Bill C-15 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to open the debate on the amended version of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. This version differs only slightly from that passed March 18.

The Senate made only one amendment to correct an inconsistency discovered in an amendment passed by the House at third reading.

The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot moved the original amendment during debate at third reading. I understand that he supports without reservation the change recommended by the Senate.

Obviously, the Minister of Industry considers this amendment appropriate under the circumstances.

The Senate's amendment and the original amendment moved at third reading are fully within the meaning of Bill C-15, which is to create a lobbyists registration system that works well now and that will work even better in the future. It is about creating a more transparent lobbyists registration system that is easier to enforce and that continues to earn the trust of Canadians.

The House has every reason to approve the version amended by the Senate. Rapid adoption of the bill means it will be able to receive royal assent and be implemented.

Before addressing the substance of the amendment made by the Senate, allow me to take a moment to remind the hon. members of the context for today's debate.

As my hon. colleagues from all sides of this House will recall, the review that led to Bill C-15 was a lengthy and comprehensive one.

While the original lobbying legislation dates back to 1989, parliamentarians and the public were concerned that it might not go far enough to allow a thorough public scrutiny of lobbying. In response to these concerns, our party promised improvements to the lobbying regime during the 1993 election campaign.

We delivered on our promise. Our government introduced a bill to review the Lobbyists Registration Act, which Parliament passed, and a new act came into force in 1996. This act resulting in the development of the code of conduct for lobbyists and led us to work tirelessly to ensure the efficiency of the new system.

This work has met with success. Gone are the public concerns, which were commonplace ten years ago, about agreements entered into behind closed doors. Why? Because the Lobbyists Registration Act and the system supporting it have brought a high level of transparency to the situation.

A balance has been struck between four principles: first, free and open access to the government is an important matter of public policy; second, lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity; third, concerning transparency, public office holders and the public must be able to know who is trying to influence the government; and fourth, with respect to efficiency, a registration system for paid lobbyists must not hinder free and open access to the government.

That having been said, enforcement of legislation normally reveals what improvements are necessary. That is what happened with the Lobbyists Registration Act.

In 2001, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology reviewed both the system and the act. It tabled its report, in which it recommended that the government make a number of changes and take a closer look at certain questions.

The government has followed up on these recommendations, consulted further and produced Bill C-15.

In addition to the usual housekeeping and technical amendments designed to correct minor drafting errors, the bill has three main components.

First, it contains a clearer definition of lobbying.

Second, it simplifies and standardizes registration requirements for all categories of lobbyists and strengthens the applicable cancellation requirements.

Third, it establishes more meaningful enforcement powers.

Neither the House or the Senate standing committees put forward amendments to the substantive elements of Bill C-15.

There were discussions and debates on specific points, but at the end of the day, parliamentarians from both Houses agreed that Bill C-15 would solve some key issues effectively.

Nonetheless, during debate at third reading, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot put forward an amendment to increase the amount of information required from lobbyists. More specifically, it amended subsection 7(1) and added sub-paragraph 7(3)( h. 3). Under this sub-paragraph, lobbyists who are former public office holders would have to describe their former duties as part of the registration process.

As the hon. member himself later admitted, this amendment included an unintended loophole. It required information only from corporate lobbyists and lobbyists working for not-for-profit organizations. Consultant lobbyists, who provide lobbying services under contract to companies, organizations, or other clients, were not required to provide the same information.

It is clear that this amendment is inconsistent with the pervasive theme of Bill C-15, which is the equal and transparent application of registration requirements to all lobbyists. Having seen this loophole, the hon. member wrote to the Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to ask that this omission be corrected. The committee made the correction as requested and the Senate accepted the amendment, which is the only change that was made to the version passed by the House in March.

Essentially, what we have before us is a significant administrative correction we have every reason to accept. It makes absolutely no change in the major thrust of the law, but merely adds one additional detail in the interests of uniformity and greater transparency.

As a result, Bill C-15 as amended will enable us to take one more step toward being able to meet Canadians' growing expectations as far as ethical issues are concerned. It will be compatible with the other steps taken by our government, such as increasing the number of auditor general reports, departmental measures broadening the internal audit procedures, and the adoption of a more comprehensive code governing the conduct of holders of public office.

This bill constitutes one more means of keeping the promise made by the Prime Minister when he revealed his eight-point ethics plan last June. It falls in line with the measures aimed at introducing a guide for ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries in connection with ethical and other issues, as well as with the new rules governing interactions between ministers and crown agencies.

The Senate has asked us to make one minor change to a bill we have already passed once. It is a reasonable change, and one we should approve. We will thus be able to implement the improvements proposed in Bill C-15 to the Lobbyists Registration Act. We will be able to make a system that is working well now work still better in future.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved

the second reading of, and the Senate to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, as to whether we need to have late night sittings, I suppose it depends on the co-operation on the part of the opposition, which is usually quite good, I must say.

Going to the substance for the next few days, we will continue this afternoon with the opposition day motion. The House does not sit tomorrow because of the Conservative leadership convention.

We are now entering June, the month when we try to wrap up the year's work and we will be consulting other House leaders on a daily, sometimes hourly basis, in order to determine the precise order of bills. However for the next few days we will be dealing mostly with report stages, third readings and consideration of Senate amendments to bills we have already passed.

The bills that will be considered next week will be, and I will start with the one on Monday, although we intend to have a minor conversation about another minor issue later, but generally speaking they will be as follows. We will start with Bill C-25, the public service bill. We will then move on to Bill C-31 respecting certain pensions for veterans and the RCMP. When that bill is completed I would hope to start Bill C-7 respecting first nations governance; and because they are all government days next week we are going to take them probably in roughly that sequence, Bill C-17 public safety; then Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill which is presently at third reading.

It would be my intention to then call Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments. When the bill is reported to the House, which hopefully will be one day next week, we could then commence Bill C-24, the political financing bill. We also have the amendments from the Senate which I understand might happen on Bill C-15, the lobbyist bill, and Bill C-10B, cruelty to animals.

At some point, we would also like to debate the second reading of Bill S-13, respecting the census, and Bill C-27, the airport bill.

As a matter of courtesy, I wish to indicate to colleagues that it is my intention to call the final supply day on or after June 12. This is not, of course, an official designation of that day at this point but that is why I say on or after, but at least to try and give an indication to colleagues in the event that they will not take other commitments at or about that particular time in order for them to be able to plan their agenda.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks contain a lot of rhetoric. I have given many facts and the source of the facts.

Would he not agree with the Toronto chief of police? Would he not agree with the Auditor General who said that she has never seen over-spending from $2 million to $1 billion? Is that not a fact?

How can the member deny that the government told this Parliament and Canadians that the whole system of implementing the gun registry would cost $2 million? What is the cost now? It is now 500 times more than the original projection by the government. It is up to $1 billion and still counting. Does the member not agree with those facts?

I gave a huge list of figures during my speech concerning the errors. I will not repeat them because there may be some other questions. The system is full of errors. It does not help police find guns. When police go into someone's residence, the police do not know if there are any guns that residence. The guns may not match the registration certificates. All these things were well articulated in my speech.

Backbench Liberals do not agree with their own government. They know that the government has seriously flawed this legislation. The government failed to accept legitimate amendments. There were 265 amendments to Bill C-68. The government tried to make Canadians believe that it would do it right so it introduced Bill C-15 in the last session. When the House recessed, the bill was in the Senate and was renumbered to Bill C-10. The Liberal dominated Senate split the bill without having the authority to do that.

The facts given during my speech were supported with sources. I am sure members of the House trust the police chiefs, the Auditor General and the research done by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville who has spoken many times in the House on this issue.

I think I made a good case. I have given the facts to Canadians and I supported my facts with sources. Let anyone challenge those facts and then we will see.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-10A. The bill seeks to amend the Firearms Act. Notably, the bill would stagger firearms licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. It would simplify the requirements for licence renewals and it would create a commissioner to oversee the program.

We, the members of the official opposition, disagree with the passage of the bill.

The member for Yorkton—Melville has worked very hard and for a very long time on this issue. He has done an excellent job of researching the issue, educating Canadians and holding the government accountable.

This bill has been kicking around for over two years. First it was Bill C-15 which, at the insistence of the official opposition, was split into two parts. Bill C-15B included the firearms amendments, along with the amendments to the cruelty to animals section. It was in the Senate when the House prorogued. In this session it was re-numbered as Bill C-10 and sent to the Senate for debate. After six days of debate, in December the Senate decided to split Bill C-10 into two: Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which includes the firearms section and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with cruelty to animals.

Despite the fact that the Senate does not have the authority to do so, the Senate split this bill in two. Members of the House of Commons should not be required to waive their rights and privileges in order to allow the Senate to exceed its authority.

Why did the Senate divide Bill C-10? Because it could not comply with the government's demand that it ram through the entire bill before Christmas. But why exactly did the Liberal-dominated Senate take this drastic step? Because the government had an end of year deadline contained in the gun registry section. Failure to pass the gun registry portion of Bill C-10 by December 31 would result in yet higher costs for the registry, perhaps another $4 million a year. We missed the December deadline.

Bill C-10A has been appearing on and disappearing from the legislative agenda for some months now. I can only speculate that the government is leery about placing it before Parliament for debate, perhaps scared over the reception it will receive from the members of the Liberal caucus.

The 22 pages with 63 clauses of firearms amendments in Bill C-10A are a clear admission by the government that Bill C-68 was a failure. The then justice minister told us at a news conference, “The debate is over” on this issue, but if the debate really was over in 1998, why did the minister bring in 22 pages of amendments to the legislation?

After seven years, the waste of a billion dollars and still counting, and massive non-compliance, the government has finally admitted it made a mistake in 1995. There are many more things that need to be fixed in Bill C-68 other than these few tinkering amendments. The insurmountable problems with the gun registry will not be solved by these band-aid amendments.

The only cost effective solution is to scrap the gun registry altogether and replace it with something that will work.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear a couple of the Progressive Conservative members speak on the issue. Conservatives have never been known for their good sense on financial issues. It is somewhat hypocritical of them to talk about cost overruns, considering how the last P.C. government in Canada handled the finances of the country.

What is really irritating about Bill C-68, which was introduced by the Liberals, is that it was only introduced because the Progressive Conservatives had first committed to a firearms legislation, and on which the Liberals had to up the ante. Therefore, they brought in this onerous Bill C-68, which would never have passed if it were not for Progressive Conservative senators supporting the bill and passing it.

Then we were faced with Bill C-15, which has now mutated into Bill C-10A. Once again we are faced with having to deal with the bill. I guess the only thing more irritating than listening to the Conservatives opposing the bill, after they had supported the bill through the Senate, was to hear one of the government members a few minutes ago talk about how $600 million was a justifiable expense in this program.

To the member at the other end, what epiphany did members of his party experience that caused them to change their position on this legislation? Was it when the Conservatives realized that their constituents actually opposed the bill or was it when the cost of the bill became too high even for Progressive Conservatives?

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The advantage that a member for Crowfoot has when we have a Liberal cabinet minister heckling with Bloc members is that I do not know if they are heckling me or if they are talking about something else, so as long as they keep speaking like that, I will just keep going.

What I was saying is the legislation keeps coming back into the House because it is flawed. That is the only reason that it comes back. The legislation gets shipped off to the Senate and it gets shipped back to the House because it is flawed. We are standing here today again debating a piece of legislation that has been drawn up in a knee-jerk response and does not, in any type of satisfactory way, bear forward any legislation that will supplement or help public safety in the country. We are here today debating Bill C-10A.

On a number of occasions I have been prepared to debate this legislation, which resulted because the Senate split Bill C-15B. It has created two separate pieces of legislation: Bill C-10A which is an act to amend the Criminal Code in respect to firearms; and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to cruelty to animals. Both legislations, the cruelty to animal legislation and the gun registry, are attacks on my constituency and on agriculture. I have heard from my constituents time and time again that there are resources that could be spent adequately and that could be directed adequately toward resourcing agriculture and making a difference. However this holds back the ability of farmers and ranchers to go about their business.

Every time my colleagues and I were prepared to speak on Bill C-10A, the controversial bill was yanked from the House agenda in a desperate attempt by the government to avoid further embarrassment over the firearms registry's horrific cost overruns.

I was not here in 1995. I have looked back in Hansard and I have looked at some of the speeches that were given in those times. I have heard where the minister would stand and say that the registry would cost $80 million. Other times someone would come forward and say that it would cost $119 million but it would generate $117 million, for a net cost of only $2 million. Then as time went on, when we could get answers out of the government, we would hear how it was costing $200 million or $300 million.

The huge cost overruns in this bill alone should force the government to yank it off the legislative agenda and scrap it, or at least call a time out.

Just last week the government House leader again withdrew the bill, as complications arose regarding the transfer of the registry from the Minister of Justice to the Solicitor General. The latest rationale for pulling Bill C-10A included references to the Minister of Justice and other wording that the government thought it would have to change before the Solicitor General legally could take responsibility for the Canadian Firearms Centre and other aspects of the program.

Apparently the government devised a new plan on the weekend, because surprise of all surprises, without much warning, again today the bill has been pushed back on to the legislative calender and now we are debating it again. However one outstanding question remains. How will the responsibility and the accountability for the firearms registry be transferred to the Solicitor General? How will pages and pages of enabling legislation be changed to transfer legally the responsibility of the firearms registry from the Minister of Justice over to the Solicitor General?

If transferring it to the Solicitor General is such a good idea, why was it not contemplated when Bill C-68 was drafted and first debated? Why the about-face? Why was it that one minister of justice after another stood and talked about public safety, how the gun registry would reduce crime in Canada and how it was a good thing? However no where in the plan was there the transfer from the Department of Justice to the Solicitor General. Why not?

The government is flying by the seat of its pants. This is a knee-jerk response. The minister has gone from wanting control of the gun registry to not wanting control of it. Some have suggested it is because the current Minister of Justice has hopes for some day running for the leadership of the Liberal Party and realizes that this legislation is a career breaker. The cost overruns, the inefficiencies, the fact that Bill C-10A will never accomplish what those members believe it will accomplish could be a career breaker. That is why it was never contemplated.

The government and the Minister of Justice are trying to save face. Back in the west we call this passing the buck. The minister believes this issue is a hot potato and he wants to shuffle it off his desk and onto the desk of the Solicitor General. He thinks this will divert attention away from the horrific cost of the registry. The government thinks the whole problem may disappear. Talk about a joke. This is not a joke. This is a sad story that is costing responsible firearm owners their freedom of ownership, and is an invasion of their right to privacy.

Until questions are clearly answered, the legislation should be yanked again. It should be pulled off the agenda again. The government should come to the House with some comprehensive plan that will answer the questions that not only the opposition party brings to the House but also the questions that the Canadian public is starting to ask. Why the cost overruns? Why is the registry being moved from the Department of Justice to the Solicitor General's department? Why is the government flying by the seat of its pants?

There are a number of other concerns that I want to address regarding Bill C-10A.

According to media reports, the Solicitor General has admitted that the savings, which his government was planning, to keep the costs of the firearms program at $113 million over the next year will not occur until Bill C-10A becomes law. In other words, if the bill is delayed again, the government will be unable to take advantage of the savings or the $113 million of administration over the next number of years. The government is trying to paint the opposition into a corner. If we attempt to delay this poor piece of legislation, the government will throw it back at us and say that the resulting cost overrun was because the opposition had the audacity to stand up in this place and debate it. Delay after delay will cost Canadians a lot of money. This registry is costing Canadians because it is a poor piece of legislation.

Similarly, the government has blamed those provinces that have opted out of administering the law for the cost overruns when the cost of the firearm registry rests squarely on the government's shoulders. It failed to accurately calculate the exact cost of the registry before Bill C-68 was ever passed and proclaimed. It failed to understand the magnitude of what it would cost.

Last week I stood in the House debating budget 2003. At that time I outlined quite clearly the financial difficulties many municipalities in my riding were encountering in paying for police services. It appears that not only are the municipalities faced with escalating costs for community policing but they are burdened by the cost of enforcing the firearms registration and regulations, costs for which they were promised they would not be solely responsible.

Last week I learned that the Camrose Police Commission, which is in my riding of Crowfoot, threw its support behind the demands of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police for more federal assistance with the cost of enforcing the law.

On February 12 the Alberta chiefs of police wrote to the Minister of Justice outlining their concerns about the lack of funding for policing. I will quote from the Camrose Booster dated March 25. It states, “We note that in all the discussions, briefings and planning for the implementation, much time was spent on the issues relating to the administrative aspects of this legislation”.

He was talking about the gun law. The letter goes on to say, “Forms and computer data banks seem to have dominated everyone's attention. Not much, if anything, has so far been said about the actual practicalities of enforcement of the act. More to the point, we note with concerns that the federal government has not yet expressed any view with respect to the source of funding for police activities arising out of the enforcement of this act”.

The letter was written by the President of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police, Marshall Chalmers, who also happens to be the chief of police with the Camrose Police Service.

Chief Chalmers has also stated, “We have to convey to you with the greatest possible force and clarity that the municipal governments quite simply cannot assume this additional burden”.

What is the Chief of Police saying? He is saying that it is the law, yes, and that they will have to uphold the law, but that they cannot afford to do it. It would be a huge burden on every municipality and every city to enforce the law that the government is sending down the pike.

Chief Chalmers stated unequivocally that without federal support, police services in the Province of Alberta will have no choice but to set an order of policing priorities that do not include the enforcement of the Firearms Act.

Interviewed by local newspapers on March 20, the Camrose chief of police said, “the initial promise in relation to the act was that the federal government would pay for the entire cost of enforcement and there would be no downloading of costs onto the municipalities. But now it is very apparent that the federal government is expecting municipalities to absorb some of the costs”.

Although, and in fairness to the Alberta chiefs of police I must recognize this fact, the chiefs do accept the act as a valid piece of legislation, they feel the issue of enforcement must be addressed, and I agree.

Not only must the question of who pays the cost of enforcement, which clearly cannot fall on financially burdened municipalities, be answered, but so must all the other outstanding questions regarding the cost of the registry.

Today a Bloc member stood in the House and said that the more tools we had to fight crime the better. They support this registry because they believe it is a tool and the more tools they have to fight crime the better.

I would put forward the argument that the gun registry is preventing us from coming forward with the needed tools to fight crime. The cost of the registry is making other resources and other tools prohibitive because they have signed on, they have been harnessed up to a piece of legislation that is burdening the whole law enforcement and the whole security side of the government down.

The other day the member from Burnaby, a New Democrat, said, with respect to the gun registry, that if it saved the life of only one Canadian it would be worth it all.

How can we make an argument against something like that, other than to say that if we were to spend $1 billion to save the life of that one individual, how many other lives would be lost by not being able to put forward adequate policing?

In another speech, the minister from Ontario, Mr. Runciman, said that in national terms $85 million would put another 1,000 custom agents on the border and $500 million would put an extra 5,900 police officers on the street. The federal alternative is to use the money to register every shotgun and bolt action .22. No great brilliance is required to figure out which would have the greater impact on crime.

Give us the $1 billion and we will put some into health care and we will put more police officers back on the street. In 1993-95 the government jerked 2,000 RCMP officers off the payroll. Let us put some of those officers back on the beat, back on the street, and see how many lives we can save. Let us see how effective we are at fighting organized crime. Let us see how effective we could be at fighting the war against child pornography.

We have a gun registry with $1 billion that will drag down every other viable program, project or resource and make it unaffordable. This is about priorities. That is why we stood in the House and asked for a cost benefit analysis. When we talk about the registry and the good things that may happen, that is okay but at what cost? We have the commissioner of the RCMP say that ongoing investigations are being put on the back burner in reference to terrorism coming to the fore. We are talking about ongoing investigations that have an impact on families. How do we tell someone who has been robbed or assaulted that there are other priorities that need to be investigated. This is all about resources.

The chiefs of police accept that the act is a valid piece of legislation, but they feel that so many other issues must be addressed. I agree with them wholeheartedly. Let us talk about funding and other resources. Let us talk about fighting pornography.

We have stood in the House so many times debating this legislation and we will not tire of it because it is poor legislation. It is legislation that is ineffective. We will not stop standing in the House speaking out against the firearms registry because we believe it is an invasion of our rights. It will not meet the goals that it sets out to meet. It is not a public security issue; it is a dollar issue. This is a raising revenue issue; this is a tax issue. This is an issue that a government that believes in big government will want to continue to move forward. Well, we will keep fighting it.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with an issue that we should not even bother with given the way things were done. We all realize that the Senate is going beyond its rights in trying to order the House around.

The Senate is attacking the rights and privileges of this House. As we all know, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the Senate should no longer exist. If the Senate wanted to have some influence over our society, it should have worked a bit harder on the Young Offenders Act, instead of wasting the time of the House today.

Why do I say that? Because now the government has to move a motion to split a bill. In the first session of the 37th Parliament, the bill called Bill C-15 at the time was split into two bills, C-15A and C-15B. Why was it not split in three, if we wanted to deal separately with the issues of sexual abuse against children, cruelty to animals and the Firearms Act? That could have been done. In fact, when the Bloc Quebecois first asked for the bill to be split, it wanted the bill to be split into three.

More and more, the government is introducing so-called omnibus bills. With only one bill, it tries to make significant amendments to several pieces of legislation dealing with various issues that have nothing in common. Provisions in those bills have nothing in common and deal with very different acts.

One instance was during the first session of the 37th Parliament, with bills C-15A and C-15B. Bill C-15A dealt with the sexual exploitation of children, and Bill C-15B dealt with cruelty against animals and amendments to the Firearms Act. Go figure. There was an opportunity, of which the government did not avail itself.

Bill C-15B received all three readings in the House and was referred to the Senate for consideration. It is absolutely ludicrous that we are now required to start all over because the bill should apparently have been divided into Bill C-10A, concerning cruelty to animals, and Bill C-10B, concerning firearms.

I am surprised, and even very disappointed, to notice that the government's motion would allow Bill C-10 to be divided into Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B. As I said earlier, had this been done at the right time, we would not be wasting our time today. The problem is that we have no choice but to consider it because of the demand to divide the bill into Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B.

Today, we are debating an amendment to this motion. This amendment, brought forward by the Canadian Alliance, states:

“, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House does not concur with the Senate's division of the Bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), since it is the view of this House that such alteration to Bill C-10 by the Senate is an infringement of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and

That this House asks that the Senate consider Bill C-10 in an undivided form; and

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.”

We have already debated Bill C-15B, including these two amendments. We have gone through the three readings and, even if the bill is divided, the Bloc's position remains unchanged.

We spoke in committee, we heard witnesses, we held debates in this House, but unfortunately the basic issue was never addressed. Of course, animal protection is important.

It is also important that a bill be drafted, when it comes down to it, according to the standards, and that the bill respect all sides, not just one. Unfortunately, the amendments presented by the Bloc Quebecois relating to animal cruelty, pertinent though they were, would have suited those who wanted to see animals as well as all animal-related industries protected.

As hon. members are aware, it is usually the case, almost with a majority or unanimity, every amendment in this House that is submitted by the Bloc Quebecois during debate is rejected by the government.

We called for changes. Let us make it perfectly clear, we were in agreement with the principle, and still are in agreement with the bill as far as animal cruelty is concerned. What is important to know is that we are in agreement with the new part of the bill that is aimed at protecting animals, because animals are not property. Yet that element was included in a section relating to ownership rights. Imagine that.

Yes, it is high time for a change. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois was not listened to, nor to some extent were all the stakeholders in animal-related industries and those in favour of animal protection who were consulted.

Our amendment was this: to respect the defences contained in section 429 of the Criminal Code, in which there are specific defences, not just those based on the common law in section 8 of the Criminal Code.

We made explicit demands, and I raised these in the House and in committee. I would have liked to have seen the Senate, rather than suggesting that the bill be split and issuing orders to the House, pay some attention to protecting the animal husbandry industry as follows: retaining the rights set out in section 429 and explicitly including them in the new part V.1, with which we agree.

This would take nothing away from the newly created part, with which the Bloc Quebecois agrees, concerning protecting animals from unbelievable cruelty. We see what goes on in kennels all over Canada and Quebec. We see the horrors of puppy mills, the unbelievable sights there.

Legislation can be based on an important principle, but be poorly drafted. What is insulting, is when they try to correct legislation to allow two groups—and these are not two conflicting groups—to protect animals from cruelty. The animal industry itself wants to prevent cruelty to animals. If it does happen, no need to worry; despite these amendments, people who perpetrate cruelty against animals will be found guilty, and we agree that penalties should be stiffer for these people who make the lives of these animals so difficult.

However, the way in which the bill is drafted will allow some groups to perpetrate abuse, because there will be a lack of resources. This is another problem that existed and has not been solved.

When a certain amount of money is provided to the Department of Justice to enforce rights, let us not fool ourselves. When forced to make a choice, attorneys general are not going to ask themselves if they should pursue a case against someone who abused a child or committed a murder, or if they should pursue a case against someone who abused an animal or demonstrated cruelty to an animal.

Unfortunately, if the legislation had been applied properly, we probably would not have to redo it. However, due to a lack of money, we are forced to specify things in the legislation and we have to do this.

We now have to guarantee what has always existed. When I speak of the animal industry, I refer to researchers or to hunters or farmers who kill animals for an industry, such as pork or beef producers, so that we can eat. Not everyone is a vegetarian; some people eat animals, but all is done according to the regulations and standards that this industry must obey. I can tell you that the great majority of those in the animal industry respect these standards. Truly cruel enterprises do exist and might also have been charged, despite the fact that there is a defence under section 429 of the Criminal Code—of course, that was the means of defence—namely colour of right or legal justification or excuse.

We have asked the government why it did not take the means of defence provided in the Criminal Code and include them in part V.1. Section 429 speaks of colour of right and legal justification or excuse, and that applies perfectly to clause 11.

If these allegations or these details are not reproduced in part V.1, we must understand that these defences are no longer explicit. The government says that clause 8, the defence under common law, will apply. In clause 8, what the common law provides are existing defences. If we say that the defences I have mentioned are implicit, why have these defences been explicitly included in section 429?

Legislators do not talk if they have nothing to say. These defences were included in section 429 because they are not implicitly covered in the common law. Now, there is jurisprudence to this effect and we ask, explicitly, that it be included in part V.1, in order to permit the animal industry—those who do things correctly, those who respect the standards, let us be clear—to retain the same means of defence they had in the past and should have in the future.

Unfortunately the Bloc Quebecois was really torn about opposing Bill C-15B concerning cruelty to animals. This is a principle we have been defending since our party started and even before. I would say that, probably, each member of the Bloc Quebecois supports this principle. Now, a title, an extreme is being used to cruelly change all the work that can be done properly by hunters who respect nature and animals or by a research facility that increasingly follows standards.

If this is not the case, the necessary funds should be invested to hire inspectors to check. Money should be invested to do this. If this also applies under Quebec's animal protection legislation, money should be transferred—of course, it is a question of fiscal imbalance—so that we get what is needed and so that the Minister of Justice can enforce the legislation.

What is happening is that this is being replaced by a bad legal principle, and there is an attempt to show that the Bloc Quebecois can be opposed to the cruelty against animals legislation, which is included in the Criminal Code. Frankly, this is called being seriously off track. It is essential to respect those in the industry who are correctly handling animals.

The Criminal Code, as amended, with the bill, naturally, but also with the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, would have teeth and result in legislation with harsher sanctions for those committing acts of cruelty toward animals, while protecting those working in the animal-related industry.

The possibility that this defence will no longer be available remains. Can we afford to take that risk? If the government does not understand this and tells us that its intention is not to harm the animal husbandry industry, why does it not explicitly set out these means of defence which, it claims, are implicitly protected?

The means of defence in section 429 have not been transferred to the new part. It will no longer be the same means of defence that will apply. It is as simple as that.

I have met at my office with the presidents of several associations. When I explained my position, and that of the Bloc Quebecois, to them, they had no problem understanding it. They agreed that there was a problem and that they were going very far, saying, “We will go along with it, of course. They are going farther than we asked. We will take advantage of it. A judge cannot act ultra vires , but if legislation leading to 21 judgments is enacted, we will use it”. I can understand them; I would do the same.

Our job, however, as representatives of the people in our ridings, be it in Quebec or anywhere in Canada, is to scrutinize legislation before it is implemented, and that is what we are doing. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that, instead of amending legislation to improve it, there is a tendency to associate amendments to parties, and if an amendment is put forward by a certain party, it is rejected.

I would go so far as to say that, at the clause by clause stage, when witnesses were heard, government members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—I would like them to read what they said—supported this approach. Unfortunately, members know how it is. That day, many Liberals were in attendance, and they voted down our amendments designed to prevent cruelty against animals and protect the entire animal husbandry industry. I find that incredible.

Today, what the Senate is asking us to do is to divide a bill into two, instead of considering the importance of this bill.

I must speak to the section of Bill C-10 that addresses firearms. Once again, the government made use of Quebec and even the SQ to establish a firearms registry. Individually, we believe in it, but we are forced to say whether it is good or not because of the administration of this government. It is not that the registry is no good, it is their administration.

The Minister of Justice tells us that any registration program will cost $1 billion. Really now, we are anxious to see the figures. We are told we have them. Once again, with this bill, as with the section dealing with animal cruelty, we are torn.

Why are we obliged to vote against this bill? Because with this bill—and I must explain this quickly—the chief firearms officers are losing all of their powers. Everything pertaining to licence issuing in Quebec is being changed.

Probably, the federal government with its desire to appropriate all powers to itself, will then want to privatize the entire system. Then they will be saying, “Look at what we have done. We have brought all this over to the central government. It will cost less and we will then contract it out”.

This is a way of concealing the fact that it has used the people of Quebec and their skills in setting up this registry. The one in Quebec is working very well. Today they want to appropriate all of the powers and return them to the commissioner, instead of leaving them with the chief firearms officer and the SQ. I trust the funding agreements with Quebec will be forthcoming as soon as possible.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, by dividing Bill C-15B the question really becomes: How was it divided and why was it divided? The answer has to be rooted in Bill C-15B being inherently flawed and should simply be thrown out or not divided at all.

Because of the confusion of the Senate and the House and the delays, will the upcoming July 1 deadline for registering shotguns be once again delayed or will the government finally give in and throw out the registry of long arms altogether? What does my hon. colleague say to that?

Supply

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House today and participate in the motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition. The motion asks the House to support a stop in the funding of the firearms registry until the government provides a cost benefit analysis and accurate accounting of spending to date.

Before I proceed I would like to point out, as have my colleagues before me, that I adamantly disagree with the government's strong-arm tactics regarding the gun registry and other legislation that it has brought in. The Prime Minister is warning any dissident backbenchers that a vote against increasing financial support for the beleaguered registry amounts to a vote of non-confidence in the government which could force a snap election or expulsion from the Liberal caucus.

The Prime Minister is warning them to stick with him through thick and thin on the gun registry without regard to the amount of dollars being thrown at it or there could be a snap election, he would not sign their papers, or there could be expulsion from the Liberal caucus.

I would like to caution those same members of Parliament that a vote against the wishes of their constituents could ultimately result in the very same thing. It could result in not only their removal from caucus but in their removal from the House. Regardless, during the next federal election I guarantee that their stand or lack thereof will become very evident to their constituents.

Last month the House was prepared to debate a motion put forward by the Senate seeking concurrence on the division of Bill C-10. The Senate attempted to split what was once Bill C-15B, creating two separate pieces of legislation: Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to firearms; and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to cruelty to animals. The Senate has passed Bill C-10A without amendment but it is still in the process of considering Bill C-10B.

Unfortunately, the Senate motion was yanked from the House agenda as the Liberal House leader was uncertain as to how his backbench would vote, although he already had ensured, by way of time allocation, that the debate on this controversial issue was limited.

The government is attempting to do whatever it can to avoid further embarrassment over the firearms registry's horrific cost overruns. It is refusing to call a time out, at least until the exact costs of the firearms registry are revealed. The government is refusing, despite eight provinces, despite three territories, despite provinces, premiers and the public demanding that the gun registry be suspended or scrapped completely.

Five provinces and three territories have opted out of the administration of the gun registry completely, while Ontario is refusing to implement the gun registration requirements in Bill C-68. Several other provinces are refusing to enforce or prosecute the Firearms Act offences.

In light of this lack of confidence and co-operation, I cannot understand why the government would be so resolved to proceed and not to suspend it or to at least call a time out. We need a clear, accurate cost benefit analysis done immediately so that Canadians, the general public, not the government, can decide if the firearms registry is an effective way of saving lives, or if that money could better be spent saving lives through increased cancer research or eliminating long waiting lines for heart surgery and improved preventive medicine, or even for resourcing police law enforcement agencies throughout the country in a different method.

I stand by the Canadian Alliance's longstanding position to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with tougher sentences for those who use firearms in the commission of a criminal offence. With 22 pages and 63 clauses amending Bill C-68, Bill C-15 was a clear admission by the government that the firearms registry or that Bill C-68 was a complete failure.

Bill C-68, which was really the hallmark of this Liberal government, consisted of 137 pages of new laws with respect to firearms and weapons. The first enabling regulation introduced in November 1996 added an additional 85 pages, while those introduced on October 30, 1997 added approximately 65 pages to our changing firearms law.

It is important to note, especially for those such as myself who were not here in 1995, that there was a provision within Bill C-68 that stipulated that when these amendments were made, the amended regulations did not have to be reviewed by Parliament. As well understood under clause 119(2), “the justice minister may enact firearms regulations without parliamentary review if the regulations in his opinion are 'immaterial' or 'insubstantial'“ and, under clause 119(3) “if the regulation is 'urgent'”.

To date the government has enacted legislation using that clause 16 times. Furthermore, it failed to report these changes to the House of Commons as required by the Firearms Act until the oversight was exposed by the insight of the Canadian Alliance and one of our members of Parliament. Effectively, those regulatory powers negate our parliamentary system of checks and balances that are supposed to ensure that the government of the day does not exercise autocratic muscle stretching powers that it has so obviously wanted to do.

What may be immaterial, what may be insubstantial and what may be urgent in the opinion of the minister may be very material or very substantial and perhaps not even urgent to Parliament, particularly to members of Parliament who represent large rural constituencies where firearms are viewed more as a tool of the trade than a weapon.

We must be apprised of any and all changes to the firearms legislation in a clear and concise fashion, as must all Canadians, in order to avoid unintentionally breaking the law.

In closing, I would like to point out that since its inception in 1995, Bill C-68 has remained the most controversial and despised piece of legislation that has been put forward by the Liberal government, legislation that my party has fought every step of the way.

Repeatedly the Canadian Alliance has questioned, and we will continue to question, the necessity of registering the long guns of law-abiding citizens. We also question the estimated cost of the firearms registry that the former justice minister originally projected to be approximately $85 million. The minister remained adamant, even in the face of expert calculation, such as that put forward by Simon Fraser University Professor Gary Mauser, that the registry would not cost more than what he had predicted.

In a brief presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in May 1995, Professor Mauser came forward and he noted that “according to my estimates, registering 'field and stream' firearms will cost Canadian taxpayers at least $750 million and possibly more than a billion dollars over the next five years”.

The former justice minister and his Liberal colleagues scoffed at the evidence Professor Mauser brought forward. The following is a quote by the minister, “we have provided our estimates of the cost of implementing universal registration over the next five years. We say it will cost $85 million...We encourage the members opposite to examine our estimates. We are confident we will demonstrate the figures are realistic and accurate”.

I think the former justice minister, the member for Etobicoke Centre, owes Professor Mauser, and many other experts who recognized the absolutely horrific cost of this registry, an apology because Professor Mauser was right and he was wrong.

Although the Canadian Alliance, especially my hon. colleague from Yorkton--Melville, has attempted to do so for seven years, the Auditor General finally blew the lid off the ridiculous cost estimates of the former justice minister and his two predecessors. She blew them out of the water. It was the Auditor General who determined that the government had been hiding the real cost of the registry from Parliament.

I again implore the House to reject the additional $59 million in funding for the firearms registry. We must stop the bleeding now. I call upon the Minister of Justice and the Liberal Party to immediately put the registry on ice until a complete cost benefit analysis can be done.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, it is important to note that it really ties to government and transparency and confidence of the public.

The Speech from the Throne referred to the lobbyists act, which we are dealing with today, as well as an independent ethics commissioner and a code of ethics as a package of amendments to look at in terms of Canadian democracy. I think the intent is to try to build people's confidence, to instill some virtues and values once again.

There have been a lot of episodes that have undermined public confidence. I will not go through all of them as I want to focus on the bill itself and also make some reflections, but they have very much distanced people from government. Part of the problem with Bill C-15 is it does not go far enough. It does not provide the confidence that we will have a good package of changes at the end of the day. That is really important because of the transition that is happening in Canadian democracy.

Parties are going through leadership campaigns. Some have already gone through that process and there are still more that have to go through it. There is a sense of renewal, a new stage in terms of our country as things are changing. For that reason, Bill C-15 has missed the opportunity to participate to a fuller extent on that renewal process and public confidence building.

With regard to the bill itself, there is one thing I would like to highlight for the public, and it is important to do so from my perspective of being new to the Hill. It is the actual culture and the involvement of lobbyists on a day to day basis, their position and role and the influence that is sought out. It is not always for ill intentions. Most times it is to make sure they get their point across, that members have access to information, are able to reach people with contacts, and more important, are able to do their work in a comprehensive way.

That also lends itself to a situation where people become vulnerable or situations develop where bad judgments happen. That undermines our democracy.

I can say that since being here, people who would never have wanted to talk to me before suddenly want access to me and my office to espouse their positions. There are some question marks in that process.

Often I have been pleasantly surprised about the way people have approached the issues. It has been very beneficial, even when I do not agree with their position. I have been willing to meet with individuals who have been paid on behalf of an organization, a group or a company to meet with me, and other people who have done it on a voluntary basis, to get their issue to the forefront.

At the same time, without set rules of conduct and penalties, and a significant focus on the whole accountability process, it leads to positions that become dangerously subject to interpretations and situations that influence Parliament. Even members of the government have indicated through public statements that lobbying, especially by people in the corporate sector, has taken place in these halls. They make sure there are changes or at least try to have an influence on the legislation that affects so many Canadians. That is a concern.

I want to outline the actual process and some of the categories of lobbyists. The act defines lobbyists as individuals paid to make representations with the goal of influencing federal public office holders. Three different types of lobbyists are distinguished.

The first is a consultant lobbyist, an individual who lobbies on behalf of a client. That is an individual who is paid outright. The individual may contact members of Parliament on behalf of several organizations and for specific situations. One of the problems with this bill is that individuals in the public service who serve the citizens of our country and have contact with them to advance their positions, whether they be for a corporate interest or other interests in terms of government legislation and resources.

The second is an in-house lobbyist who is an employee of a corporation whose job involves spending a significant amount, and 20% or more is the definition, of his or her time lobbying for the employer. That is where we get some of the cross-distinction of a person's responsibilities. An individual might be going to several different organizations and companies on their behalf.

The third is an in-house lobbyist who is an employee of an organization. The organization must register and the total lobbying duties of all employees taken together constitute a significant part, 20% or more, of the duties of all employees. Once again it is a definition, but the fact is that the organization is developing a strategy, some type of system to have influence on the public system.

The legislation is aimed only at disclosing lobbying efforts. It does not attempt to regulate lobbyists or the manner in which lobbying is conducted. That is one of the difficulties with the legislation, the manner in which the lobbying is being conducted. If there were particular elements that could be prescribed in terms of those lobbying efforts, it might make it easier and once again more transparent for Canadians to understand the context in which lobbying is done.

There are many situations that lobbyists will use, for example, sporting events, dinners and general contacts with an MP's office. They make phone calls and write letters. All those different things come into the context of lobbying. There have also been trips involved. It gets into problematic issues in respect of transparency.

Once we develop the actual game plan or the stream in which the lobbying takes place, there will be more confidence in the actual system here and how it is influenced in terms of the members and the bureaucracy or the public servants who are serving Canadians.

With respect to registration, the bill requires the lobbyist to submit prescribed information and notify the registrar of any changes to information previously submitted, including termination of lobbying activity. The onus of providing the information will fall on that individual person.

Responsibility for administration of the information, disclosure, provisions of the act and the maintenance of the public registry is assigned to the registrar of lobbyists, a position designated by the Registrar General of Canada, being the Minister of Industry. The registrar heads the lobbyists registration branch. The registrar has no powers to investigate under the act. Matters requiring investigation are turned over to the RCMP.

That concerns me. It is good that eventually some files that are not appropriate would be handed over to the RCMP for investigation. We have seen that Groupaction and several other files certainly have not instilled public confidence, but we wonder how much could actually be investigated by the RCMP with regard to its resources. That gives me some concern. If there is not some provision or empowerment in the legislation, there might be some prescreening. There might also be the situation where the registration branch would have an idea of past behaviour, symptoms of some pattern of behaviour. That would certainly be an improvement to the situation.

Simply turning the files over to the RCMP concerns me because there will not be the prioritization which is important with regard to the work that needs to be done. We do not want the RCMP having to select issues or put other issues on a lower priority simply because it does not have the background, the knowledge or the wherewithal, the means and resources, to prioritize those issues. That is a concern. The creation of a data bank, so to speak, of the ongoing issues and also of the individuals and the organizations, would be a benefit in the long run.

Another weakness is the lobbyists code of conduct. The act does not prescribe penalties for the breach of the code, nor does it specify how Parliament is to respond to a reported breach of the code. I find that problematic because once again the transparency is not there. It certainly will not lead to public confidence if we do not know where to proceed at that moment in time. That will be a big issue with our constituents especially with respect to the transparency of things.

What is helpful is that the ethics counsellor, after a breach or something has happened and an investigation, is going to turn the report back to Parliament. We have seen what has happened to several reports here. Once again this does not lead to the changes in the situation that I think we need to have happen.

With regard to improving the act, there are several things that were suggested. I was part of the process on the registration, coming into it as it was partly done in terms of committee work. There are certain suggestions that I think would be important and certainly would help out with regard to the transparency.

One that has been suggested by Democracy Watch is that lobbyists should be required to disclose how much money they spend on lobbying campaigns and their past work with candidates, political parties and governments. I think this is something that should be there and accountable in the system.

We have the data management capabilities to keep track of that. Once again, once we start to create that infrastructure as a reporting system we are going to be able to maintain it quite effectively. We will also see whether or not there are connections. Once again, connections are about transparency, which is really important. That involves the candidates, the political parties and the governments, because they are related in many aspects. The Canadian public knows there are going to be connections, especially if there is a transition of governments. Once again, there is nothing wrong with being transparent and up front about that, because people then can answer questions.

The second suggestion is that lobbyists should be prohibited from working in senior campaign positions for any party, politician or candidate and from working for the government or having business ties to anyone who works for the government. I think that is important, especially with this government where there is consolidation and centrification of power in the cabinet, which is making those decisions. It certainly is very important to make sure that people working on behalf of those individuals are doing it for sincere interest and understand that their work and commitment to the actual political process do not necessarily translate into rewards.

Unfortunately, we have seen significant examples of that not being the case, with some tremendous advantages that have happened with regard to the actual positioning out by being part of something, creating a candidate, creating a minister, or whatever it might be at the end of the day, as related to themselves.

A third suggestion is that the prohibition on lobbying the government for ex-ministers and ex-senior public officials should be increased to five years. I actually discussed this a little in committee work. Right now we have individuals who virtually can work through the public service or who can actually have represented people in Parliament and then very quickly take over in terms of a lobbying position. They literally use their vacation time, so to speak, to move from one job to the next.

I think it is important to note that when public servants and officials are working on behalf of constituents, their knowledge and information should not necessarily be transferable to advance other causes that might be against the will of individuals or competing business interests that are going to be looking at public policy and government expenditures and, more important, the movement of our democracy. It is something that could be changed with regard to the five years; it would create some type of a distancing between the individual files that they worked on and what they are actually going to be lobbying for. I know of specific situations where this has certainly created problems.

We have difficulty supporting the bill because there is going to be a lack of transparency at the end of the day with regard to instilling public confidence. We would like to believe that there would be some elements that would improve the situation. There actually are. There are some modest improvements and we believe they are going to be important, but they are not enough. This is an incredible opportunity. It is a historic change in time that we have right now with regard to a transition of leadership in the country. At the same time we are faced with all these challenges. The bill as it stands is not going to meet the test of improving public confidence in the institutions here. For those reasons, we cannot support the bill.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure as well to take part in this debate on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. In his presentation earlier, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that the bill is the result of work done by the Standing Committee on Industry, which reviewed the legislation from spring 2001. He is right about this.

However, he forgot to mention that the reason the Prime Minister set out an eight-point plan in the throne speech is that, after eight years of Liberal government, there were problems of perception—real or imagined—in public opinion concerning ethics within this government. This negative perception had repercussions and continues to have repercussions on all parliamentary institutions and is even proving an obstacle to Canadian democracy.

Something had to be done. I do not need to get into all the cases, such as Groupaction, Everest or Mr. Gagliano's departure for Denmark. I would like to point that even today, during oral question period, some concerns were raised by the opposition parties about the ethics of some prominent government members.

There is also this backdrop. It is not just the work done in committee that should be raised, but also the Prime Minister's desire, at the end of his reign, to perhaps leave behind a much more positive legacy—this was mentioned earlier—than Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did at the end of his second mandate.

The Prime Minister therefore decided to something. He announced it in the throne speech to give us the impression he was leaving behind a decent legacy when it came to ethics. I still wonder, as do many members of the Bloc Quebecois and other parties, why he waited so long. Why did he wait until the end of his political career, especially his career as Prime Minister of Canada, to respond not only to the demands of the opposition members, but of all Canadians and Quebeckers.

It is unfortunate—and I think this has been mentioned by many of my colleagues in previous debates—but why wait so long to do so little? Take, for instance, the case of the ethics counsellor. When the Minister of Finance phoned the president of the CIBC about the Ottawa Senators, the ethics counsellor, who is always appointed by the Prime Minister, said there was no ethical problem.

Again recently the Minister of Finance had some pre-leadership meetings while on his pre-budget tour. Once again, the ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister said there was no ethical problem.

Clearly, this matter is not addressed directly in Bill C-15. It does not go far enough. I would remind hon. members that, in the throne speech, the Prime Minister centred his plan on ethics around three points: changing the legislation on lobbyists, which we are dealing with at present; creating an independent ethics commissioner position, which the opposition parties have long been calling for; and a code of ethics for MPs.

Since we are discussing the Lobbyist Registration Act, I would remind hon. members that this bill was enacted in 1989 to establish a framework, which has since that time has governed those who lobby the Government of Canada, whether paid consultants, employees of a business, or people from an NGO.

After passage in 1989, the act was amended in 1996 and 2001. Today we have another amendment before us. The government told us when introducing the bill—if memory serves, that was on October 23, 2002—that it was intended mainly to provide a clearer formulation of what lobbying is.

The second intent of the bill was to strengthen the enforcement of the Lobbyists Registration Act and simplify requirements for the registration and strengthened requirements for revoking registration through a single registration process for both corporations and non-profit organizations. That is what was presented to us as being the basis of this fundamental amendment as far as ethical problems in Parliament and in government are concerned.

We have, of course, already indicated that the amendments are not substantial enough to respond to all of the concerns raised by both the general public and the opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois in particular.

Where we particularly fault the Lobbyist Registration Act is that the concept of intensity of lobbying has been dropped from it. The amendments do not give us any idea about the intensity of the lobbying of the government or of individuals in responsible positions. For example, what amount do the lobbyists receive in fees, and what are the positions of the people they lobby?

In its desire to be positive and constructive, the Bloc Quebecois presented, in a June 2001 dissenting report on the Lobbyists Registration Act, a number of principles to retain in the event of a substantial reform of the act, which has not been the case. As I was saying, these principles were not retained by the committee and were also not retained during the legislative reform. This tells us that not only is Bill C-15 not substantially different from existing legislation, but furthermore there are no real improvements to transparency.

I want to refresh the House's memory on a number of the Bloc Quebecois' proposals and how they relate to the substance of the bill before us. At the same time, I will tell the House what the Quebec government and the National Assembly passed concerning ethics and lobbying. I am certain that the House will notice that Quebec's legislation goes much further than the federal legislation.

In its June 2001 report, the Bloc Quebecois had proposed, for example, that lobbyists disclose meetings with public servants and ministers. There are no such provisions in the bill before us. So, lobbyists are not required to disclose their meetings with public servants and ministers.

In Quebec's legislation, when lobbyists file their return, they must divulge the nature of the duties of the person with whom they communicated or intend to communicate, as well as the institution where this individual works. As you know, under the current federal legislation, only the name of the department or the government organization must be disclosed, but at no time are lobbyists obliged—in either the act or the bill—to disclose the names of public servants or ministers with whom they have met.

In our opinion, this first principle should have been included in Bill C-15 and was not only forgotten but completely rejected. As a result, this bill does not meet the expectation of transparency that, in theory, the government seems to hold dear.

The second principle we had suggested in the June 2001 report is disclosure by lobbyists of amounts for lobbying campaigns.

That brings me back to the principle I referred to earlier. We believe that it is important for the public to know how intensely the government and people in position of power are being lobbied. I think everyone would agree that there is a huge difference between a $2,000 and a $2 million lobby.

For the public to truly understand the scope of these lobbies, lobbyists should be required to disclose the money they spent on their lobbying activities. As I said, there is no mention of that in the bill.

The third principle mentioned in our report of June 2001 is that in-house lobbyists should disclose their professional fees and wages. Again, there is no mention of that in the bill. People in Canada and in Quebec are kept in the dark about the intensity of the lobbying activities.

Under Quebec's legislation on lobbying, consultant lobbyists must disclose all the money they receive for their lobbying activities according to various brackets, like $10,000 and less, from $10,000 to $50,000, and so on.

As you can tell, a lobbyist getting $40,000 in fees is not doing his job with the same intensity as a lobbyist fetching $400,000 in fees. Any lobbyist paid $400,000 would be considered more important by the public. If any group, association or business decides that it would be better to spend that much money to retain or even hire a lobbyist, then I think the public has a right to know.

In Quebec's legislation, without divulging the exact fees, we give the public a range of fees through reports, which allows the public to have an idea of the value both of the lobbyist and the lobbying campaign. We see that nothing is provided in Bill C-15 for this third principle.

We had also suggested that any sort of conditional payments be banned. Let us assume that I am being hired to obtain a sponsorship from the federal government and that I will receive 25% of the amount of that sponsorship. We have seen this in the previous sponsorship program. Nothing is provided in the bill about this. We think that this is deplorable. This mainly penalizes small organizations that need sponsorships.

In the last few months, major changes have been made to the sponsorship program. These organizations can now deal directly with the government, and this is desirable. However, the fact still remains that Bill C-15 should have banned this practice outright. As members will see, this ban is provided in the Quebec legislation.

The Quebec legislation says, and I quote:

No consultant lobbyist or corporate lobbyist may carry out their activities in exchange for a fee conditional on getting a result or subject to the degree of success of their activities.

The government could have listened to our proposals, could have included in the bill the provisions that exist in Quebec and could have ensured that the public and the organizations that are dealing with the federal government are protected from certain lobbyists.

The fifth principle that we had stated in the June 2001 report dealt with the divulging by consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists of corresponding positions and periods of employment within the federal public service. We think that it is extremely important that the public be informed of the fact that a lobbyist has worked within the federal public service.

We should force lobbyists to divulge the position they held, if they held one in the federal public service, and for how long they did.

We believe the same should apply to federal political parties as well as to unpaid management positions in federal political parties.

Personally, I was the vice president of the Bloc Quebecois for a few years. Should I ever become a lobbyist here, in Ottawa—which is highly unlikely because I have no desire to be a lobbyist—I would have to disclose that I held this office, even though I was not paid for it. I would be required to inform both the registrar and the public of this fact, because it changes things.

As far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, we know that our high standards of ethics place us above suspicion. But it is a different story for a party that was returned to office too often during the last century, as the distinctions between political activities and administrative activities may not be all that clear in people's minds.

Whether such and such a lobbyist once held a position in a federal political party is something the public should be made aware of.

Similarly, the public should be made aware of the number of hours of volunteer work performed, in excess of 40 hours per year. Whether this volunteer work was for a party, a leadership candidate for a party, or a riding association, any significant political activity, be it volunteer or not, should indeed be included in the report submitted by lobbyists.

Of course, the mandates as elected representatives at the federal level should be included in this report, as well as the election campaigns they took part in, including unsuccessful ones, and how much they contributed to the various federal political parties and candidates.

We think it is extremely important that the public have access to all this information, to be able to assess, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, the intensity of the lobbying carried out by this organization or that individual. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill about that.

This week, an amendment was adopted against the wishes of the Prime Minister and of a number of cabinet members. It is a step in the right direction, but is definitely not enough to meet the expectations of the Bloc Quebecois, and, more importantly, the expectations of the people of Canada and Quebec.

If we compare it with Quebec's legislation, we can see how embryonic Bill C-15 really is and how it brings only very minor changes to the current legislation, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.

In Quebec, consultant lobbyists are required to disclose, in their initial return, the nature and the duration of any public office they may have held in the two years preceding the date of their commitment to their client. These are extremely strict rules. As for in-house lobbyists employed by corporations and organizations, they also have to disclose the nature and the duration of any public office they may have held in the two years preceding their hiring by the corporation or organization.

That is the kind of big picture that would allow Canadians and Quebeckers to measure the intensity of lobbying activities.

As I was saying, this week, the Bloc Quebecois supported an amendment put forward by a Liberal member. However, that does not change a thing to the fundamental nature of this bill, which is too embryonic to deserve our support and the support of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Finally, in its June 2001 report, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a sixth principle, which read as follows:

That the Code for Public Office Holders be made a statutory instrument, and that the Code be revised by a committee of the House of Commons to safeguard against abuses. For example, the post-employment cooling-off period for holders of public office, discussed by the Committee, would become subject to penalty in the event of violation.

One would have thought that the code of conduct for public office holders would be a statutory instrument that would lead to penalties. There is nothing to that effect in Bill C-15.

So, contrary to what the government has maintained, Bill C-15 can, symbolically, seem like a step in the right direction. However, upon closer examination of what is and is not in the bill, it is clear that this is only a facade intended to let the current Prime Minister give the impression as he finishes his reign that he wanted to do something about ethics.

For all these reasons, as at first and second readings, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-15.

Before I conclude, I would like to expand somewhat on that thought. Of course, in talking about lobbying and ethics, we are talking about democracy and the process by which parliamentarians, especially members, work. It seems to me that it would be beneficial to spend as much time debating the framework in which lobbyists operate.

I greatly respect the work they do. This is not about criticizing them. Lobbying is not a crime, far from it. We all agree on that.

However, I think we should, as parliamentarians, spend as much, if not more time thinking about ways to better reflect the concerns of those who do not have a voice. Again, quite rightly, we are trying to provide a framework for the work of professionals who are the spokespeople for interests or interest groups or companies. They are able to be heard by parliamentarians, the government and the Prime Minister.

How can we ensure that people who do not have the opportunity to use lobbyists—because they are individuals or groups who do not have the means that companies or major lobby groups have in Canada or Quebec—have the same equal access to parliamentarians, the government and the Prime Minister? I really wonder about this.

I look at the role that banks can play and the place they occupy in the debate about mergers, for instance. I think it is great that we can hear their concerns and that they can defend their interests in committee and in all aspects of life on Parliament Hill; I think this is entirely acceptable. This is not a problem.

However, I am concerned about the clients and workers of these banks, who have little say in committees and with all parliamentarians, and are not part of the debate. I am sure that any bank CEO has a lot more influence than a petition by 10,000 consumers complaining that low cost accounts are inaccessible to most of the population.

I feel this needs to be considered. It is just as, if not more important than the discussions surrounding Bill C-15, especially since the bill does not respond to the public's expectations or our expectations and our proposals to the committee.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-15.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

A lobbyist is recognized as an individual who seeks to influence legislators on a particular issue, with a lobby being an organization to attempt to influence. From this definition of a lobbyist flows the term influence peddling which defines those individuals who allege that whatever the issue, they possess the ability to influence the government in someone's favour, usually in return for some type of payoff.

The payoff can assume many forms, from monetary to favourable media coverage, in return for access. For example, during the Ducros affair, which centred around the intemperate comments made by the Prime Minister's director of communications about the President of the United States and ultimately led to the forcing of her resignation, certain reporters did not even cover the story.

Who lobbied these reporters? Canadians are left wondering what was promised in exchange for practising self-censorship and being a willing conduit for government propaganda?

It is recognized that in a modern, functioning democracy there are legitimate forms of lobbying. It was, however, the not so legitimate types of lobbying that led to the necessity of the Lobbyists Registration Act in the first place.

The government of the day felt that it was important for the public to know exactly who was lobbying the government; on whose behalf the lobbyist was working; the subject matter for which the lobbyist was retained to communicate with a public officeholder or to arrange a meeting with; to identify any relevant legislative proposal, bill, resolution, regulation, policy, program, grant, contribution, financial benefit or contract; and the amount and the terms of the payment.

The government felt that it was important for the public to know the particulars to identify any communication technique, including appeals to members of the public through the mass media or by direct communications that seek to persuade the members of the public to communicate directly with a public officeholder in an attempt to place pressure on the public officeholder to endorse a particular option.

The government also felt that it was important to provide the information relating to the identity of the individual, the client, any person or organization and any subsidiary company directing the lobbyist or anyone who had a direct interest in the outcome of the lobbyist's activities on behalf of a client.

It is interesting to note why lobbying has become an issue now. It has become an issue because the government made its unethical behaviour the issue.

The Prime Minister even promised an independent ethics commissioner who would report directly to Parliament, a promise he promptly broke when it became apparent that the independent ethics commissioner would only be taking up too much time in Parliament reporting on the sins of the current government.

Where is Stevie Cameron or similar civic-minded journalists when we need them? It is time to write the sequel to On the Take . The book could be called On the Take Part Two, starring the Prime Minister and the rest of the Liberal Party.

This need to legislate lobbyists started in 1993 with the Prime Minister accusing the former Tory government of corruption or, more specifically, illegal lobbying.

The industry minister, who is the sponsor of the bill, as justice minister led the witch hunt all the way to former prime minister Brian Mulroney. It is hard to see how he found the time to attack the former prime minister when he was so busy setting up the billion dollar gun registry.

What slowly became apparent was the speed with which the government sought to overtake the previous government when it came to a lapse in political ethics.

In the words of one observer to the federal scene at the end of 2002, “the lost value of boondoggles hits a record high, smashing the ugly 1999 benchmark established by the HRDC mess. The missing money into Groupaction caper, the fraudulent GST claim scandal, the air security tax mess and the mother of all mind-boggles, the $1 billion gun registry database even the police say is flawed or incomplete”.

No one cannot legislate moral behaviour.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill because of what it represents, lost opportunity. The decision of the Prime Minister not to do the right thing and respond to the real concerns of Canadians is the hallmark of a corrupt regime.

Canadians are concerned that power and influence is now a commodity in Ottawa to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. The real problem in Ottawa is not the lobbyists who ply their trade as professionals. The lobbyist registry is something that they support as they see the need to clean up what has always been considered to be suspect activity at best, immoral, unethical and, at its worst abuse, illegal.

Legitimate lobbyists in Ottawa are in many ways similar to firearms owners in Canada: law-abiding and doing something that they have always done without a hint of any problem. Then along comes the justice minister and starts to treat all owners of firearms as criminals.

The fact that a lobbyist act exists is an admission on the part of the government of criminal activity and the fact that we have amendments to existing legislation confirms that the criminal activity associated with lobbying is getting worse.

Let us distinguish between legitimate lobbying activity and the activity these amendments to the lobbyist act hope to curtail.

Criminals do not register their firearms. Lobbyists who seek government favour for financial payoff do not want to be identified as a lobby registry. The lobbyists who are engaged in suspect activities have not registered and will not register.

It is under the table deals that Canadians fear about the current government. If any individual or activity demonstrates the need for an independent ethics commissioner it has to be the events surrounding the former solicitor general.

The spin is that the former solicitor general resigned because of the ethics counsellor's ruling that he broke conflict of interest rules by lobbying the RCMP and Correctional Service Canada for a $6.5 million grant for a college that is run by his brother.

Amazingly, before that resignation the former solicitor general was trying to defend an untendered $100,000 contract to his friend, Everett Roche's Prince Edward Island accounting firm of MacIsaac Younker Roche Soloman, with Mr. Roche's name as the signatory on the contract.

Everett Roche was the former solicitor general's official agent in the 2000 federal election.

If I have identified Mr. Roche incorrectly as the campaign manager for the former solicitor general in the 2000 federal campaign, I am pleased to confirm the fact that Mr. Roche was the chief financial officer, in many respects the most responsible position in the election campaign.

I also want to make it clear that in the case of the former solicitor general's brother, I do not know if he personally gained from the activities of his brother.

However it is a matter of public record that the lobbying for $6.5 million for the P.E.I. college run by his brother was a conflict of interest and it was that activity that was identified as the cause of the former solicitor general's resignation.

After the former solicitor general's resignation, more and more information surfaced about the accounting firm of MacIsaac Younker Roche Soloman, with thousands of more dollars in untendered contracts, only this time in the form of verbal agreements. How convenient that verbal agreements leave no paper trails.

Treasury Board guidelines require verbal agreements be backed up by a formal written agreement. There was no contract for work billed by Everett Roche's accounting firm in one case and a contract for other so-called work was signed five months after it was finished, in May 2001. What a coincidence that this so-called work was completed about the time of the last federal election.

Unfortunately, if there was any legitimacy around these activities Canadians would never know because we do not have an independent ethics commissioner, which is the most serious flaw in Bill C-15. Only an open court of law will reveal whether or not the subject matter of the former solicitor general's untendered contract with his election campaign's official agent involved getting money for the minister's brother's college.

The lobbyists act, as is, unamended by Bill C-15, prohibits inter-ministry lobbying. Canadians may never know the secret lobbying that took place by a member of the Prime Minister's staff to shut the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior. Still bitter about being rejected by the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the government has been looking for ways to punish the voters. Mean, petty and vindictive are the only words to describe the action to shut down 60 years of teaching excellence. This move to punish the people of Arnprior has already backfired.

I invite the Prime Minister to read the headlines in the local newspaper which read:

This Liberal Government has shafted us with the...(helicopter) contract and again this time with the Emergency Preparedness College.

A local councillor goes on to observe:

--there would be a serious political price to pay for what has been done. The Liberals have made sure they will never have this seat back again.

How much secret lobbying is taking place in the Office of the Prime Minister? Ottawa valley residents know that the someone who is in his office with no known responsibilities has received money from the horse racing industry, and this is a matter of public record.

What is not widely known is the lobbying that this individual is doing on behalf of this group from which he has accepted money in the past. In fact, this individual brags about his ability to influence the Prime Minister.

Addressing a racetrack gathering in the United States recently, he said “Speaking of power. Never underestimate the power of the unelected--.The key is to get to the powerful people. I am the special advisor to the Prime Minister so I can gain access to him and have meetings with these people”.

What is that power of the unelected to lobby from the Prime Minister's Office?

In the section referred to as Insider News of the Standardbred Canada in Trot magazine in an article dated April 22, 2002, which was basically a reprint from an article that was in the Recorder & Times , which is the local newspaper in Brockville, an application to build a $230 million racetrack was floundering, which I now understand is not proceeding. This was after the developer of the project bragged that the application was almost complete.

In a letter to the editor of the Brockville Recorder & Times Anton Stephens, the developer behind the racetrack proposal, publicly thanked the special advisor in the Prime Minister's Office. The same article in Trot magazine said the following about the Prime Minister's involvement:

Amazingly, the development group did manage to obtain a meeting with the Prime Minister (Chrétien) on December 12 after which the federal portion of the project was assigned to the Prime Minister's (Chrétien's) senior advisor Hector Cloutier.

We know what this employee does. He lobbies for racetracks and that is not all.

I have in my possession correspondence that was blind copied to the Prime Minister's Office over other racetrack lobbying with a federal government agency.

The true rot in the government is the secret lobbying that takes place behind the closed doors in the Prime Minister's Office. The worst thing about these practices is the fact that members of the government, not all I might add as the courageous members with principles do not go unrecognized by the official opposition and ordinary Canadians, see these practices as normal, as nothing being wrong with them. Unfortunately, the horse racing industry is often penetrated by organized crime.

I want to get back to the need for the lobbyist registration bill and how the Prime Minister's Office is underscoring this need.

In the case of gambling we are talking about billions of dollars. This same individual, as a confidante of the Prime Minister, had this to say when he was confronted by a local parish priest in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the late Rev. Ken Bradley of Our Lady of Sorrows parish in Petawawa, about the evils of gambling, horse racing, and his involvement. He said:

Let me get this straight, Father. We have parish bingos every week. What's the difference?

When the good Father tried to explain the difference between God's work and lining the pockets of a few individuals, the official word on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office was:

Now you have to figure out how you're going to ameliorate with God so you can move ahead on this gambling.

He then went on to attack the efforts of social workers who have to pick up the pieces of the shattered lives of gambling addicts. I have a complete copy of this individual's comments published on the web for the world to see, so there can be no question about the authenticity of these quotes.

The secret lobbying by the anti-rural wing of the Liberal Party to waste a billion dollars on a useless firearms registry has resulted in the needless deaths of thousands of Canadians as health care lineups get longer.

I see the frustration on the faces of government members of Parliament who have to face angry rural constituents who are justifiably upset over more social engineering by the urban lobby. The transfer of power from the elected representatives to the faceless minions in the Prime Minister's Office is destroying our democracy.

A Liberal backbencher is pressuring the industry minister to prove he is not under the influence of companies funding his underground former leadership campaign. The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge is suggesting that Warren Kinsella, who has been closely associated with the industry minister's failed leadership bid, is the most obvious example of a conflict of interest for the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor to look into.

The member's comments were in response to the fact that Mr. Kinsella is still registered as a lobbyist on the Competition Act even though it now falls under the responsibility of the industry minister.

There is talk that senators on the banking, trade and commerce committee are planning to send Bill C-23, the competition bill, back to the House, a move the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge said would effectively kill the bill.

The industry minister is expected to appear before the committee sometime in April. The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge said the minister must speak against any amendments to prove he is not under the influence of the large corporations that are trying to derail the legislation. He told The Hill Times :

We have yet to hear from the minister on his own bill. I'd be interested to see why that hasn't happened.

When asked whether he felt Mr. Kinsella is in a conflict of interest, the member said:

I'm sure I'm going to be proven wrong, but given those who have been alleged to be affiliated with the industry minister's failed campaign have been also those who have been identified as being opposed to this legislation, I'm wondering if [federal ethics counsellor Howard] Wilson's musings wouldn't be more appropriately directed toward the most obvious example.

The Prime Minister has got away with using millions of taxpayer dollars in slick ad campaigns while child poverty in Renfrew County continues to rise thanks to the policies of the government.

The Canadian Alliance will continue to be elected in western Canada and more and more in Ontario, and the Bloc Québécois in Quebec, as long as the real concentration of power and inter-office lobbying remains in the Prime Minister's Office.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to begin third reading debate on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

This legislation is one of the key elements of the eight-point action plan on ethics in government announced by the Prime Minister on May 23. It also fits in with the commitment toward ethics which the government reaffirmed in the September throne speech.

Given how important this legislation is to meet the commitment we have made in the Speech from the Throne, let me start by thanking the Standing Committee on Industry, Sciences and Technology for the fantastic job it has done.

The committee recognized that this bill is one of the key elements of our plan to build the confidence of Canadians in their public institutions. It can be proud of the work it has accomplished expeditiously and diligently.

In no small measure, that prompt analysis was due to the work that the same committee did back in 2001 to look at the existing act. At that time, the committee concluded that Canada's lobbyists registration system works well, and really only needed a few changes to work better. They pointed the way to the improvements that make up Bill C-15.

I know that not all of my honourable colleagues were able to take part in the debate at the time this bill was referred to the committee in October. I know that it is worthwhile to remind one and all of the current situation, the legislation that we have now, and the direction that Bill C-15 proposes—a direction that the committee agreed with, in sending this bill back to the House with no changes.

The amendments this bill proposes will provide a clearer definition of lobbying; strengthen the enforcement provision of the Lobbyists Registration Act; and simplify registration and strengthen deregistration requirements, with a single filing approach for registration for corporations and non-profit organizations.

I should start by describing the four key principles that are the basis for the entire Lobbyists Registration Act and the system that it establishes.

The first of the principles is that free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest. And I do not believe that anyone would disagree with that.

The second principle is that lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity. Clearly, what we do here and what the government does in general affects people and institutions in our society. Lobbying is a legitimate way for interests in our society to bring their views before the people in government who will shape and make those decisions.

The third principle is where we get to an important consideration. That principle says it is desirable that public office holders and the public are able to know who is attempting to influence government. So, the issue is one of transparency.

The fourth and final principle guides how the system should actually work. It says that a system of registration of paid lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government. It calls on us to ensure that the system does not throw unreasonable roadblocks in the way of a legitimate activity.

My assessment of what the standing committee heard during its hearings is that no one disputes these principles. They are a firm basis for action for better government and the transparency.

Equally, I know of no one who has disputed the reach of the current act in terms of the lobbyists it covers.

First, the act differentiates between two general groups of people. The first group are people who lobby or are responsible for lobbying, in the context of their jobs. The second group are people who lobby as volunteers.

The current Lobbyists Registration Act does not apply to that second group. It does not apply to volunteers and I do not hear many suggesting otherwise.

However, there is general agreement that paid lobbyists should register. And this is the case under both the current and amended act.

The act includes many other elements. Among the most important are the requirements as to the information that lobbyists have to provide.

It indicates what they have to report on the record about the clients, businesses or organizations they represent and their activities. Once again, these fundamental elements are not changing in any substantive way. However, there are important improvements alongside the technical amendments in Bill C-15.

These improvements cover three major areas. The first clarifies who has to register as a lobbyist under the act. If I can simplify things, the existing legislation generally requires a person to register as a lobbyist if they communicate with a public office holder in what the law calls an “attempt to influence” that office holder. Now remember that I am just speaking of people acting in a paid capacity here.

But what is meant by “an attempt to influence”? Where does this start or end?

Bill C-15 addresses this uncertainty. It proposes that if a paid person communicates with a public office holder, as a general rule, that person is lobbying and has to register under the act. Clearly, not all communications would really be lobbying, and the government recognizes this. For that reason, Bill C-15 includes an exemption to the registration requirement. That exemption would come into play when someone is making a simple request for information.

The idea is that if a person is just asking for the kind of information that we get every day from our constituents, then it is not fair to call that lobbying. It makes no sense to trigger the entire registration and reporting process.

Bill C-15 also responds to another issue about registration that the standing committee recommended in its 2001 report. And that is to eliminate an exemption that is in the current law. That exemption says that a lobbyist does not have to register if it is the public office holder who initiates the contact. I suppose that could have been the case if a minister or departmental officials were to ask an organization for comments on a policy or legislation or some other business.

The Standing Committee on Industry saw this situation as a possible loophole that goes against the transparency that we are seeking in lobbying activitities. That is why Bill C-15 eliminates this exemption.

Bill C-15 proposes a second series of major changes that the standing committee approved. In fact, I understand that they did not give rise to any discussion among witnesses. These changes relate to the registration process under the act.

Currently, registration requirements are different for people who lobby as in-house lobbyists for a corporation or as in-house lobbyists for a non-profit organization.

Let me start with those who work for a corporation. Under the current legislation, if an employee spends at least 20% of his time lobbying, then that employee must register.

It is different in the case of a non-profit organization, since only the senior officer must register if the time spent lobbying by any of his employees amounts to 20% of the work done by a single employee.

Here is how it would work. If the time spent lobbying by several employees of a corporation is equal to or higher than 20% of the work done by a single employee, then registration is mandatory.

The person who would register would normally occupy the position of executive director or would have equivalent functions. Any employee who does lobbying directly would have his or her name on the list, but the official registration form would have to be signed by the head of the organization.

The second of this series of changes concerns the rules governing how often registration information is to be updated.

As I said, transparency is one of the key objectives of the Lobbyist Registration Act. One way to achieve transparency is to require lobbyists to disclose who their clients are and what the nature of their work is—in other words, on which departments they are focusing their lobbying efforts.

Bill C-15 will correct a deficiency in the existing legislation. This deficiency is due to the fact that different timeframes and registration rules apply to different categories of lobbyists. The government is proposing to standardize the rules governing registration and to have them apply to all lobbyists.

With this bill, all lobbyists will be required to renew and update their registration at least every six months. Any lobbyist who fails to comply will have his or her registration cancelled.

The six month rule represents a minimum requirement. The legislation would provide, however, that lobbyists are required to update their registration as often as necessary to ensure that the registrations in the database are, as far as possible, up to date.

I am pleased to report that the standing committee did not see fit to amend this proposal.

Allow me to mention a third and final major change as we embark on this debate. The bill contains a new requirement for those involved in administering the lobbyist registration system.

Bill C-15 provides that possible offences under the regulatory lobbyists' code of conduct will be investigated. The bill clearly sets out that if there are reasonable grounds to believe another act may have been violated, the investigation is to stop, and the case be referred to the police, which will take it from there.

The purpose of Bill C-15 is to make a system that is already working well work even better in the future.

As I indicated in my introduction, in this bill, we are proposing amendments designed to increase the clarity, transparency and enforceability of the lobbyist registration system. It will result in the establishment of a rigorous lobbying regime that will be part of the key elements of the Prime Minister's eight-point action plan to build the confidence of Canadians in their institutions.

I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill, so that the necessary improvements can take place as soon as possible. I urge all my colleagues in this House to support the bill, because it spells real progress.