almost 30% since the Lobbying Act came into effect. The commissioner noted that there might be several explanations for this change. Some in-house lobbyists indicated that the additional reporting requirements of the Federal Accountability Act led some corporations and organizations to rationalize their approach and reduce the number of employees engaged in lobbying activities. The economic downturn might also have been a factor.

Contrary to this, the number of transactions in the registry has gone up, perhaps because of the monthly reporting requirements. However, this change in the number of registered lobbyists and the increase in lobbying activity have not been carefully analysed. It is important that the commissioner of lobbying has a clear mandate and the resources to fully research the situation, including contacting organizations and corporations that chose not to register.

The commissioner of lobbying also needs a clear education mandate. This is absolutely crucial. Educating designated public office holders and lobbyists about the Lobbying Act is a key to its success.

We also need to review the lobbyists code of conduct. This document dates from 1997 and it has not been significantly changed in the over 10 years since it was first promulgated. Rule number eight in the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct says:

Lobbyists shall not place public office holders in a conflict of interest by proposing or undertaking any action that would constitute an improper influence on a public office holder.

Back in 2002, Howard Wilson, who was then the ethics counsellor with responsibilities for the Lobbyists Registration Act, interpreted this to mean:

...it is not reasonable to believe that the lobbyist has exercised an improper influence on a Minister, placing him or her in a conflict of interest, merely because the lobbyist was assisting the Minister in a leadership campaign at the same time that the lobbyist was lobbying the Minister's department on behalf of a client.

He concluded:

More broadly, I conclude that the mere fact that these two legitimate activities are being pursued by a lobbyist does not, in and of itself, breach the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

Democracy Watch, which has done lots of excellent work with regard to accountability, democratic accountability and on the Lobbying Act, challenged this interpretation in the Federal Court of Appeal. That court ruled that the 2002 advice of Mr. Wilson was “unreasonable”. As a result of that court decision, the current commissioner of lobbying released an interpretation bulletin on this rule. She stated:

A lobbyist may be in breach of Rule 8 if: the lobbyist's actions create a real conflict of interest for a public office holder, or the lobbyist's actions create the appearance of a conflict of interest for a public office holder.

The commissioner also said that real or apparent conflict of interest includes the presence of a tension between the lobbyist and the designated office holder which could arise from the provision of a gift, an amount of money, a service or property without an obligation to repay, the use of property or money that is provided without charge, or at less than its commercial value, and political activities.

The whole question of political activities is something that some people have said needs to be further defined, but this is an example of the kind of clarification that should be considered when the Lobbying Act is reviewed.

The Lobbying Act is key to government accountability and ethical behaviour. It requires our attention and respect as parliamentarians. It also requires the attention and respect of those who seek to lobby decision makers.

The motion and amendment being debated today are timely and respond to an important emerging issue and they merit strong support, but the job is not done and there is much more to look at. The review of the Lobbying Act will also require diligence and attentiveness to ensure the best possible legislation in this crucial area.

This is a work in progress. No party corners the market on ethical behaviour in this place. We all have to take responsibility for how we behave as parliamentarians, and this debate is certainly part of how we hold ourselves accountable in that effort.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my hon. colleague supports both the original motion and the amendment to the motion. He spoke very eloquently on why he and his party are very supportive of the motion. It ensures there will be more accountability and transparency in government.

In my earlier remarks I used the example of the Jaffer affair and the use of this loophole. We know of one parliamentary secretary who met on numerous occasions with Mr. Jaffer to discuss three proposals that were put forward under the $1 billion green fund.

We have not yet heard from either the current minister or the previous minister of natural resources. I wonder if the member is as equally concerned as I am that we do not know at this point of any possible lobbying or discussions that have gone on between Mr. Jaffer and the parliamentary secretary or the minister of that department.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed concerned about some of the issues that have been raised in recent months regarding lobbying.

I did not spend a lot of time talking about specific examples in my speech because I wanted to go to the issues that I think are at the heart of the concerns that have been raised.

The member is right. There are explanations that are owed to the House and to the Canadian people that have not been forthcoming.

We also need to take a step back and look at how we can improve the rules that we are all governed by in this place, the rules that are governing the government, ministers and ministers of state, the rules that may or may not apply to parliamentary secretaries. We need to consider those very carefully.

If we get into specific examples we could start throwing mud back and forth across the aisle. There have been mistakes in the past probably on the part of all in this place, but today might be a good time to start looking at how to improve the legislation, how to improve the guidelines, how to improve the codes of conduct, how to improve the rules that we use to make sure that we have accountable and responsible government.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a very well-balanced presentation on the motion.

I want to refer to his notes on page 4 where he refers to there being no requirement for lobbyists to disclose the amount of money spent on specific campaigns. There is no requirement for financial disclosure and no spending limits for lobbying campaigns.

In the last year the National Airlines Council of Canada has conducted a fairly large lobbying effort to kill the air passengers' bill of rights. We are talking about 10 to 15 paid lobbyists showing up for meetings.

I would be really interested to know how much this lobbying effort costs, especially since the council is representing so-called cash-strapped airlines on the verge of going out of business because they might have to follow some new rules that treat passengers fairly.

I would like to ask the member whether he would consider pushing this point in his review this fall. I guess I am lobbying the member now and asking him if he would do that.

I think it is a very important point. These private business organizations are getting away with murder being able to finance these aggressive campaigns to kill legislative efforts on the part of backbench MPs in the House. In fact, we do not have access to--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have publicly disclosed our lobbying efforts right now. I am glad the member raised that.

It is a big issue. We know that ordinary Canadians in raising their issues often do not have the clout because they do not have the financial resources that many people in the corporate sector do to promote their ideas. It is a hugely significant issue.

When one has access to, sometimes, millions of dollars for campaigns in support of one's goals, it really can skew the kind of debate that takes place in our society. It really can skew the meaning of our democracy. It can really skew the meaning of what takes place in Parliament.

It is a very crucial thing that we consider when we review the Lobbying Act. I do not think it is a big deal to ask lobbyists to disclose what money they are spending on the lobbying campaigns in which they engage. Maybe we should consider spending limits on those kinds of campaigns. We do that for political campaigns and the activities of political parties, members of Parliament and candidates for Parliament. I do not see why we should not extend the same kind of consideration to lobbying campaigns that approach government for changes in legislation.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me preface my question by indicating that I agree with the overview the member has given.

I certainly agree, as I am sure the House does, that the terminology “improper influence” is what guides the issue with respect to the ethics of interventions.

I would like to ask the member if he has given consideration to the balance, the other side, with appropriate lobbying. Are we risking putting a cloud over the legitimate rights of individuals or collective representations of individuals? I would use the example of the auto industry or the AECL employees, where the government is looking at future policy changes that would influence those workers, that would affect their jobs. Is he concerned there might be a cloud placed over, not improper interventions or influence, but legitimate lobbying?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that disclosure, proactive disclosure or full disclosure should be described as a cloud. It is a healthy thing in our society to understand the discussion that goes on around government initiatives, for instance. I do not see that as an issue directly in this debate.

The member is right. Lobbying is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a good thing, to ensure that points of view are expressed. Interests have an opportunity to discuss things of importance to them. That is an important part of how we do the business of democracy in this country.

However, we need to be clear. We need to be disclosing the information of who is engaging in that and what resources they are bringing to it. I do not think that puts the enterprise of lobbying under a cloud. I think it shines light on it and that light benefits us all. It certainly would benefit us here in this place as we do our work.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to point out that at the end of the day, when we strip away the veils, the fact of the matter is that the lobbyists are looking to talk to the people with decision-making authority, and those people sit on the other side of the House. They do not sit on this side of the House.

In Mr. Jaffer's case, he was not lobbying the member for Burnaby—Douglas, because he knows the member for Burnaby—Douglas has no access to government contracts. The type of activities that Mr. Jaffer was involved in had exclusively to do with the government and people he knew within the government.

The question is, why were members of the government, cabinet ministers, not smart enough in that case to ask him if he was registered, and to recognize it for what it was, an attempt to influence them to actually get contracts?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why that did not happen and I do not want to speculate on it, particularly.

It is important that when we have important offices in this country it is made clear there are mechanisms in place to help the people who have those jobs understand the implications of their role and to understand the rules that surround that role, to ensure, for instance, that they understand the provisions of the Lobbying Act, the requirements that they face and that the people who approach them face. In that way, they can make informed decisions and do the job appropriately and do the right thing by the Canadian people.

Mistakes seem to have been made, and have been made, in this situation and other situations. I hope that in each of those controversies, there is an opportunity to do the job better down the road.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here now close to six years and this is my first speech regarding accountability, openness and transparency in the system, and the need to inject a degree of fairness into it that is so badly needed.

I would also like to point out that in the past little while demands from taxpayers in general upon our public offices have been great because of the issue of fairness. Over the past two to three decades people have been crying out for more openness and transparency. They have been looking for ways to hold their public office holders accountable. Therefore, over the years, we have done many things in regard to lobbying and registration itself.

Recently, I was at the Council of Europe where we talked about lobbying, which has now become an international event. Many countries have been grappling with this issue of lobbying because there has been a revolving door of people in and out of government. We saw that in the United States of America where the lobbying industry is excessively large. We saw that in the debate regarding new health care reforms in the U.S. We also saw that through other measures in the United States over the past little while, such as pharmacare. We certainly saw that in Canada given the fact that we have become the subject of many U.S. critics because we have a more generous health care system. We have been accused of having cheap drugs, as it were.

I would like to point out to the House that over the past two to five months this issue has become part of the mainstream, and when I say mainstream I am talking about the mainstream media, certainly the news over the past little while. Former Conservative MPs have figured prominently in the news. Over the past little while we have been talking about a former minister, who has also figured prominently in the news.

Everyone is wondering who is a lobbyist and who is not. That is the grand question that everybody wants answered. They also want to know what is considered above board and what is considered to be undue influence.

If a person leaves government, leaves Parliament, and then decides to get into the business of lobbying in this country, certainly in Ottawa, there are many ways that individual can interact, both socially and professionally. When a person comes to me as a member of Parliament, not a member of the executive, and certainly not a member of the Privy Council, I keep track of that. It is in my calendar. It is still there. I never erase that.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I have many meetings with artists groups, the cable industry, the television industry, broadcasters, and the like. Many of them come to me on several different issues. We just went through an issue on broadcasting regarding fee for carriage. I am sure many of these people have records of coming to me. I have no problem telling anybody about that because it is a transparency issue.

Soon we will be seeing copyright legislation. Copyright legislation is complex and deep. There are many issues from many groups that have so much money tied up in their own personal interests that naturally they want to be a part of this debate. Naturally, with so much money at stake, their livelihoods at stake, they want to be involved, so they lobby not only the minister or the parliamentary secretary but MPs as well.

But let us stick to this one and I will just carry my example even further into this debate.

Our motion says:

That, given the apparent loophole in the Lobbying Act which excludes Parliamentary Secretaries from the list of “designated public office holders”, the House calls on the government to take all necessary steps to immediately close this loophole and thus require Parliamentary Secretaries to comply fully with the Lobbying Act, in the same manner as Ministers are currently required to do.

Now I know for a fact, being on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, that the parliamentary secretary for heritage has requested many meetings, all above board, to present views on what a new copyright act should look like. It is part of the system that we work in.

What has to be done here is that the parliamentary secretary, in many cases, will act as a gatekeeper to the person who is within the department or at least the minister's office. We know this. History tells us, and from the responses that we see here in the House, we know that the parliamentary secretary must be receiving the information that a minister would get, save perhaps a few little details.

We have a parliamentary custom here where if I ask a question in question period, I can request that the minister appear at a later date, in the evening mostly, to go further into that question. The last time I did that, I did not hear from the minister of defence, I heard from the parliamentary secretary of defence.

Logic dictates that if the government feels that the parliamentary secretary should be the one to answer my question, as a member of Parliament, should that person not be under the same responsibility, rights and privileges as the actual minister?

Pardon me for using the obvious vernacular, but if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, we all know what it is. Not that I want to talk derogatorily about my colleagues, but I think the analogy is an apt one.

In essence, the parliamentary secretary in this particular case does have that information which people can use. They can look to the parliamentary secretary and feel that they are actually getting their point across to the government. That is part of the reason why they should be included in this. That is the part of accountability and transparency, and a frame of mind, which is not to lobby a particular person using inside connections or knowing, in their mind, that if they talk to this person it will never become public.

That is what happens. We have to trace the frame of mind of particular individuals who want to make their case known to the government in a formal manner. If these people go to the parliamentary secretary knowing full well that they are not bound under the same responsibilities as the minister, that is a route of easier access. That is the loophole that effectively should be closed.

Transparency, accountability and responsibility are demanded by our taxpayers.

I heard the speech made by the President of the Treasury Board earlier. He talked about how on the doorstep nobody talks about this issue. That does not make it any less important. That does not make us any less responsible.

One of the issues I have dealt with both here and in Europe as part of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association is human trafficking. I know the government is also looking into this issue with a private member's bill. That does not necessarily exclude us from talking about it. Many people do not call my office about human trafficking, but that does not make it any less important. The fact is that at least 700,000 people are trafficked each year. Most of these people do not have the ability to call.

However, I do not want to talk about that issue. I want to talk about the one in hand here which is of course accountability. I hope that in this motion we elevate the debate for what is expected of us and what is expected of fairness.

These are funds that will dispense billions of dollars, and because the buzz words over the past year have been “let us get this money out the door” and “shovel-ready” as it where, we really have to be careful. The expediency by which these programs are approved is becoming much greater. Mistakes can be made. They may be innocent or they may be nefarious, but they are made.

What we need to do is to look at this and elevate the debate. I do believe that we can do that by saying that the very first step is to look at parliamentary secretaries. It may not be on paper. It may not be that official. It may not be sworn in, but essentially when people come to me, talk to me, and lobby me about issues of Canadian heritage, because I am on the committee, they do bring up the fact that they were talking to the parliamentary secretary. In their minds, by talking to that person, they feel that they are being heard directly by the ministry, so it is a frame of mind.

We have to put the rules in place so that the people who want to get around the system cannot and it should be much more difficult for them to do so. This is an important measure.

Lobbyists are required to submit monthly reports on their meetings. We have designated public office holders that include ministers and their staff, deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers. That gives us an idea of just who we are talking about as the gatekeepers. Lobbyists submit monthly reports on their meetings with office holders such as the minister, the staff, the deputy minister and the associate deputy ministers. But each and every time in this House, if the minister is away, the parliamentary secretary is the one to stand and answer, so there has to be a process by which that person is briefed through meetings with associate deputy ministers and deputy ministers. They are all part of this.

It is that communication which has to be above board and it is not entirely above board. The sheer spirit of the Lobbying Act is a strong one and one that is virtuous, but we have to include all the right people, and this is what this motion sets out to do. In the opinion of the House, the specific office holders should be accountable and should have their meetings recorded and reported so that everything is above board because again, we are talking about incredibly large amounts of money on projects and we do not want this activity to be going on.

For instance, according to the media, the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport is in charge of the $1 billion green infrastructure fund. I do not know if he is in charge or not, but obviously there is an acknowledgement here that the parliamentary secretary has that responsibility to be a gatekeeper, to be a person who will meet with people. We know that the concerns of the parliamentary secretary will be brought back to the respective minister, assistant minister, associate deputy minister, deputy minister, whatever it may be, but these are the office holders who know full well what is going on in the department. They know the plans and priorities in advance, without the general public knowing, so certainly there is a process by which these people are involved in that. We are saying to just acknowledge the fact that they are involved and therefore make the system that much better.

Not many people are calling to know about this. They may not be calling the President of the Treasury Board's office. They may not be on his doorstep about it or on their doorstep about it, but the point is a sound one, which is responsibility.

The act requires that individuals register themselves as lobbyists when they engage in lobbying for compensation. This involves providing certain details about themselves, their business, and where applicable, the subject matter of what they are discussing and the name of any department or other governmental institution for any public office holder with whom the individual communicates or expects to communicate. This information is public on the registry of lobbyists.

Therein lies the spirit of this, accountability and transparency, so that we know who is lobbying whom for a certain amount of interest and that there is no undue influence by one particular group simply because of who one knows.

That element of who one knows has become quite prevalent in our debates, because sometimes the public perception is that there are different rules for different people. Just because someone is a former MP does not mean he or she cannot follow the same rules by which accountability and transparency, which is the sheer spirit of this Lobbying Act, is done. I am not including just one former MP; I am talking about all of them.

The current situation is in such a state right now that there is some confusion as to registration and how it operates to its fullest extent. That is why motions and debates like this are so important, because we allow things like the Federal Accountability Act to be fleshed out and include the right people and now include somebody who was excluded in the beginning, but not because it is politically expedient. If it were politically expedient, then we would be making policy in a haphazard way.

Therefore, we include the hole by which people come to government but have to be accountable for that. That is what this motion does, because it includes an essential part of the communication chain, which is the parliamentary secretary.

These people are good at what they do. Why not? Whether past or present, they work hard at what they do and they know their files very well. I have had many exchanges with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and with parliamentary secretaries in Canadian heritage. I never once thought they did not know their files well.

We may have had differing opinions over ideology or direction. That is obvious, given where we sit in the House. However, one thing is for certain. They certainly knew, were briefed and informed, on what it was they were talking about. It would lead anybody in the gallery or at home watching television to believe that they know the department and the minister's office and are involved in that process. Therefore, they should be included in the measure of accountability that is available, even by what the current government put out there in the Federal Accountability Act. Hopefully, this debate will allow us to make these types of amendments or changes to the act to allow a more wholesome process of accountability.

Over the past little while, we have seen a lot of my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl, who is on the government operations committee. Speaking of someone who knows her file, she knows it well. However, in her deliberations some of this stuff is now being brought out, and it seems as if there is this back-door method to try to find out what is right. Why do we pursue this in such a circuitous way? Why do we go around the back just to get to the front door? It does not make sense. Why do we not just take this issue, debate it and make the right decisions up front?

The current Prime Minister is also a fan of accountability. He said on April 5, 2006:

We also intend to eliminate the insider lobbying culture that grew up under the previous regime by banning all former ministers, ministerial staffers and senior public officials from lobbying the federal government for five years; by requiring a full record of contacts between lobbyists and ministers or senior officials; and by putting real teeth in penalties in place to enforce the Lobbyists Registration Act.

These are valid points and I will repeat, “by requiring a full record of contacts between lobbyists and ministers or senior officials”. But therein lies the fact that “ministers or senior officials” means the department. One cannot just say the department; one has to define who.

Therefore, the spirit of what the current Prime Minister is saying is that the department has to be accountable. Who does one meet with in the department who knows the file? That has to include the parliamentary secretary. There is no choice.

We know by their actions that they are involved in the process of devising policy and being briefed on policy. Therefore, the spirit of what the Prime Minister is saying would be answered by including the very people who also serve as gatekeepers.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not know if he has been listening to the entire debate, but the President of the Treasury Board made the suggestion that the Liberal Party amend its motion today to include not just parliamentary secretaries but all members of Parliament. If I have been listening correctly to the New Democrats, they have indicated, to my ears at least, that they are in favour of that. I am curious as to the member's position on that. Would the Liberal Party and the member in particular support the extension of the motion today to include not just parliamentary secretaries but all members of Parliament?

Second, I know the hon. member has been lobbied by his constituents on another issue where there has been a considerable amount of lobbying back and forth, and that is the long gun registry. I wonder if the member might tell people who is lobbying him on that issue, how they are lobbying and whether he intends to vote with his constituents on that issue.