Bill C-15 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act

Lobbyists Registration Act

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for her insights into Bill C-15, the Lobbyists Registration Act.

I think many of us on all sides of the House feel that Bill C-15 does not go far enough. We would like to see it go even further. I appreciate some of the suggestions she made.

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the amendment before the House and remind the House that it is an improvement on an amendment that was put forward at report stage by a government member. It was an unfriendly amendment. It was subsequently found by the Senate to have merit. The Senate improved upon it and that is why we have this debate before the House.

In saying all of that, I would like to acknowledge to the House the contribution of the member for Edmonton Southwest. I must say that at the time this member put forward the original amendment he alerted me to the fact that there was a flaw in what I was doing. In fact, I had put forward two amendments. He walked across the aisle and advised me, with courtesy, that I needed to make this change.

I then sought unanimous consent for the change. It enabled the final amendment that was put before the House to succeed among the members on this side and the members on that side.

While the House has to be partisan--and we have to have an opposition and a government side, and sometimes we have to clash in debate--the important thing to remember for all Canadians and all who are watching is that often, and it is not seen, we can cooperate in the public interest. And this was a fine example of that. I would like to acknowledge and thank the member for Edmonton Southwest for his contribution on this particular occasion.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. The purpose of this bill was to more clearly define lobbying, to reinforce various provisions in the Lobbyists Registration Act and also to simplify registration requirements.

The bill makes no substantial amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act, despite the amendment currently before the House. This amendment originates in the Senate and is in keeping with what the Bloc Quebecois had proposed. The Bloc Quebecois filibustered for quite some time in order to get this amendment included in the bill.

I pay tribute to the senators, whose amendment reads as follows:

1. Page 4, clause 4: Add immediately after line 15 the following:

“(h.1) if the individual is a former public office holder, a description of the offices held;”

This Senate amendment respects what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying since this bill was first introduced. Where we particularly fault the Lobbyists Registration Act is that the concept of intensity of lobbying has been dropped from it.

The amendment does not give us any idea of the intensity of the lobbying of the Government of Canada, such as the amount lobbyists receive in fees, or the positions of the people they lobby.

In reality, what we wanted from this bill—when we talk about improving control of lobbying activities on Parliament Hill and in departments—is to know how intense the lobbying is and anything related to this intensity; in other words, the lobbyists' ability to influence major decision-makers whether it be senior officials or ministers themselves.

Who are the lobbyists? I think they have become an urban legend. People still wonder what a lobbyist is. In this bill we would have liked to see a clear definition of what a lobbyist is and what ability they have to influence decisions. We would have liked these definitions to be included in the bill and presented to the House of Commons.

That is the most important thing. What is the relationship between this lobbyist and the government, certain government representatives, MPs, ministers or deputy ministers? That is what is important. Let us not forget that this is a bill on lobbyists. I would have liked to see a clear and unambiguous definition of the term lobbyist.

However, we are left unsatisfied, as with most bills the government introduces. We, the opposition parties, go to committees to try to improve the bills that are proposed to us. When we attend committee to discuss a bill, we try to give the government a sense of how the average citizen feels about such a bill and determine what impact this bill will have on people's daily life. That is the opposition's role. That is what all Bloc Quebecois members set out to do in committee. We do not see members of the governing party in committee very often.

Most of the time, we have quorum because of the opposition members. They are the best attenders; they are the ones who raise questions along the lines of “What does he mean by that? Why this provision in this bill? What does this mean for the average person?”

This bill, with a clear definition of lobbyist, would have reassured a lot of people. All of a sudden, when the topic of lobbyists comes up,—you know how it is—people wonder what the term means. They imagine something dark and shadowy, something done behind the scenes, in darkened rooms. People do not know what lobbyists do, and what their connection is with the decision makers. These are the sorts of things people wonder about.

That is where the public should have been given some reassurance, so that they could look forward to some transparency in government. One wonders whether this government even knows the definition of transparency.

When we were young, we used transparent tracing paper in order to practice good writing, and in order to keep a copy of what we had done. Today, however, with this government, I would certainly hesitate to say that transparency is the order of the day.

In June 2000, the Bloc Quebecois tabled a dissenting report on the Lobbyists Registration Act. This report set out the principles that should be respected when amending the act. These were very clear principles, and aimed at ensuring transparency. Unfortunately, there are times people need to have the mirror turned back on themselves so they can see their true nature. When we see our definition reflected in the mirror, we see what others see in it, which we cannot if the mirror is directed elsewhere.

With these amendments, the Bloc Quebecois would have liked to have seen included in this bill a provision for lobbyists to disclose their meetings with a minister or senior official, and specify the department concerned. This is important.

When I came to Parliament Hill six years ago, I was surprised to see how many lobbyists there were. Most of the time I ran into them just by chance. I wondered whether they were also MPs, or just what they were. Everyone was after me, asking questions, approaching me to discuss this or that issue. You know, where I come from, in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, we all know each other. Here, however, I could not tell who was who.

But I have learned that here on Parliament Hill, there are all kinds of lobbyists in all areas. I often see them going to eat with members. You do not talk about the weather when you dine with a lobbyist who specializes in a certain area; you may talk about gas pricing if the lobbyist works for an oil company, or he or she may represent pharmaceutical companies. They all do lobbying for big corporations.

I have seen a lot of them. I thought it would be good if I knew who they were. If they had been listed in a registry, I would have liked that.

In June 2000—three years ago now—the Bloc Quebecois also recommended that lobbyists disclose how much money was spent on their lobbying campaigns. It is still a very grey area. Certainly this bill would improve matters, but I would have liked it to be even more transparent.

The Bloc Quebecois also recommended that consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists disclose their fees. This is important. I heard witnesses before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology tell us, “How do you expect us to do that? We do not know exactly how much time we spend on a given file. It would involve far too many calculations”. That is part of transparency.

Perhaps they enjoy what they do and they work to further a cause. I do not think that all the work they do is bad, quite the opposite. As parliamentarians, we cannot specialize in every area. It is legitimate that they meet with us.

They share their vision with us and we can discuss with them. I have nothing against that. I have no problem with that, unlike what goes on behind closed doors.

Also, the Bloc Quebecois recommended that a provision explicitly prohibiting any sort of conditional fee, regardless of the activity performed, be included in the bill. That is another major element.

The Bloc Quebecois recommended that consultant lobbyists as well as in-house lobbyists be required to disclose the positions they have held and corresponding periods of employment in a federal administration or political party; unpaid executive positions with political parties; the number of hours of volunteer work done for a party, a leadership candidate or riding association, when in excess of 40 hours per year; terms served as elected representatives at the federal level; election campaigns in which they ran unsuccessfully; and contributions to the various parties and candidates.

In this respect, it would be extremely important to know how much they are contributing to political parties. We know that, at the federal level, there are such things as slush funds. I look forward to the political financing bill being passed, as imperfect as it may be. It is modeled after the legislation passed by the Government of Quebec under the late René Lévesque. It ensures transparency and provides a legislative framework allowing elected representatives not to be bound by the power of the purse.

When I was young, my mother would tell me, “Money is good as long as it is used in a constructive manner. It can be as dirty as it can be good”. I would have liked these lobbyists to include in their reports the amounts donated to political parties, or to individuals for running in a leadership race or an election, or campaigning in their ridings.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are committed to the legislative framework put in place by René Lévesque, which provided that any source of money must be disclosed, because such is our will as a political party. Still, we cannot receive more than $3,000 from businesses, and there is also a cap on donations by individuals.

That is what we ought to have seen in this bill on lobbyists; the obligation to disclose the amounts of money they give to politicians' election campaigns.

Today, I was surprised to find that my popularity rating is lower than that of a used car salesman. Finding that out is quite a blow to our egos. Nevertheless, I think that we could have used this bill to improve our popularity with the public. I think that this is what the public wanted. I think it is terrible that government did not agree to include this amendment in the bill.

In addition, the Bloc recommended in June 2001—two years later—that the conflict of interest code for public office holders should become a statutory instrument, and that it should be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons, so as to avoid any abuses. In that way, the post-employment restrictions on holders of public office, if discussed in committee, would be subject to sanctions in cases of violation.

The issue was to know whether this legislation would really help us attain our objectives. This is not just about allowing the House of Commons to appoint an independent ethics commissioner. It is also about giving that commissioner regulations with some teeth to enforce.

It is all very well to have beautiful icing on a wonderful cake, but when the icing is removed, there are sometimes some big surprises. This should have been in the legislation so that the ethics commissioner had regulations with some teeth to enforce.

Sometimes, people are granted powers, but they are not provided with the means to be transparent. We would have liked this to be included in the bill too.

Quebec has legislation regulating lobbyists, and this government would have done well to look to it as an example, particularly with regard to various points that the Bloc Quebecois has also mentioned.

Quebec's legislation on lobbyists is very specific with regard to transparency and ethics. It does not require disclosure of each meeting with public servants and ministers but, in their return, lobbyists must disclose the nature of the duties of the person they have communicated with or intend to communicate with, as well as the institution where this individual works.

The current federal legislation requires only the disclosure of the name of the government department or agency. Why does this legislation not go further? The names and duties of all those individuals met should be included in the registry.

Quebec's legislation states that consultant lobbyists must disclose the value intervals, less than $10,000, $10,000 to $50,000 and so forth, to indicate what they receive for lobbying. There is nothing about this in the bill currently before us. It is a legislative framework that imposes guide posts.

In terms of prohibiting any form of conditional fees, Quebec's legislation states that no consultant lobbyist or enterprise lobbyist may act in return for compensation that is contingent on the achievement of a result or the lobbyist's degree of success. This legislation is very specific with regard to a number of very sensitive issues related to lobbying. But in the government's proposed bill, no such specifics are provided.

In terms of the disclosure by consultant lobbyists or in-house lobbyists of the positions held or corresponding employment periods, indicated in Quebec's legislation, no such mention is made in the federal legislation.

In Quebec, consultant lobbyists have to indicate in their initial return the nature and term of any public office they held in the two years preceding the date on which they were engaged by the client. As for organization lobbyists and enterprise lobbyists—referring to electoral agencies—they must disclose the nature and term of any public office they held in the two years preceding the date on which they were engaged by the enterprise or group of any public office they held. This bill contains no such provisions.

To conclude, it must also be said that this bill is an improvement. Yes, it must be acknowledged. However, I often tell my constituents in the riding of Jonquière that the process for passing legislation is very long. It is excessively long at times. Often, when we pass legislation we are already behind in terms of meeting society's needs.

I would have liked this bill to be proactive and open-minded. There is so much new technology and what is new today is obsolete tomorrow. I would have liked to see more foresight in this bill because it will a long time before new lobbyist legislation is drafted again. We will always be behind the times and that is why legislation to ensure transparency must be passed to protect people.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to make comments on Bill C-15 with respect to lobbyists.

We have heard it mentioned by many people how important it is that lobbyists not be in a position to disrupt the parliamentary process or to exert undue influence on parliamentarians. However I have to observe that lobbyists are not the only ones who do this. Many people exert undue influence on Parliament and disrupt the parliamentary process.

At the beginning of this Parliament, opposition members encountered tremendous difficulty with respect to Bill C-7 amendments due to the draconian measures brought in by the government House leader, and the government's dismissive view of the decisions of the House, ignoring such things as the motion for Taiwan's bid for observer status at the World Health Organization, and the motion respecting the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece from Britain.

Just yesterday the Solicitor General disrespected the sub judice convention, and today the Minister of Transport indicated that he would override the decision of the Standing Committee on Transport and reinstate $9 million to VIA Rail. All of these things disrupt the parliamentary process.

One of the members who spoke recently said that we should do everything in our power to ensure that we stop the exertion of undue influence and disruption in the House. In keeping with that, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Windsor—St. Claire and the environment critic for the NDP caucus, has raised an important aspect to Bill C-15, the issue of full disclosure.

With respect to the general disclosure provisions, we have identified serious weaknesses and have proposed amendments. We believe the legislation needs to be changed and enhanced to require lobbyists to disclose their relationship with those they are lobbying, and that the act should include provisions that would require past or current work with government, political parties or candidates for public office.

Obviously we are concerned about politicians being lobbied by their former campaign managers. We see this as a conflict of interest for which there currently is no requirement for disclosure. It is a very important issue now.

Applying that to the present situation in terms of leadership candidates who are also members of the government and cabinet ministers, I would say to my colleague that it is absolutely imperative for this legislation to be comprehensive and to cover all circumstances.

We absolutely do want to see donations to leadership campaigns covered in some way or another with respect to this kind of legislation.

Whether we are talking about the member for LaSalle—Émard and the whole issue of policies that would enhance the steamship company, or whether we are talking about the Minister of Finance and raising serious questions about the fact that he appears to have received significant contributions from brand name pharmaceutical companies, they are legitimate concerns. They have to do with public policy. We would have to question whether, for example, the Minister of Finance is in a position to review regulations pertaining to the drug industry.

It would appear, based on what we know in terms of donations to his campaign, that he is not in a position to do that. He is in a conflict of interest position but he refuses to accept that difficult position. His supporters and his staff refuse to acknowledge that dilemma.

It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to raise the issues in the context of this bill and to make changes to Bill C-15 which will reflect that kind of scenario. We also need to draw to the attention of all parliamentarians the very serious possibility for conflict of interest happening as a result of leadership candidates receiving big money, huge donations from corporations, from pharmaceutical corporations, from energy corporations, from oil and gas companies, from banks, from big entities that have so much influence over the government and even more influence now because of candidates who are on the front bench of the government making important decisions.

That is a serious issue and it must be dealt with. I hope it is in the bill.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

It is a disgusting period in our history if that is the case. It is disgusting if that is still the basis upon which the Minister of Health is making decisions and the government is responding to parliamentary directions. How in the world can something as important as measures that will help reduce fetal alcohol syndrome, be iced, be put on hold, because the Brewers Association threatens to withdraw all money it now puts into public education and fetal alcohol syndrome?

My goodness, surely this is the purpose of Bill C-15. Surely, we are here today to ensure that that kind of undue influence does not happen. Surely, we have to do everything in our power to prevent big corporate interests from determining what is good for the public and what is good for the common good. Surely, that is the purpose of Parliament and the purpose of legislation.

That is why we have to stop the bill today and send it back to committee to get some teeth put into it so we will have an absolutely transparent process to hold high to the people of Canada and tell them we have checks and balances in place to prevent corporations and money interests from influencing the government in the direction of public policy.

We do not have to look much further to see other problems in Health Canada and the government when it comes to big corporate interests. Let us look at the influence of big pharmaceutical brand name drug companies. How else can we understand the refusal of the government to allow the generic drug industry into the marketplace? How else can we explain the refusal of the government to simply rid the country of the notice of compulsory compliance? What else can explain the fact that the government will not give absolute guarantees that it will stop the automatic injunction process which allows big brand name drug companies to drag out the legal process thus preventing generics on the market for years after the 20 year patent protection provision?

Maybe we have to look at the money that goes into the Liberal Party from drug companies. Maybe we have to look at the influence that exists by drug companies, alcohol companies and cigarette companies on the government preventing it from taking decisive action.

In 2000 Biochem Pharma Inc. gave the Liberal Party of Canada $64,742. In 2000 Glaxo Wellcome Inc. gave the Liberal Party of Canada $39,333. In 2000 Canada's research-based pharmaceutical companies gave the Liberal Party of Canada $18,500. Perhaps now we can understand why the government refuses to do what is in the public interest and why it refuses to initiate legislative proposals that make sense from the point of view of the common good, the public good and the public need over private interest.

When I was discussing fetal alcohol syndrome, I failed to mention the kind of contributions the Liberal government has received from alcohol companies. Given the minute I have left, I would like to remind members in the House that in 2000 the Liberal Party of Canada received a total of $134,441 from beer companies and brewing companies. For example, the government received $50,000 from Molson Inc.; $30,000 from Labatt Breweries of Canada; $15,000 from La Compagnie Seagram Ltee.; $12,000 plus from Pacific Western Breweries Co. Ltd., and the list goes on.

There is a lot of money going to the Liberal Party which appears to be exercising some influence over the decisions of the government if one looks at basic policy initiatives like fetal alcohol syndrome and generic drugs on the market.

I go could on. I could talk about tobacco. I could talk about the influence of tobacco companies over the government's lack of determination to deal with the banning of light cigarettes and the fact that the advisory committee on tobacco has basically resigned because of the government's inaction.

I could talk about many things that point to the need for this bill, Bill C-15, to be enhanced and strengthened to ensure we have a transparent process and that we operate at the highest of ethical standards.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

We have dealt with the bill before in this place. It has been to the Senate and is back with an amendment. The amendment makes a slight improvement to the bill, but in our humble estimation, it does not go the distance required to ensure that we have before us a piece of legislation that does the task at hand and has provisions for the utmost transparency and the highest of ethical standards. Let us remember where the bill came from, why it is before us and what it was intended to do.

Members of the House will recall that back in the spring of 2001 the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology held hearings on this matter and heard evidence from a wide variety of sources. The committee made recommendations to the House for the development of appropriate legislation in its report entitled “Transparency in the Information Age: The Lobbyists Registration Act in the 21st Century”.

The question for us today is, does Bill C-15 actually do what the process intended to accomplish? Does it take us down the path of legislation that ensures absolute transparency in the work and dealings of lobbyists vis-à-vis government? Have we set the highest ethical standards in terms of this very important aspect of government? We all know how cynical people have become. Our constituents are suspicious of government because of their perception of undue influence by corporate entities, by big money interests, in our society today over the legislation and programming established by government.

This is a very important issue in terms of democracy and in terms of restoring faith in the democratic process. It is very important in terms of assuring the general population that we operate on the basis of the highest standards. I am afraid we cannot say that has been accomplished under the bill as amended by the Senate.

Certainly the bill accomplishes a number of important objectives. Bill C-15 proposes to close some loopholes in the lobbyist regulatory system under the federal Lobbyists Registration Act. Specifically the bill requires that lobbyists who are invited to lobby government will now be required to register. The bill also states that the registration requirements for in-house corporate lobbyists will require more detailed listings of employees who are lobbying. That is very good. The bill also states that because of an amendment made by the House of Commons, a lobbyist for a corporation or organization who had been a public servant, politician or other public officer holder, will have to disclose the past offices the lobbyist held.

Some important changes have been made. Certainly some are on the right path. We are going in the right direction. We are in the process of moving toward greater transparency and higher ethical standards in the whole area of government, but are we there yet?

By all accounts by those who observe this process very carefully and by those who are concerned about the future of democracy in Canada, we are not there yet. We missed the mark. The bill is not perfect and it should be perfect because, goodness knows, we are dealing with a fundamental aspect of parliamentary process and democratic faith in our system.

Let us be clear. Some very key loopholes still remain in Bill C-15. Those loopholes allow many lobbyists to escape registration, to hide key details about the extent and nature of lobbying activities. They allow lobbyists to have inside access and undue influence and weaken enforcement of the Lobbyists Registration Act and the lobbyists code of conduct.

These are significant loopholes and must be closed. Our caucus, all members of the NDP in the House have been saying that time and again. Our critic, the member for Windsor West, has been very diligent and persistent about ensuring that the bill is amended to reflect those very concerns.

Our member for Windsor West told the House time and again that the act fails to address the issue of compulsory disclosure. He has said, and we agree with him, that the act should include a requirement that anyone covered by a federal code of conduct, including ministers, political appointees, civil servants and lobbyists, disclose any wrongdoing of which they have knowledge. It is very important to point out that it has not been addressed by the government.

There is another matter on which the member for Windsor West and also the member for Winnipeg Centre have been very outspoken. It has to do with the matter of whistle-blower protection. The member for Winnipeg Centre has had legislation before the House. He has tried to convince this place of the need to have such provisions entrenched in law so that we have a way to give protection to those in our civil service who know of wrongdoing, who want to report that wrongdoing, but fear for their jobs and repercussions in their working lives.

The member for Winnipeg Centre, reinforced by the member for Windsor West and others, has said very clearly that there must be whistle-blower protection in the legislation. Of course it needs to be in this legislation. We are talking about lobbying. We are talking about those who can exert undue influence on government. We are talking about loyal members of our civil service who observe, know and learn about wrongdoing and who want to report that wrongdoing for the public good, to serve the public interest.

What is holding the government back from ensuring whistle-blower protection in the legislation? As my colleague for Windsor—St. Clair has said, what are they afraid of? What are the Liberals afraid of? Why is this absolute bottom-line requirement, this fundamental position for whistle-blower protection, not in Bill C-15?

Is it because the government is afraid of the results, the outcome of the possibilities that their civil servants, those who work in the departments, know too much, see too much and can do too much damage to the politicians in this place, to members and ministers in the government? Is that a possibility? Perhaps it is because when we get down to it and analyze what has been happening lately with the government and the whole area of public policy decision making, there seems to be an awful lot of undue influence by corporate and monied interests in our society today over the direction of the government's legislative initiatives and over serious propositions that would serve the public good.

I have seen it time and time again in the last little while that I have been here in this place, particularly during the time when I was serving as the health critic and had a chance to observe what happened to important policies and initiatives in Health Canada and how the Minister of Health refused to act on important initiatives. I want to provide a few examples because they are very important to this debate.

I want to begin with an area that should touch the hearts of every member in this place and comes very close to home, and that is the matter dealing with fetal alcohol syndrome. I say it touches this place because members in the House voted on a motion that I presented and almost all members supported it. The motion said that Health Canada and the Government of Canada should require labels on all alcohol beverage containers to warn women not to drink while pregnant because of the danger of causing fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects.

It was an important initiative and I was so delighted to receive the support of members from all political parties and to see the work that was begun by the member for Mississauga South who worked so long and hard on the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome was paying off, that we were making headway in this place and making good public policy.

That was two years ago when the House passed this motion almost unanimously. We expected, perhaps naively, that motion would form the basis for government action. Perhaps it would not be overnight. Perhaps it would take a few weeks, a few months, maybe even a year, but who would have dreamed that it would take a whole two years with still no government response or action? How could this happen? What could come in the way of a very progressive initiative that makes the difference in terms of our battle against fetal alcohol syndrome?

No one in this place, certainly not me or anyone in my caucus, left the impression that this measure was the be all and the end all in terms of fetal alcohol syndrome, but that it was one small step, one measure as part of a bigger package, to help us deal with a very serious problem, a problem that costs our society dearly in terms of financial expenses and personal consequences. It costs millions of dollars over the life of every individual suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome for all society. It costs us dearly in human terms and in financial terms, so every bit we can do makes a difference.

The proposal is to have labels on alcohol beverage containers, which, as we know, is done in the United States. It is required for Canadian beer brewers, wine producers and alcohol producers to put those labels warning of fetal alcohol syndrome on bottles we export to the United States, so it would not take too much to do it here in Canada. Yet the government has refused. The Minister of Health has said that she must study the matter before she can decide, even though this matter has been studied to death over the years. The evidence is in and it is clear that, as a measure which is part of a whole package of initiatives focusing on fetal alcohol syndrome, it is important and it matters.

The question for us today in the context of Bill C-15 is, what undue influence happened over the government and the Minister of Health to cause this important initiative to be put on hold and shelved? I think we can say with some certainty that there was influence from the alcohol industry on the government. There was pressure from the beer companies on that minister. How else can one explain something this important being put on the sidelines? I think there is lots of evidence to suggest that.

The member for Mississauga South a number of years ago worked hard to have this matter dealt with before the health committee, and he proposed Bill C-22.

In a book he produced after that period in our parliamentary history entitled Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Real Brain Drain , he said:

There is no doubt that the alcohol industry killed the bill. They reportedly spent over $100,000 on lobby efforts... The Brewers Association announced that if the bill went through, they would withdraw their $10 million annual contribution to prevention programs that they jointly funded with Health Canada.

That sounds like blackmail to me.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I thank the government House leader for his intervention in this matter. Fortunately the Chair had done some research as a result of the question of privilege being raised and had discovered facts very similar to those alleged in the minister's statement. Accordingly, I find the question of privilege is not well taken and that is the end of the matter. I thank him for his assistance, as always. And the member for Edmonton North is always very helpful as well. All hon. members always strive to help the Chair.

We are resuming debate on Bill C-15.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very powerful question. Yes, I have checked my agenda as to what work remains to be done. We all know that there is lots of work to do.

That is why, this afternoon, the House will return to its consideration of Bill C-15, the lobbyist legislation, followed by Bill S-13, respecting census records. We will then return to Bill C-17, the public safety bill.

I am sorry that this morning we were unable to complete our consideration of Bill C-7. Tomorrow, we will begin considering the Senate's amendments to Bill C-10B, the cruelty to animals legislation, and Bill C-35, the military judges bill. If we have any time remaining, I still hope we can finish with Bill C-7, of course.

Next week, starting on Monday, the House will consider Bill C-24, the elections finance bill, at the report stage, and any items from this week that have not been completed.

I wish to confirm to the House that Thursday, June 12 shall be an allotted day.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I remind him that he still has five minutes for his speech and also will have a 10 minute question and comment period when the House resumes debate on Bill C-15.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to assure the House that of all MPs in the opposition, the member for Saint-Jean leads in his concern for transparency and accountability, and he has been active on that file in many ways. His very presence in the House on this debate on the amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act is an indication of his passionate desire to further legislation that calls for transparency, not just to make the Government of Canada operate more efficiently but to ensure that the Government of Canada leads the world in terms of transparency and accountability.

I think the member for Elk Island, the member for Saint-Jean and myself would agree that while Bill C-15 has brought in some improvements to the Lobbyists Registration Act, they fall far, far short of what could be done, and I think all three of us will continue to campaign to get the government to bring in better amendments.

I wanted to comment very briefly on the issue of the Senate and direct a question to the member for Saint-Jean on that issue. I certainly do not agree with abolishing the Senate. I have great reservations, as the member for Saint-Jean has, on having an elected body because if the Senate were an elected body, then it would greatly diminish the power and authority of the House of Commons and it would make it eminently more difficult to do business as Parliament. We would have to have a separately elected president as they have in the United States to have two elected houses if we were going to have a workable situation.

I ask the member for Saint-Jean, if he suggests that the Senate be abolished, why would we even be here debating today because the Senate has addressed an amendment, it has improved upon that amendment, an amendment by a backbench MP, and has returned it to the House. I would submit that the Senate has done a very fine job, at least in this instance.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, just now, my hon. colleague from Elk Island was saying that an entire year went by before he could finish his speech. I probably hold the record for having my speech interrupted five or ten minutes by a fire alarm. That is always fun.

I do not know if my subject was too hot, but I was explaining the importance of the various levels of government and talking about the power of the media. I do not think that lobbyists will convince journalists because, given their ethics and their code of conduct, they cannot do this.

The role of these famous lobbyists is known, but some facts are needed to understand how they proceed. The fact that Bill C-15 has come back to the House with amendments from the Senate shows that it took some effort. However, over the years, these people have wielded undeniable power. Clearly, those earning $300,000 or $400,000 per year to lobby must provide results and their employers must ensure that they benefit from this.

This has somewhat distorted the democratic process in the House of Commons. This happens elsewhere too, probably in other Parliaments around the world.

Now, we could talk about lobbyists forever, but also about political party financing, which is also a major problem. Those who contribute the most to federal parties' campaign funds are probably the ones best able to hire the most competent and most expensive lobbyists. That is where the problem lies.

For example, it is not surprising to see, when it comes to bills that interest the ten biggest contributors to the Liberal Party, a certain number of lobbyists are involved, trying to win the government over. If the bill seeks a reform that goes against the interests of these donors, the lobbyists try to convince the government to change its approach and protect the company for which they work.

Naturally, this creates a number of distortions. I think that the average citizen does not have the same power as the President of Bell Canada or the lobbyist hired by Bell Canada. This, to some extent, circumvents the democratic workings of Parliament, both with regard to the executive branch, where the ministers and the Prime Minister can be subject to pressure or have meetings with lobbyists, and with regard to backbenchers like us. Obviously, we are sometimes solicited by lobbyists.

Sometimes people talk about getting together for a meal but nothing ever comes of it. However, lobbyists often take it one step further and say, “When you organize a cocktail party, would you like us to help?” One thing leads to another and if they are not careful, people get caught in situations that are not democratic in our society and they empower lobbyists.

We were disappointed by this bill. We will support the bill, as amended by the Senate, but our problem is that Bill C-15, as a whole, does not suit us.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we put forward many amendments that were defeated. Among other things, there is the obligation to disclose meetings with officials and ministers. There are officials such as deputy ministers or senior officials, who can become victims of lobbyists. When I say victim, I mean they can become influenced by these individuals and become convinced that such and such a bill or policy could be detrimental.

If they were required to disclose the names of ministers they meet with or the fact that they met with the Prime Minister, this would give us a primary indication of the people who rub shoulders with ministers, the Prime Minister or senior officials in a department. This could alert us to what is going on and allow us to better control the situation. The amendments we put forward to address this were defeated.

As far as disclosing the amounts devoted to lobbying, everyone listening will understand that a $4,000 lobby campaign is not the same as a $400,000 one. The latter will be far more intensive. Moreover, in the bill this is referred to as the intensity of the lobby—that is what we called it.

It is certain that, if a lobbyist is paid $400,000 a year and has a $4 million budget at his disposal for a campaign—and this is a plausible figure because there are some among the top 10 contributors to the Liberal Party who can afford that—understandably, the lobbying can be intense.

The higher the figure, the more the lobbyist is paid, the more it is felt that there will be pressures on the government, departmental officials, ministers, the Prime Minister or MPs, in order to sell their idea, block a reform, or change it in such as way that it will not affect the organization for which he works.

This is, therefore, an important point for us, and the reason we introduced our amendments.

As far as disclosure of the amounts is concerned, this too was turned down. Another point that could be addressed—and which I touched upon here—is lobbyists' fees. There are often differences. Lobbyists can be consultants or paid lobbyists. Some have an annual salary. Understandably, if one person earns $40,000 and another $400,000, this affects the intensity of the promotion campaign or lobbying that is carried out. Once again, this has been dropped from the bill. It is not there.

Then there are the fees with strings attached, about which there have been scandals. We had the sponsorship scandal in which certain companies could get back a percentage of what was going to be charged to the government. This too was turned down. It is not in the bill.

As for the disclosure by lobbyists of their positions, it is also important to know which person on a list of lobbyists has held a high-level position in the federal administration. These are, unfortunately, all things that were left out of the bill. Today we find ourselves dealing with a totally wishy-washy bill that does not provide what is needed to protect society. This is most unfortunate.

I had examples, like the sponsorship scandal I just mentioned. There is also another aspect. I am the defence critic for my party, and hon. members should see all the lobbying going on for the replacement of the Sea Kings. There are many lobbyists representing various companies. Four big consortiums have submitted proposals to the government. Members should see what these lobbyists are focusing on. Even if I am only a backbencher, I often meet with these people, and they tell me, “You know, our approach is the best. Our proposal is the best overall”. All these people are moving in our circles and the ministers' circles.

Another example is strategic air transport. The government indicated it needs aircraft to transport troops to any theatre of operations around the world. So, the number of aircraft required is being considered. All major strategic air transport companies are consulting together and hiring people to meet with us, sometimes to appear before us and to convince us that Boeing or Airbus, for example, is the best option.

Lobbying causes a great deal of distortion. As I said earlier, it is unfortunate that the amendments we proposed were all defeated. Certainly, the amendment coming back from the Senate fosters a bit more transparency. It will ensure that people who have held senior management positions in government are required to provide some background. This will give a better idea of where they are coming from and probably where they are going as well. This is the kind of thing we would have liked to see expanded on in the bill. Unfortunately, it was not.

There are even lobbyists being hired by the Prime Minister now.

Earlier I mentioned the Sea King example. The Prime Minister's office hired a lobbyist to advise him on the matter. It was a lobbyist from Eurocopter, which provoked a great deal of mistrust among government officials because the individual was working in the Prime Minister's office. I do not know if he is still there because this goes back about two years ago now. This person worked for Eurocopter, one of the consortiums bidding on the Sea King contract two years ago, and he was brought into the Prime Minister's office.

Therefore, it is easy to understand all of the mystery surrounding lobbyists. How many are there? What do they do? How much are they paid? Whom do they meet? None of this is taken into account in the bill, and all of the amendments were rejected.

We do not take issue with the amending act from the Senate. It will add transparency; however, we would definitely have liked to see much more transparency.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to express my views. I know I was interrupted by an alarm, but I feel that, like my colleague, the member for Elk Island, I was able to summarize my thoughts. I am now ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I simply wanted to say that I found the discussion between my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance and the Liberal party over the last 30 minutes very interesting.

The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot just said that the opposition did not propose any amendments. He must have meant that the Canadian Alliance did not propose any amendments, because the Bloc Quebecois moved a number of them. He should be careful not to generalize when using the word opposition.

We did some very serious work on Bill C-15. I also wanted to come back to an idea raised by the member for Elk Island. He mentioned that it might be important for senators to be elected. I would like to use this opportunity to say that one way we could significantly limit the influence of lobbyists on Parliament Hill, and this brings me to the position of the Bloc Quebecois on the Senate, is to simply abolish the institution. That is what we propose. I think that that would put about a hundred lobbyists out of work.

Senators have direct access to ministers and members of Parliament. There have been blatant examples over the years. Senators are often called in to move issues forward with the government.

What we have before us today is a simple amendment that comes to us courtesy of the Senate, an amendment we support. However, with respect to Bill C-15 as a whole, we are pretty dissatisfied with how things have turned out.

We proposed amendments and we provided solid arguments to support them. The members opposite often tells us, “Propose amendments, that is the procedure, that is how we proceed in the House”. However, what we have often seen is systematic rejection of all amendments . In fact, the government always has a majority in committee. When the word comes from on high, even if an amendment is excellent and even if we provide solid arguments to support it, the dice are often loaded and the amendments are rejected.

First, I would like to clarify my longstanding view, one that I continue to hold, about the parliamentary system, and how a society has to work in terms of elections, and how elected officials must work, once they have been elected.

Everyone is somewhat familiar with how an election campaign works. The various parties that are contending for power present their platforms. There are people on a team, under a same banner, led by someone that everyone knows, who is the leader of the party. These people present their vision for society to the voters.

The campaign lasts a certain amount of time and in the end a government is elected. This government tries to stick to its platform, which does not always happen and is why there is such cynicism among the public. The government often has to say, “I am dropping this, I am giving up that. I have looked at the state of public finances and I have to say that at this time I can no longer do what I promised.” This is often what happens and what causes people to become cynical.

However, there is more to it than that. If we look at the truly positive side of those who are in power, those who have been elected in our society, in my view they have very important responsibilities. They represent the public. They are the ones who have been chosen by the public to run the nation, to manage taxes and to make sure that bills are introduced and that society progresses.

Everyone is somewhat familiar with the composition of the government. There is the cabinet—commonly referred to as the executive—that has the responsibility of planning, through its bills, how it will adhere to its platform and how it wants to move society forward, since it was elected by the public. This is a very important first level.

If these people can be influenced, they can decide how and in what order bills are introduced. There is a lot at stake. One must never lose sight of the fact that the government, whether at the executive or legislative level, is there to serve the public.

If that were the case with the current government, things might be okay, but as we exercise our profession of member here, we realize that it is not the case.

Thus, the executive is very important. In this respect, the Prime Minister's Office is very important, too, because it gives some impetus to the cabinet and it is often the PMO that will say to the government House leader, “We would like you to introduce these types of bills in the following order”. After that, the House leader does his or her work.

Now, we come to the legislative branch. Once the executive, the cabinet, has decided on the content and order of introduction of the bills, the bills go through various readings in the House: first, second and third. There is an intermission between second and third reading, at which time a committee studies the bill more thoroughly.

In that stage, too, the legislator can be a victim or can have contact with all kinds of people. Sometimes he or she is in contact with people who appear as witnesses before the committees, and who defend a certain point of view. In this regard, we, the legislators, must have a clear idea of the kind of services we want for society. We also have to learn how to handle the various representations made to us.

Everyone knows the judicial authority. It has a special power in a society. After the executive and legislative have legislated, if there are any grey areas, the judiciary must intervene. Its representatives are better protected than we are because of judicial restraint. I think a lobbyist would have a big problem if he went to a Supreme Court Justice and said, “I want to meet with you to convince you to render a decision in a particular way”. In principle, this is not done. It is impossible, because of judicial restraint, and that is a good thing.

There is also the whole question of the power of the media.

Madam Speaker, I believe the alarm has just gone off.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

I will just point out in reply, Madam Speaker, that I know the opposition made no effort to make amendments in committee and made no effort to make amendments at report stage. In fact, Bill C-15 breezed through committee with hardly any comments or obstacles.

So I would say to the member opposite that I am willing to serve, I am willing to do the role of the opposition, but it is lonely here when it takes a Liberal backbench MP to criticize his government and the opposition is silent.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, you know how much I admire and respect the member for Elk Island and his prowess as a debater in the House, and with the regret that I must feel in telling you that he has spoken for nearly an hour on the issue before the House, this amendment, and he clearly has demonstrated he has not done any homework on the amendment.

He never addressed what the amendment was all about and regrettably missed in his speech addressing an issue that is before the House, because of Bill C-15 and this amendment, that is vitally important on two fronts, and especially important to an opposition member.

What we have before us is the Senate improving an amendment that was brought in at report stage on the Lobbyists Registration Act by a government member, against government wishes, that was put in the House to a vote. The government voted against it and backbench Liberal MPs joined with opposition MPs and passed that amendment. I believe it was the first time in possibly more than a decade, if not longer, that an unfriendly amendment passed at report stage in the House.

What is so remarkable about what we have before us now is that this amendment amended the Lobbyists Registration Act to require that in-house lobbyists, when they registered with the registrar of lobbyists, had to declare whether they were former public office holders. It addressed an extremely important issue. We are familiar with the high profile lobbyists who might have been former politicians, and they are usually obvious out there when they act as lobbyists and lobby the government.

One of the problems in the lobbying industry, one of the problems of transparency, one of the problems of fairness has been the fact that sometimes mid-level bureaucrats, people who are relatively anonymous, leave their employment and within a year, which is according to the conflict of interest guidelines, suddenly appear as lobbyists and wind up lobbying the very people who were their former colleagues. The problem that arises when this occurs is that these people obviously have significant advantage when they lobby.

One of the difficulties in the industry and among people who hire lobbyists to lobby government, because lobbying government is a legitimate enterprise, and one of the problems is that if one company hires a lobbyist and another company hires a lobbyists and that second company hires a lobbyist that includes a person who formerly worked for the department in which the company is seeking a contract, then that particular company has a tremendous advantage. In order to even the playing field it should be made possible, and this was done by my amendment, that anyone can refer to the list of lobbyists that is cut by the registrar of lobbyists to determine whether a person who is lobbying was a former office holder.

I point out that there is anecdotal evidence that this is a major problem in contracting out. It has been a problem in the Department of National Defence. Indeed, I acted on this issue because of complaints in my riding where I had a firm that was competing for a contract, a federal government defence contract, and after that contract was won by another firm, it discovered that other firm had employed a lobbyist who had been working with the very people who were deciding on the merits of which firm would get the contract and which would not. Therefore, it was an unfair playing field.

Unfortunately I was never able to bring this issue adequately before the committee. I had reasons why I was unable to bring this issue before the committee at the committee stage of debate on the lobbyist registration bill, so I introduced at the last moment a report stage amendment that would require in-house lobbyists to register as former office holders when they applied for registration to the registrar.

Anyway, the point is this, and I regret that the member did not deal with it in his speech, is that I introduced the amendment and the government circulated a note to the effect that it did not support the amendment. Nevertheless many of my colleagues on this side of the House and of course the opposition supported the amendment and it passed.

The really good news, and why the amendment that is before the House is so important from the Senate, is naturally the bill passed third reading and went to the Senate and the issue of this amendment came up. What was pointed out to the Senate committee that studied the lobbyists registration bill was that my amendment only dealt with in-house lobbyists and it did not deal with consultant lobbyists, the one being professional lobbyists and the other being people who would be hired by a firm and so employed.

The Senators listened to debate from witnesses that argued for my amendment and the expansion of my amendment to consultant lobbyists and those who argued against.

The Senators in their wisdom sided with my original intent and what they did was they composed an amendment of their own that brought in not only in-house lobbyists but included consultant lobbyists. I should add that they not only made this change and proposed this change in committee, they also convinced the minister.

The minister appeared before the committee, and we can read the Senate Hansard to see this. The Minister of Industry, having first opposed the amendment when I introduced it in the House, told the Senators that on reflection and based on the evidence that the Senators had heard from the various witnesses they dealt with, he now supported it.

What we have now before the House is an amendment to the Lobbyists Registration Act that builds on the initiative of a backbench MP who used his opportunity, his privilege in the House to move an amendment, and got the support of his colleagues, got the support of the Senate and now it is before the House and will undoubtedly pass.

I think what is so important to bear in mind here is the demonstration that backbench MPs on the government side and opposition MPs when they have a good amendment and can get the support of the House can get it into law.

Even more important than that I think, is the story I have just told is a fine demonstration of how the Senate, that other place, can work effectively. If we read the Senate Hansard , we will see that the Senators did due diligence and in one sense they did better due diligence on this issue than was done in this House. The result is an amendment that is before the House which increases the transparency and levels the playing field among lobbyists.

I say only one other thing. In fairness to my friend, the member for Elk Island, I share his feelings that much more work has to be done with the Lobbyists Registration Act. It is a very imperfect piece of legislation even as it stands.

One of the reasons why I felt obligated to move an amendment of my own was because I did not feel that enough was being done to the legislation to strengthen it, to increase the level of transparency, to actually improve our ability as members of Parliament, as the media and as ordinary citizens to see not only who the lobbyists are but to see who are being lobbied.

Really lobbying is a legitimate enterprise as long as it is done openly, above board and with transparency. However what we also need very badly is to be able to see who, particularly in the lower levels of the bureaucracy, are being wined and dined with the intent to influence them.

I feel that while the lobbyists registration changes that are the entire package of Bill C-15 are an advancement, there is still a long way to go. In that sense I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Elk Island and some of the criticisms he presented in his speech. I only wish that he had dealt a little b with the amendments at hand because really, as they say in the media, it was truly a good news story.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to resume my speech which was interrupted by question period yesterday.

I am not totally unaccustomed to making speeches that are interrupted and resumed later. Sometime in December four or five years ago I was giving a speech which was interrupted. When I resumed the speech the following December, a year later, I started off by saying “When I was interrupted, I was saying” and I carried on. I shall do the same thing today.

Yesterday I was speaking to the motion that has been sent to us from the Senate. I used to be an educator. I know it is important to always review what has gone on before so that it sinks in a little better, so for a quick review, I was speaking about the importance of the Senate being elected. I spoke of the fact that we know of some senators who work diligently and hard and we have respect for them, but we would like to give them more respect by having them elected.

The senators have worked on Bill C-15 and they have sent one amendment. That amendment, as I stated yesterday, is sort of a bookkeeping one. It was something that was overlooked in this place. It is that the person who is registering as a lobbyist is required also to state what the nature of his or her relationship was to the government earlier if they were a public office holder in their previous life. I talked a little bit about that.

I talked about the fact that it is not acceptable in our modern day and age that decisions as to what contract is let should be dependent in any way on a friend of the minister or deputy minister being able to schmooze, to smooth talk the person into choosing one contract over another. Those decisions should be made as objectively as possible based on the specifications for the contract and based on the value for the dollar.

We know it is not always the lowest price tendered that is the best buy for the taxpayer. Just as when anyone of us buys an appliance, we do not necessarily go only on the price.

I recently bought a microwave. I do not know what happened but my wife put something into the microwave which fried the thing. It was more expensive to fix it than to buy a new one, so I bought a new one. I did not go just on the lowest price. It would have been a little, dinky thing that would have almost been invisible in the cupboard and would not have had the features. I looked at what we wanted and what we needed and I bought the best one for the dollar.

We expect government to do that as well. Whether it is buying helicopters or computers, it needs to study the issue and make sure that it gets the best value for the dollar on behalf of the taxpayer.

I notice that there are many people on the Liberal side of the House who are listening intently. They are not objecting at all to what I am saying. They agree fully with what I am saying. There is no objection over there whatsoever. That is because they are all looking forward to a wonderful long speech by the member for Elk Island.

I have a bit of a challenge here in the sense that I have unlimited time, as you correctly stated, Madam Speaker, when you allowed me to resume. If I am going to speak longer than my colleague from Red Deer, who I think holds the record in the House for the longest speech, which I think was some 33 hours, I guess I still have another 32 and a half hours to go before I have exceeded that.

I am excited about the enthusiasm that is shown for the prospect of such a wonderful, long speech. However, I think it would probably be fair to others in the House to allow them also to make their statements, because in this particular case we are dealing with the amendment that has been sent by the Senate.

In as much as it was an oversight and the individuals in the other place detected it and have sent back an amendment to correct it, I would recommend to all members of the House that we support this particular amendment and get it into the bill. Then we have the bill to deal with and undoubtedly, we will be giving some substantial speeches on that when it is finished.

There are serious flaws with this whole lobbyists thing. I would like to see the Lobbyists Registration Act changed so that not only is there disclosure, but certain activities would be precisely defined as being not permitted.

I would encourage the government in the next revision of the Lobbyists Registration Act to strongly consider looking at some of the objections. As I said in my speech yesterday in terms of this little review that I am doing, we owe it to Canadian taxpayers and to Canadian voters to manage the affairs of government so that once again, after a dearth of 50 years or more, the people of Canada will be able to say that they are proud to be Canadians and that they are very happy with the thoroughness, the integrity and the high level of ethics with which their government business is done. That has been lacking.

That is why in 1993 the Liberal government came in with a pledge to have an independent ethics commissioner and to restore the concept of trust in our government. The Liberals ran on that platform. What have they done? Regrettably, they have not fulfilled that promise. We have, only now, some timid legislation moving us toward an independent ethics commissioner, but it still is inadequate in the sense that the individual will still be appointed by the Prime Minister. We would like to see that changed very substantially.

We see the government's record of a number of shenanigans, if we can call them that, shenanigans from Shawinigate to Chicoutimi. There are contracts that have been given for advertising, and the deals with the hotel involving the Prime Minister. That is so unfortunate. It ought not to be. We need rules and regulations in place precisely to prevent those things from happening.

If a person such as the Prime Minister or one of the ministers does not have the built-in ethical antenna to prevent that kind of behaviour, then we need rules that will impose correct behaviour on them. Unfortunately, that is necessary. I propose that we in Canada's Parliament move very quickly to have that kind of a system so that, as I said, Canadians will be able to say with sincerity “We trust our government. We know that occasionally it makes little mistakes, but the big mistakes should not happen and cannot be allowed to happen continuously”.

As members can tell, I would have very little difficulty carrying on in a further discussion, but I am aware that other members of the House are also interested in debating and therefore I will cede my time. I look forward to hearing what other members of the House have to say on this important topic.