Bill C-15 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act

Lobbyists Registration Act

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in the debate on referring Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, to committee before second reading.

I want to take a bigger picture view in our debate over Bill C-15. Quite rightly, some of this debate has centred on the details of the bill but a lot has focused on the entire subject of the ethics of lobbying. That is easy to understand. The entire notion of lobbying is linked to questions of how decisions are made in government.

Having said that, it makes sense to talk a bit about the realities of lobbying. It makes sense to comment on how Bill C-15 and the entire lobbyists registration system works to build transparency and trust in our system of government.

Let us start with one basic reality. Lobbying is a fact of life for government and it is not an inherently bad thing. It is lobbying when my constituents contact me about legislation or about their opinions on government programs. It is lobbying when a business in my riding contacts me about the impacts of a decision on its interests and on the jobs of the people I represent. It is lobbying when a community organization of whatever kind gets in touch with me to comment on government policies.

The simple fact is government decisions affect many aspects of everyone's lives. In a healthy democracy governments should not make decisions in a vacuum. Lobbying happens when people try to bring information relating to government choices to those of us who can do something with that information. When people say “lobbying is bad” , what are they really saying? They must be suggesting that people in the public service, or cabinet or even in Parliament are so knowledgeable about every possible impact of every single law, or regulation, or policy or program that we do not need to hear from anyone else. They must be suggesting that we should make decisions with no outside contact. Not so.

People who are involved with making decisions in government need to hear from people who have different perspectives and who have other information and insights. It does not make sense to say that decision makers and the people who help develop the ideas for them should be off in some ivory tower somewhere. That is why lobbying is a reality for government and always will be.

I have just responded to the kind of black and white rhetoric we have already heard on this issue. I know that when pressed opposition members will admit that lobbying is a basic fact of government life and a legitimate and routinely useful one. In fact I think we also share the belief that this issue is not whether lobbying is good or bad, but how to bring transparency to that lobbying. It is about doing what makes sense and what is necessary to ensure that Canadians know who is in touch with public office holders, whether elected ones or officials. That is what the existing Lobbyists Registration Act does. That is why Bill C-15 will enable it to do even better.

Our government took a system that it inherited from the Mulroney era and brought it in line with what Canadians wanted, expected and deserved. We took a system that did far too little to end the days of deals behind closed doors between people who could operate with little transparency and brought it into the light.

That is why we have a system that deals with people who are paid to lobby, not those who are fulfilling their responsibilities as citizens with an interest in public policy. Our focus is where it deserves to be. It is on people who are paid lobbyists, whether they are consultants lobbying on behalf of someone else or lobbyists who are regular employees of a business, an association or a non-profit group.

After promising Canadians that we would do this in the 1993 election campaign, we came to Parliament in 1995 to improve the lobbyists registration system that we inherited and to improve it considerably.

The Lobbyists Registration Act that Parliament passed in 1995 and came into force in 1996 was built around four principles. The first principle states that free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest. The second principle recognizes that lobbying public officer holders is a legitimate activity. The third principle makes clear the desirability of public office holders and the public being able to know who is attempting to influence government. The fourth principle points out that a system of registration of paid lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government.

The idea is to throw light on lobbying, to show who is lobbying whom and about what. The public has a right to know these things because public policy and public choices affect them. This approach underlines the fact that if everyone can see what is going on, including lobbyists on all sides of an issue, then lobbying is not something that takes place in the shadows, but something that is legitimate enough to take place in the open.

For instance, I note that the member for Red Deer, the new Alliance environment critic, recently explained why his party opposed Kyoto. I quote from the National Post of April 5. He said, “I think it will help our fundraising”. The Canadian public would like to know who is lobbying the Alliance Party on this issue.

Of course, it is not good enough for people to register and for the information to be available. It has to be as easily and readily accessible as possible. This is one of the real strengths of the process that our government brought in. If a person wants to know who is lobbying who and about what, it is all on the Internet now.

The lobbyists registration system was one of the first federal activities to move online. All these forms are there and approximately 98% of registrations take place online. That is not just a question of making it easy as possible for lobbyists to register. It is an important step that makes it easier for Canadians to look up lobbyist information.

Does the system work? Yes, it does. That is what the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology said when it reviewed the act last year. Let me quote from the report to the House, it says that the act:

--provides precisely the kind of transparency for which it was created... we can find out who is lobbying what department and exactly what they are discussing.

Could the system work better? Yes, it could. This is the point of Bill C-15. It draws on the advice of the standing committee. It draws on related study and research. It fits with the overall commitment of the Prime Minister to enhance the trust of Canadians in our public institutions through his eight-point action plan on government ethics.

I suggest that my hon. colleague should take a real look at lobbying in Canada, recognize the issue is transparency and support a bill that will take a solid piece of legislation and make it stronger still.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in Canada's House of Commons once again to discuss an important issue.

I have been quite interested in lobbyists and this type of legislation for quite a while, basically ever since I came here when one of my first jobs was to work on the same committee that the previous member just mentioned. I, too, find it curious that the chair of that committee subsequently himself became a lobbyist.

First, I would like to say a few things about the actual motion that is before the House today. Most of the speakers today have talked about the bill itself but the motion is, as I understand it, to refer the bill to a committee prior to second reading. I would like to make a few comments about that because I am not as enamoured with that process as are some people.

I think that came about as a response by the Liberals when they first became government, having dealt with it under the Conservative regime, where over and over they experienced the Conservative government sort of jamming legislation through. They seemed not to have enough influence on it because if a government tables legislation from then on it just seems to be sort of lockstep, everybody salute on command, the legislation then goes in and amendments from opposition parties generally are not accepted.

When the Liberals took power, to their credit, they said that they wanted to do something about that and they thought, and I believe those members who supported it thought correctly, that if a committee could be involved in a bill prior to its final etching in stone, so to speak, there would be more ready openness to actually shaping the bill according to the wishes of the legislators.

I would like to comment briefly on that process because I have been very disappointed in it. I have found that the process has actually reduced the amount of debate and reduced the amount of influence. We find that instead of debating in this House on the principle of the bill, we end up going in and dealing with the details right away. Because of the fact that the committee structure in a Parliament that has a majority, as this one does, is dominated by the majority of the government members, those government members are either ignored or whipped into action.

In the end it makes no difference because what the minister and his minions come up with as legislation is jammed into existence anyway. Even if the committee comes here with other proposals, the government will make amendments. It has done this. We all know the examples where it has actually gone to work and introduced amendments that would undo every act of a committee in studying a bill.

I was part of the finance committee in the ill-shamed event where a member actually was persuaded by good logical arguments to favour an amendment that we were proposing. That member, before the amendment came to a vote, was replaced on committee by the government whip. Unless we are going to actually open up committees to truly be free, I think this process of referring a bill, whether it is before second reading or after second reading, really does not make that much difference.

Way back, before I was a member of Parliament, I used to think that lobbyists should be outlawed. I wanted to know who needed them. The impression I had of lobbyists prior to my life as a parliamentarian was that their only function was to unduly influence parliamentarians in passing laws or giving contracts that should be done by a better process. To a degree, I am still of that opinion in certain areas of lobbying.

I do not know if anyone within the sound of my voice today read the article I wrote, as a special article to The Hill Times , more than a year go about the role of lobbyists in Parliament. I said that there really are two kinds of lobbyists. One kind is very healthy for us. As an MP, I would much rather deal with one representative, for example of the forest association, than 2,000 individual practitioners in the forestry industry.

It is good for these different organizations, like the chambers of commerce, the taxpayers federation, the citizens' coalitions, the industrial coalitions such as the Chemical Producers' Association and others, to hammer the issues which are most important to them at a convention or in their own meetings instead of 2,000 organizations bringing us 100 different issues. It is good for them to get together, take these 100 issues and bring them down to the six that are of the greatest priority. Having then honed them down, their representatives can present them to us as members of Parliament. It increases its forcefulness and impact, and as a result of that, Canada can become a better place because we can respond to the most important issues that these different organizations bring to us.

To a degree, I also agree that it is important when it comes to other parts of legislation. For example, in some of the social issues, instead of dealing with many organizations, we would deal with that group which represents all of them.

That is the positive aspect to it. However there is a very negative aspect to it as well. When they go beyond just simply providing information and start putting some great pressure on parliamentarians, particularly when they put those pressures on members of cabinet, their deputies and other people in the bureaucracy who can influence these decisions so greatly.

I also feel there is a reverse lobbying that has come into play under this government, which I have found rather bizarre; issues like the Prime Minister phoning the president of the Business Development Bank. This is reverse lobbying where the Prime Minister uses the influence of his power to try to overcome the issue of making decisions in a pseudo-government agency. That type of thing should also somehow be regulated or exposed and ceased.

Decisions should be made, as much as possible, on objective criteria. If those criteria are met, the decision will go one way. If the criteria are not met, it should go a different way. It should not matter who has lobbied on behalf of the individual; it should matter what the facts are. I would like to see lobbying controlled in that area as well.

I have real concerns with the ethics package of the current government. It seems to be focusing on individual members of Parliament. I know of no cases that have come to the attention of Canadians as being an untoward issue from ordinary MPs. There have been many from those who have the real power. It seems to me that the package is not properly addressing the real issues.

I appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation. We will of course be adding as much influence as we can in committee. I simply would appeal to the government, to the people who make the final decision, to please listen to what the committee discovers by listening to witnesses and giving reasoned thought to the whole bill so that Bill C-15 will become an act which truly and properly will serve the well-being of the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who I have great respect for, drives me crazy when in attacking governments he attacks Parliament and the democracy in this place.

Canada, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is one of the oldest democracies in the world. We had a democracy when they were all monarchies and dictatorships in Europe. We have held one of the largest land masses together with the greatest ethnic diversity. We are a country of two official languages. The whole world knows that Canada has the most admired democracy in the world and one of the most successful democracies.

The member complains, as an example of a lack of democracy, that the Prime Minister appoints senior officials to government. How would he have it? The Prime Minister is elected. Would he have unelected people appoint these people?

It just drives me crazy because we do have a democracy and it is the best democracy in the world. The reason the government appoints the officials is that the government is elected by a majority to take these actions.

Coming to Bill C-15, the amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act, I will not go over the debate that went on here earlier because I think all would agree that the bill that is before the House is a good bill. I do not think there is anything in the bill that is contentious and that should not go through the process and be passed into law.

However I do agree with the member from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who, I point out, is a member on the opposition side, that the bill does not go far enough. I am not satisfied that we took advantage of the opportunity, when were reviewing the legislation, to make it stronger and to throw more light on the way lobbyists operate in government and how they influence government.

My connection to the legislation goes back to 1994, to the previous review, when I served on the industry committee at that time. I said it then, and I have proposed it at various times in the intervening years, that the shortcoming of the legislation is that it provides for transparency in terms of who it is that is lobbying the government but that it does not provide the identities of those who are being lobbied in government.

As a former journalist, I am not particularly interested, either as an MP or a former journalist, in who is doing the lobbying so much as I am interested in who is being lobbied. I have had occasion to use the Lobbyists Registration Act and the Access to Information Act on various occasions, particularly in connection with the animal cruelty bill, Bill C-15B, in which I was very concerned that there was policy being implemented that was coming from lobbyists. I wanted to trace not only who was putting the influence on government but who was reacting to the influence. I could identify the International Fund for Animal Welfare as the lobbyist but I could not figure out how it was getting to government.

The problem, and it is a serious problem, is not whether or not lobbyists are reaching senior bureaucrats, ministers or politicians. The danger is when lobbyists are reaching mid-level officials, mid-level officials who may be preparing policy papers which they are going to send up the line. There is no way of determining whether these lobbyists are getting in the back door and influencing the deputy ministers because they have been lobbied.

One of the proposals I had at the time, and on which you can be ready, Mr. Speaker, because I will be moving an amendment in due course, is that I believe we need to have a situation where the officials keep a log of the lobbyists who approach them. We, not the senior officials, need to know what these lobbyists are doing, how they are making contact, how they are influencing the mid-level bureaucrats and the extent of that influence.

I can say that I was very concerned regarding the animal cruelty legislation that there was improper lobbying in my view, that there was lobbying behind the curtains that had got to low level bureaucrats, low level officials who had influenced the people up the line.

Another aspect that we need to address in the legislation, and one I hope we can address through an amendment, relates to what I have been saying, the influence that former members of Parliament, ministers and former bureaucrats have on the lobbying process.

One of the ironies is that when the industry committee studied the Lobbyists Registration Act in 1994, the chairman of the committee became a lobbyist. He now lobbies government. I can cite former ministers who are lobbying government and cite senior bureaucrats who are lobbying government.

There is no problem, in my view, with allowing those people to lobby. They are recorded under the Lobbyists Registration Act. However, in the interest of transparency and in the interest of understanding how policy is developed, we want to know who they are lobbying. The Lobbyists Registration Act is entirely silent on that. We can find out that they are lobbying the Department of Justice or Environment Canada but we cannot find out who they are lobbying.

I would suggest that if bureaucrats and officials were required to keep logs of the lobbyists who approach them, and by that I mean a telephone log or a mail or solicitation log, and if these logs were accessible to the public so that we could see which officials were being approached, I think we would have a better grip on how policy is made in this place. It is of great concern to members of Parliament that decisions are being made and influence is being brought to bear in ways that give the advantage to those who are paying for the influence legally and to the disadvantage of those of us who are here representing Canadians and the points of view of Canadians. That is a major change that I would bring in.

I actually put that forward in 1994 and the government responded that it felt that it would be too much of a burden on officials to keep lists of the lobbyists who approach them. I submit that in the eight years intervening computer technology has advanced so far and so fast that there would be little problem in keeping such a record. Indeed, in my own constituency office I routinely record all the telephone calls that come in for some very good reasons.

Years ago when I was at the Toronto Star that was again a routine procedure made much easier now because we can put it right into the electronic file. I do not see any reason why this cannot be done. If the officials have nothing to hide, and indeed they should not have anything to hide, then I think this is something that the government could consider. I can assure the House that I intend to put it forward as an amendment.

One final point is that Professor Stanbury, when he appeared before the committee in 1994, pointed out that it would be very advantageous to know how much money is being spent by an organization to lobby for a particular point of view. It is not the lobbyist and the hiring a lobbyists that is so interesting, what we really want to know is how much money someone will spend behind the scenes to influence officials in order to get their way. Members of Parliament really have nothing but this place in order to bring influence to bear, to change legislation or to act in the public interest.

Lobbyists, on the other hand, or organizations that hire lobbyists, have vast sums of money and I think the public is entitled to know when vast sums of money are being used to influence public policy.

So those are two changes that I hope the committee and the government will consider before the legislation comes back to the House.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to join in the debate on the motion to refer Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, to committee before second reading.

In 2001, the all party industry committee reviewed the Lobbyists Registration Act and made a number of suggestions for change. I am very pleased to learn that the government wants to refer the new Lobbyists Registration Act directly to committee before second reading so that all members of the House from all parties will have an opportunity to review, to discuss and to make amendments to the bill.

Today I want to focus on some of the details of the bill. Bill C-15 is about taking a system that works well and making it work much better. It is a bill that draws on the experience of our lobbyists registration process to date in order to make an even stronger system. The bill includes the usual technical amendments, of course, but the core of the bill is the changes that it proposes in three major areas. I would like to comment on each of them now.

The first issue is about clarifying what kind of lobbying the law covers and who has to register as a lobbyist under the act. The law as it stands now makes it clear that people who are trying to influence government solely as citizens or as members of some voluntary group, and who are not getting paid to influence government, are exempt from the act. The focus is on people who are attempting to influence the government as part of their paid employment. They may be consultants who lobby on behalf of other clients. They may be government relations officers or companies or associations or some non-governmental organization. These people need to register. The question is, what triggers the requirement? What constitutes lobbying?

Right now the act states that someone needs to register if they are making an “attempt to influence” a public office holder. There are concerns that this definition is too vague to be well enforced. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recognized this. When that committee examined this act in 2001, it recommended that the Registrar of Lobbyists, the Office of the Ethics Counsellor and the Department of Justice consult on this issue. That has happened. We have the results before us today.

The act states if there is communication with a public office holder, there is lobbying, plain and simple. Quite simply, the act of communication brings about the need to register.

Clearly not all communication is the same. The bill focuses on communication about legislation, regulations, policies, programs, grants, contributions and contracts. That is lobbying and the rules are clear.

On the other hand, if a person calls a public office holder for basic facts or information, there is no attempt to influence, so that is not lobbying and it is exempt.

The bill takes another step forward because it also cuts out something that the standing committee saw as a potential loophole in the act as it stood. This was the exemption when it is a public office holder who initiates the contact instead of a lobbyist. In essence, the concern was that if it is an attempt to influence, when all is said and done what difference does it make who made the first phone call?

The overall result is to clarify what lobbying is under the law and the requirements for registration. The bill will end confusion that may result when people who should register do not. That will be an important contribution to an even more transparent system.

I would now like to turn to the second major change. This one relates to creating a single registration system for corporations and non-profit organizations, along with simpler registration requirements and stronger de-registration requirements.

As things stand now, the act sets out two different systems. One covers people who are employed by businesses. The other covers people who are employed by non-profit organizations.

For businesses, the registration requirement kicks in if an employee spends 20% or more of his or her time lobbying, so normally only government relations staff and some other senior people may need to register. For non-profit groups, things are different.

The senior officer of a non-profit group has to register on behalf of his or her organization if the total time that staff spent on lobbying is 20% of the time of the single employee. Under Bill C-15 all organizations will follow the process now in place for non-profit groups. Whether for profit or not for profit, if the amount of time spent lobbying by all employees adds up to 20% or more of the working time of a single employee in that organization, then that organization has to register. It is a simple consistent standard for every organization, public sector or not.

To make it even more consistent, it will be the responsibility of the chief executive officer or the equivalent person to register. Under the law all persons who normally do lobbying would be listed too, but by making the CEO responsible for the organization's registration, that leader will be responsible for making sure that his or her organization is meeting its obligations under the law.

There is another element of the registration system: clear rules on how often lobbyists who are consultants need to update their registrations. Under this bill, a consultant who lobbies for clients has to register within 10 days of taking an assignment or a project. These consultant lobbyists would also be responsible to update their registrations at least every six months.

The third and final point that I want to make is a new provision in the law that relates to situations that are uncovered that may point to possible law breaking. Bill C-15 would explicitly direct the ethics counsellor to contact the police when he or she suspects that the law is being broken because of information turned up in one of his or her own investigations on lobbying activities. It could be the Criminal Code. It could be some other federal or provincial law. The result is the same: a requirement to contact the police.

These are the only major changes that would be brought about by the Lobbyists Registration Act. Of course, they are not the only changes. There are other minor technical changes here and there. Some take care of small wording problems. Others resolve inconsistencies between the English and the French versions of the law. However the key point is simple. Bill C-15 makes Canada's lobbyists registration system stronger, more transparent and more effective.

I urge all members of the House to pass the motion promptly so that these proposals can be sent to committee and discussed where all members of the House, all members from every party can make recommendations and examine the provisions under this bill.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Let us recognize in fairness that lobbyists perform an important function. In a democratic society there is an information gathering activity and an educational responsibility where the participation of and the active role that lobbyists play can help us as legislators understand issues in a more fulsome and educated way.

On almost every serious or significant issue facing this House, we have interactions with lobbyists representing both sides or multiple sides on almost all those issues. I, for one, have found that role to be a constructive role for the most part and one that has helped, in my case as well as other members of my caucus, to present or develop and ultimately defend tenable positions. There is an important role there.

There are some transgressions in terms of lobbyist activities that have been questionable. For example, the activities of René Fugère and his involvement through the granting process or helping facilitate or lubricate the granting process for particular companies from HRDC and Industry Canada. His role in Shawinigate is well known. These types of egregious examples of an individual lobbyist's activities do not represent by and large the quality or the level of ethics that is practised by most of the lobbyists here in Ottawa or in any of the provincial governments in Canada.

We do not have the same amount of potential for abuse of power or unfettered power of lobbyists that exists in the U.S. Thank goodness we do not have the level of Political Action Committees (PACS) that exist with legislators in the U.S. That has created a system by which individual legislators, congressmen and senators gain significant levels of personal wealth through the use or their work with lobby activities and political fundraising. That is clearly unacceptable.

There are concerns in a leadership selection process within an individual party. For example, the degree to which fundraising can actually have an impact, particularly when the leadership selection process is to select a leader of a governing party, because that individual who is being chosen as the leader of that party may become Prime Minister immediately after that process.

The speculation now regarding the huge numbers of fundraising events that are occurring on the Liberal side in terms of the perspective leadership race does raise the question that there could be significant abuse of power. I am not saying that is the case but I have heard some numbers, I think $9 million, potentially having been raised for the member for LaSalle—Émard in his quest to be leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. That does raise some questions. He will be elected as not just leader of the Liberal Party but will be immediately Prime Minister and that does raise some question. When there is that huge amount of money being directed to one candidate above another, we have to question that a little bit. That does concern us.

The fact is that lobbyists have, by and large, not been the source of ethical woes. They have not provided the examples of breaches of ethical behaviour over the last several years in Ottawa. The rules that have been broken, by and large, have not come from the backbenchers or the Liberal Party members but by members of the cabinet. Every breach of ethical behaviour which has occurred has occurred within that cabinet.

The Prime Minister has lost a significant amount of his moral authority to enforce a reasonable code of ethics with his own personal activities, as his own lobbyist on behalf of a hotel in his riding which was adjacent to a golf course. Clearly in his lobbying efforts of the president of the BDC, the inordinate pressure placed on the president of the BDC and the subsequent firing of the president of the BDC, the Prime Minister lost the moral authority to enforce a code of ethics at his own cabinet table.

There have been other breaches of public trust from that cabinet, all of which emanated from the Prime Minister having lowered the bar and having set a bad example for ethical behaviour.

We agree with the elements of the Lobbyists Registration Act. They are appropriate and reasonable. However, they do not really deal with the transgressions that have occurred over the last several years which have occurred largely based on a Prime Minister who himself has not raised the bar, and in fact has lowered it, for ethical behaviour, and has not demonstrated the kind of intestinal fortitude to defend a strict moral code of his own or of his cabinet.

This Lobbyists Registration Act would not in a significant way improve the ethical behaviour of governments if in fact we have a Prime Minister like the current one who does not consistently set an example of ethical excellence.

The ethics package for MPs in general does not deal with the cabinet. It deals with backbenchers on the Liberal side and with members over here. However the backbenchers on the Liberal side and the opposition members over here have not been the problem. Due to the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office the opportunity for a Liberal backbencher or a member of the opposition to effect the kind of change which would attract the kind of money that some would speculate might come from lobbyists for that sort of activity would not make a great deal of difference.

The member for LaSalle—Émard referred the other day to the forces of darkness and evil in the Prime Minister's Office or something like that. If we play his tape backwards, it does say the forces of darkness and evil in the PMO.

That being the case neither these changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act or the new ethical code for parliamentarians address the core issue of the government and ethics, and that starts with the Prime Minister's own activities and the activities of his own cabinet.

While it is a good idea to have more stringent rules around lobbyists' behaviours or MPs' behaviours, it would not solve the problem of a cabinet and a Prime Minister not dedicated and devoted to upholding the strictest moral codes and behaviour on a day to day basis.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act which is part of the long overdue ethics package.

On the one hand I welcome the first steps of these amendments. This city has a serious case of lobbying abuse. It is clear in so many ways that lobbyists and bureaucrats have more influence on the policies of the government than do parliamentarians or the public.

I welcome the following steps: First, the removal of the expression “attempt to influence” from the definition of lobbying. This removes an ambiguity in the legislation and makes it clear that any communication covered under the act constitutes lobbying and requires legislation.

Second, the clarification that lobbying can occur when the communication is initiated by a public officeholder. This is in response to a specific recommendation of the committee. As well, adding a requirement for the ethics counsellor to notify the appropriate police authorities if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence has been committed.

The NDP supports changing the registration process to require corporations and their employees to meet the same requirements as non-profit organizations and the requirement that corporate officers whose employees are engaged in lobbying activities register formally.

Those are small steps in the right direction but they are also inadequate considering the way power works in Ottawa. If the government were serious about bringing in legislation that would restore Canadians' faith in the process of governance it could, at a minimum, include in Bill C-15 the following recommendations from the standing committee.

The committee recommended that a new office be created with the exclusive responsibility to investigate and report directly to Parliament on alleged violations of the lobbyists code of conduct.

The committee also recommended that further study be given to the proposal that lobbyists be required to disclose the amount of moneys spent on lobbying campaigns. Such a requirement would go a long way toward providing the kind of transparency Canadians ought to expect.

I had the pleasure of being on the heritage committee as it studied Bill S-7, a bill that would give support to non-profit and community groups allowing them to be part of the policy making that occurs in the CRTC and to have a real impact on changes and to make their concerns known about broadcasting decisions being made. It is clear at this point that there is an uneven playing field for large media corporations versus small community groups that want to have a say in the kind of media they are experiencing in their communities.

I also had a meeting the other day with many of the civil society groups who went to Johannesburg for the world climate change conference. I heard over and over again that there was no level playing field for environmental groups or advocacy groups. They are unable to act in an advocacy role in Ottawa with parliamentarians. They are being silenced. By the kind of funding they are getting they are not able to come here and make the same kind of representations as are big corporations. There are major problems in that area that have to be addressed if Canadians are going to have confidence that all voices are being heard here on the Hill.

The committee also recommended that the role of private sector consultants in developing government policy be examined by Parliament with a view to promoting transparency and eliminating conflict of interest. At this point in time a private company, which today is employed to lobby government for certain legislative changes, could tomorrow be hired by the government to consult on the advisability of such changes. The potential for conflict of interest is obvious and yet it is not addressed in the legislation. It is quite incredible that we see that lapse not being addressed.

The NDP would view the bill in the overall context of the recently announced ethics packages from the Liberals. The Prime Minister announced a few small baby steps, such as amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, to create a single ethics counsellor appointed by Parliament in the same way as the Auditor General. The post would be for a five year, non-renewable term responsible for the Prime Minister's code for cabinet ministers and parliamentarians. The commissioner would have the same power as the Auditor General.

The commissioner would be able to dismiss frivolous complaints but would be required to report them. This is a great improvement on the current long-standing ethics comedy starring Mr. Wilson. I welcome the announcement of a draft code of conduct for parliamentarians that requires disclosure of interests by MPs and senators but not spouses. The immediate family disclosure requirements for ministers and parliamentary secretaries remain.

The commissioner would be required to administer this code and to report to committees of the House and Senate. The exclusion of spouses is a serious flaw but it is not the only flaw. Let us look at the case of ministers.

The commissioner would report to the Prime Minister, the minister in question and the originator of the complaint. The commissioner would be required to report on all matters disposed to him or her annually in Parliament. In the end, the Prime Minister could overturn the findings of the commissioner. This means we would have a long, involved ethical process which would exist at the whim of a single politician. This is the situation we are trying to get rid of.

The Liberals have no credibility on the issue of ethics. Be it the Prime Minister or the former finance minister, we see constant abuses of government power in the government.

Today a Senate committee is making recommendations to increase funding to the private sector to deliver health care. The chair of this committee sits on the board of Extendicare, a private company which would greatly benefit if this recommendation is implemented. This is just one more example of the fact that the government has no moral credibility on the whole ethics file and that is the crux of the problem.

Ethics in government do not exist because we pass a law in this place. Ethics in government exist because people who are in public life strive to put the public interest ahead of their own interests and personal or political ambitions of the day. Ethics in government exist when we work to make government an instrument used to help the public, not used as part of an advantage.

Using this standard, the Liberals have failed and even when they change the Prime Minister they will continue to fail. Regardless of who is the leader, the Liberals continue to have the same crew in place and they have lost the moral authority because they continue to use their position of public trust to make their party or their faction look better.

It has been shameful to witness scandal after scandal by the government. It has been shameful to see the official opposition attempt to use these scandals as an excuse to further discredit the concept of government for the public good.

I have tried to be an advocate for the arts and for people with disabilities in this place. However, it has been painfully clear that the approach of the government to both issues has been to put its own agenda ahead of the needs of those vulnerable communities.

Artists are used by the government as a backdrop for ministers. People with disabilities are given great rhetoric but more often than not are used as a place to find savings for other government initiatives. For me, this is proof of the death of the unethical roots of the government opposite. When these cynical manipulations are done away with, the House will see me rise and give wholehearted support for an ethical package from the Prime Minister of the country, or from the member for LaSalle—Émard, or whomever is in place when that finally happens. However, I am not holding my breath at this point.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15 and I am telling the House at the outset that my party will support its referral to committee. I am sure that my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques will see to it that the bill is improved through the many amendments and suggestions that the Bloc Quebecois has already proposed at the drafting stage but that were not included in the bill.

We applaud some of the improvements presented earlier by the parliamentary secretary, but they are only minor changes. What can be said about these changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act is that lobbyists are powerful in curbing more substantial reforms with regard to the laws and regulations that affect them.

In fact, what we want to know when we talk about improving control over lobbying activities on Parliament Hill and in the various departments is the intensity of such lobbying and anything related to this intensity, meaning the ability of lobbyists to influence decision makers, whether it be senior officials or ministers themselves.

Who are these lobbyists? What is the history behind each of these lobbyists? What ability does a lobbyist have to influence decisions that might be made, included in a bill and introduced in the House of Commons? This is the most important thing. What is the relationship between this lobbyist and the government, some members of the government, some members of Parliament, some ministers or some deputy ministers? This is what is important.

We agree with the broadening of this act. We agree with the removal of some ambiguities that existed and that will continue to exist before this bill on the registration of lobbyists is passed. We agree with the streamlining and harmonizing of the rules concerning for profit and not for profit businesses. That is not the question.

The question is to determine whether the legislation will really ensure that we reach the goals intended by the bill. The question is not only to have an independent ethics commissioner appointed by the House of Commons. It is also to have a commissioner who can enforce regulations that have real teeth.

Let me remind the House of some amendments that the Bloc Quebecois has already suggested to the Lobbyist Registration Act, to determine the intensity of lobbying and also to ensure that we know who we are dealing with when there are lobbying activities.

First, what we want in this new bill—and we will again be proposing this amendment—is for lobbyists to be required to disclose their meetings with ministers and senior officials, not just with the department concerned, but also with individuals, that is, senior officials, public servants, middle managers and the minister himself. Any lobbyist can go to a department, but if we do not know with whom he had dealings, it is impossible to know just how much lobbying went on, and to analyze the decisions made by this government as a result.

Second, for the new lobbyists registration bill to have teeth, consultant lobbyists as well as in-house lobbyists must be required to disclose their professional fees. We ought to know the price we pay for these lobbyists to attempt to influence the government.

Third, we would like to see in the new bill a provision explicitly prohibiting any sort of conditional fee, regardless of the activity performed. Such a provision is important so that we do not end up with earnings proportional to the amount of the subsidy a firm could get from the government and which, let us remember, is money which belongs not to the government but to taxpayers.

We would also like the new bill to include a provision whereby consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists would be required to disclose positions they have held and the employment period as it corresponds to a federal administration or political party. They should also have to disclose unpaid executive positions with political parties, the number of hours of volunteer work, in cases of more than 40 hours per year for a party, or leadership candidate for a party, or riding association.

We also want to know what kind of mandates these lobbyists received as elected representatives at the federal level as well as which election campaigns they took part in, including the unsuccessful ones, and last, how much the various candidates received from their political party.

In other words, as I mentioned at the beginning of this debate, we want to know who exactly these lobbyists are. Knowing exactly who they are enables us to have an idea of how influential they might be and better assess government decisions. That is what we want to know.

Sometime by a sheer fluke we find out there is a link between a decision made by the government and how much money was given to the Liberal Party of Canada. We often draw this kind of parallel. Major corporations were the beneficiaries of a particular government policy and later on we found out, in the report tabled by the chief electoral officer, that these corporations had supported the Liberal Party of Canada to the tune of several tens of thousands of dollars.

This kind of information is of public interest. In a democracy, this kind of information should be made public so that people can better assess decisions made by the government, often involving the money they contributed to the federal government as taxes. It is important to know that.

At the present time, under the current legislation on the financing of federal political parties, we only have a partial picture of the contributions made by firms engaged in lobbying since it is only during elections that we get a clear picture. Outside of electoral periods we can be told anything at all; there is no control over the funding of federal political parties.

The strengthening of the Lobbyists Registration Act should include changes, further reforms, both to improve the way federal political parties are funded so that the system is more transparent, more open with regard to the disclosure of contributions, and to know who exactly are the lobbyists who meet with the government, ministers and senior officials, and who might influence the government's decisions.

Those are only a few of the changes we will continue to push for in committee, but you can rest assured that we will not be satisfied with a few cosmetic changes such as these. We want to see a real reform to increase transparency and openness in the government, and to know who exactly are these people who lurk in the hallways day after day trying to influence the government. They meet with ministers without our knowing it in order to influence the direction of government policies.

We may on occasion be surprised at the actions taken by the government, but if we had information on the nature and identity of lobbyists, we would have a somewhat better understanding of why a government may choose directions that on occasion seem illogical to us, but are in fact extremely logical, given the meetings they have had with lobbyists the week or month before.

It is, I think, a matter of our desire to have a transparent legislative process, to be answerable to the public, and to be able to evaluate the actions of the government.

I would like to cite an example from this morning's newspapers. They report that a senior official of the Department of International Trade, who is also a negotiator for the Free Trade Area of the Americas has recommended that chapter 11 of NAFTA be extended, despite what the minister has said in the House. This chapter makes it possible for large corporations to sue the government for measures they see as having the potential for losses in the areas of the environment, education, health and so on. Why is the negotiator defending this position so vigorously? Since the minister knows only too well, why is he hiding it from us?

If we were aware of whom the minister, or the senior official, had met with in the past two years of the FTAA negotiation process, we might have a slightly better understanding that there could possibly be some big business interests behind all this.

There are, perhaps, interests involved which lead the government to go in a certain direction that is totally contrary to the public interest and totally contrary to the defence of the interests of the public it claims to represent. Perhaps what lies behind all this is a powerful lobby of transnational corporations.

We would like to have a clear picture of the situation, in this case and in many others besides.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. First, I would like to go through exactly what this bill would do. Second, I will offer some specific comments and then address some general issues with the ethics package as a whole.

What will this do? First, it would remove the expression “attempt to influence” from the Lobbyists Registration Act to make clear that all communications covered by the legislation constitute lobbying and therefore require registration. That seems very reasonable to us.

Second, it would clarify that registration is not required for simple inquiries or administrative requests for information, again a reasonable amendment.

Third, it would clarify that lobbying occurs when a public office-holder initiates contact with anyone who could be lobbying the public office-holder, or his or her organization. This applies to all forms of communication and is in response to a recommendation by the standing committee report of June 2001, again a sensible amendment.

Fourth, it would require the ethics counsellor to notify the appropriate police authorities if, in the conducting of an investigation into an alleged breach of the lobbyists code of conduct, he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed.

Here are some specific comments. Obviously the bill is in response to the standing committee report of June 2001 and is primarily administrative. It would remove the exception for communications made in response to requests by public office-holders, which we support. It would also provide that communications that are restricted to requests for information are not subject to the act. The enactment would require lobbyists to file a return for every six months and opposes new registration obligations on in-house lobbyists for corporations.

We should point out that the bill would make a number of minor improvements to the Lobbyists Registration Act based on a parliamentary study conducted in 2001. It would improve the communications between the lobbyists registration branch and those who are registered. We would highlight at this point that the bill will go to committee before second reading, which is certainly a positive sign. However at this point section 7, subparagraph (1)(a)(v) does not refer to the wording of government contracts directly and we would like the committee to look at that.

I have three points I want to make that relate not only to this bill but to the entire ethics package. In particular the bill is not and should not be presented as a part of a new ethics package. The reality is that the committee studied this and produced a report in June 2001. The government response was by former industry minister Tobin in November 2001. At that time he stated very clearly that he would amend the Lobbyists Registration Act to deal with the committee's recommendations.

This bill deals with those promised amendments and the government is being a little disingenuous by saying that this is part of its new ethics package. The fact is since former minister Tobin was considering this, I hardly see how the government can present this as part of a new ethics package.

My second point is that the bill does not deal with the main criticism of the laws and regulations concerning lobbyists; that is, that there is not an effective mechanism in place to enforce the code. We heard over and over again at committee that while we had all these regulations saying that they must register, there was no effective enforcement or any consequences of not registering. Therefore what is the motivation to register other than a person's good will?

We have some concerns. This shows that the legislation was drafted before because of the way it refers to the ethics counsellor in this piece of legislation specifically. The ethics counsellor, Howard Wilson, enforces the lobbyists code which requires that lobbyists follow the registration act. There were obvious questions, even from government members of that committee, about the effectiveness of Mr. Wilson's ability to enforce this code because of his perceived lack on independence from the Prime Minister, as was stated by many witnesses and many members before the committee at that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion moved in the House today is to allow parliamentarians to discuss important proposals in Bill C-15 as soon as possible.

In fact, Bill C-15 reflects the excellent work accomplished by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology as part of its study of the Lobbyists Registration Act, and found in its 2001 report.

Earlier this week, the government followed through on a promise made by the Prime Minister to increase the confidence of Canadians in our public institutions. The government presented three supplementary elements of its eight point action plan on government ethics. The bill to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act is one of these elements.

The bill provides a clearer definition of lobbying; provisions to strengthen the enforcement of the Lobbyists Registration Act; simplified requirements for the registration and strengthened requirements for revoking registration through a single registration process for both corporations and non-profit organizations.

I will begin the debate by giving an outline of the current legislation. I will review what has happened since we followed up on the commitment that we made during our first mandate. Members will see that we have set up an effective and transparent system. Then, I will describe the bill, its impact on the lobbyists registration system in Canada, and its importance in the context of the eight point action plan.

Allow me to describe this system. The Lobbyists Registration Act is based on four major principles.

First, freedom of access to crown institutions is in the public interest.

Second, lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity.

Third, it is advisable to give public office holders and the public the opportunity to know who is trying to influence crown institutions.

Fourth, a registration system for hired lobbyists should not impede freedom of access to crown institutions.

The act currently defines three categories of lobbyists. I want to point out that, in all cases, these are people who are paid to perform lobbying activities. They are not volunteers or people whose civic duties lead them to get involved in issues that are important to them.

The first type is the consultant lobbyist. These people are paid to lobby for their clients.

Then, there is the in-house lobbyist of a corporation. This is an employee of a business for whom lobbying for his employer is an important part of his duties.

Finally, there is the in-house lobbyist of an organization. This is an employee in a non-profit organization in which at least one employee performs lobbying activities. The total time spent on lobbying must be a significant part of the employee's duties.

In its current wording, the act specifically targets any attempts to influence the making, development or modification of legislative proposals, bills, resolutions, regulations and policies or programs of the Government of Canada. It also deals with attempts to influence the granting of subsidies, contributions or other federal financial benefits.

The act applies to lobbying as it relates to “public office holders” of the Government of Canada. These include my colleagues in the House of Commons, our staff, our colleagues in the Senate and their staff. They also include officials and employees of federal departments and agencies, and members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

A lobbyists' code of conduct was developed in support of the act. This code sets out the standards of conduct lobbyists must follow in dealing with federal public office holders. In addition, the act specifies the nature of the information lobbyists must provide concerning clients, businesses or organizations whom they represent, as well as their activities.

This system is based on a government online model. I can say this because 98 out of 100 lobbyists register online.

Also, Canadians can consult the information posted on the lobbyists registration website. If they want to know who is lobbying which department or agency, and on which subject-matter, this information is available on the Internet. Such a system is a real success story.

While this system is successful, our government thought it was important to review it regularly. We made a commitment in this respect in the 1995 legislation, which resulted in a review in 2001.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology looked at operation of the Lobbyists Registration Act and at how it could be improved. The committee heard testimonies and reached an important conclusion: the system is working well and has made lobbying activities at the federal level transparent.

Indeed, many of the committee's recommendations call for no changes to key aspects of the current system, and it made others that the government found to be quite thoughtful and constructive.

Like any amending bill, Bill C-15 contains a number of changes designed to update the wording of the enactment, and others to correct minor inconsistencies between the French and English texts.

This bill does, however, propose three major changes. The first one concerns the definition of what makes activities subject to registration under the act. My hon. colleagues will remember that, a moment ago, I mentioned that the existing legislation targets a specific type of action, namely an attempt to influence a public office holder. But what exactly does “attempting to influence” mean?

It may be difficult to define this concept and to enforce the legislation in that respect on the basis of experience to date. The thinking has always been that some individuals might not register as lobbyists because they do not see their lobbying activities as attempts to influence someone.

The standing committee recommended that the registrar of lobbyists, the office of the ethics counsellor and the justice department hold more extensive consultations on this matter. This was done, and the bill is proposing a major change.

Generally speaking, we are proposing that any communications between a public office holder and an individual who contacts this public office holder as part of his or her job be considered as lobbying. This individual is then required to register as a lobbyist.

We will not have to worry about possible hairsplitting on whether something was or was not an intent to influence. If it is a communication by a person paid to lobby with a public office holder, it is lobbying.

In order to avoid being too broad in scope, the bill clearly indicates that simple requests concerning facts or requests for information, such as those that any citizen may reasonably submit to his member of Parliament or to a federal employee, will not require registration.

For example, it will not be necessary to register if we phone Environment Canada to find out what the weather will be.

We are also proposing to implement a related change recommended by the standing committee. Under the existing act, if a public office holder initiates contact, the contacted person does not need to register. The committee saw this situation as a possible loophole that goes against the transparency that we are seeking. The government agrees and would like to eliminate this loophole.

So, regardless of who initiates contact, registration is mandatory.

Ultimately, these changes will make it less confusing for those who must register. They will ensure that the compliance rate of those who work under this legislation, and we believe this rate is already high, will be even higher. These changes will further increase transparency.

The second series of important changes relates to the registration process. One of these changes deals with the various systems that currently exist for people who lobby as in-house lobbyists for a corporation or as in-house lobbyists for a non-profit organization.

In the case of a corporation, if an employee spends at least 20% of his time lobbying, then that employee must register. In the case of a non-profit organization, 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.

Some of the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee did not want to see a change to the system for businesses. They seemed to be concerned that businesses would face administrative burdens.

But another study was conducted later on. It involved counsel working for large corporations. It showed support for a change toward a more consistent approach with respect to all in-house lobbyists. We suggest that Parliament take that approach.

Whether the organization is for profit or not, if employees spend collectively at least 20% of their time lobbying, then this organization is required to register.

As far as we are concerned, what matters is that the chief executive officer or another officer registers on behalf of the organization. Yes, the names of those normally engaged in lobbying would be specified, but the chief executive officer would the one signing the registration and the one answerable before the law for compliance with the Lobbyists Registration Act.

This kind of accountability will undoubtedly help increase the transparency of the system.

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

Here, we are proposing a new registration system, which is once again in keeping with the recommendations of the standing committee.

At present, the various categories of lobbyists are subject to different requirements and timeframes. If Parliament agrees, and I think it will, a single system will apply.

All lobbyists will be required to renew and update their registration at least every six months; otherwise, it will be cancelled. They will also have to update their registration more frequently if their clients or the purpose of their lobbying activities changes. But in this way, the information will be updated more regularly.

The third major change that I want to mention is a new requirement for the ethics counsellor and for the counsellor's staff.

Bill C-15 contains a proposal for a new provision in the Lobbyists Registration Act. If the ethics counsellor investigates a possible offence under the lobbyists' code of conduct, and discovers a possible offence under another act, the counsellor would be required to inform the police of it, so that they may take action.

In closing, the purpose of these amendments is to take a system that works well right now and make it work even better in the future. Indeed, when Canadians want to find out who is lobbying which department about what issue, they will be able to find this information on-line 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Our government is proud of how it has handled this issue. We said that we would take steps to shed light on lobbying in Ottawa, and that is what we have done. And we have done so in a manner that respects the legitimate role that lobbying plays, as well as the public interest in this activity. We have now taken another step in this regard.

Bill C-15 will give Canada a lobbying registration system that is clearer, more transparent and more enforceable. It will be one of the most rigorous systems in the world. It will make up one of the key elements of the eight-point action plan, which, as the Prime Minister mentioned, will help win the trust of Canadians.

I hope that the committee will be able to study the bill as soon as possible.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, on behalf of the Minister of Industry]

moved: That Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take the last issue as representation by the hon. member for legislation. Meanwhile though, I will announce to him and to all colleagues the business of the House.

This afternoon we will obviously continue with the debate on the allotted day motion by the official opposition on this excellent initiative of the government to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Tomorrow we will consider a motion for referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-15, the amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act proposed by the hon. Minister of Industry.

I wish to announce that on Monday we will begin a take note debate during the day on the national discussion on the future of the Canadian health care system. There were questions even today, several of them actually on this issue. The government feels it is an important topic.

Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days.

Child Pornography

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, children are a priority with the government. They continue to be a priority with the government. We brought forward Bill C-15A which was passed in July of this year. It deals with much of the Internet, pornography and the way in which we proceed to catch those who perpetrate this crime.

A recent case has been brought before the courts and we are very happy to see that action is being taken with the tools we have given them to work on this problem.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Justice

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the top priority of the government is to protect children in Canada. We have good legislation in place, but I am totally aware of what took place in B.C. with regard to the Sharpe case. We have decided to reform the whole system. I have said many times that before Christmas we will be tabling reform on that side. Apart from that, we have taken some initiatives on that lately with Bill C-15A. We have launched some websites as well in order to better protect children.

We are going to keep working in order to keep protecting the children of our nation and to protect their futures as well.

Child Pornography

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the Sharpe decision. We have been quite clear that we want to proceed with an extensive and thorough review of the offences that we have within the Criminal Code. Of course when we are talking about children in our society it is our top priority. We want to make sure to protect them.

We have some provisions as well. We have created under Bill C-15A, which is now legislation within the country, a brand new offence with regard to the use of the Internet. Lately, with the justice minister of Manitoba, we have launched a new site, Cybertip, which will be very useful for society. We will come forward with a brand new piece of legislation to keep protecting children within our communities.