Debates of June 17th, 1994

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)( b ).

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

When the debate was interrupted the member for Madawaska-Victoria had five minutes' time remaining in her speech but I believe she completed it.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-43.

Today in the House of Commons we sit among seats held by over 200 newly elected representatives from all across Canada, most of whom, like me, are novices. There is no doubt that in the federal election of October 25, 1993, Canadians sent a clear message that they wanted back control of what they see as a decaying democracy, a political environment increasingly based on who you know, not what you know your constituents want.

The whole issue of elected officials being more accountable to the people they represent has increasingly become a pressing and troubling issue for Canadians and they are demanding action.

Who could forget the now famous quote from the former leader of the Liberal Party during the election campaign. When accused of handing out patronage appointments to senior Liberal supporters he declared on national TV, "I had no choice". Who will forget the legacy of the man who accused Mr. Turner?

The last 10 years have seen more scandal, more patronage, more impropriety by elected public officials and more PR campaigns to cover up the scandals than I believe Canadian society has ever experienced. It all climaxed during the last election. Politically conscious Canadians once and for all proved that they had had enough, throwing out 75 per cent of the incumbents.

The issue behind today's debate is not simply private interests cajoling public officials. The issue transcends the question of how to control and make more transparent the access these private interests have with public officials. The issue was articulated by the Prime Minister during his speech in this House. The Prime Minister talked about trust. In this vein the Prime Minister said that in a democracy, elected officials must be accountable to the interests of all Canadians, not just the privileged few.

Such words are music to my ears. If the Prime Minister was fully aware of what he was saying, and I think he was, and if he fully intends to put into practice this populist ideology, then I am half way to returning home to my family and my medical practice.

However, as Canadians saw with the previous government, actions speak louder than words. It is one thing for politicians to accuse others of improprieties and to preach about patronage, conflict of interest and ethics. Canadians demand action, not PR.

The actions of the government, of the Prime Minister are to appoint, and I underline the word appoint, an ethics counsellor. Oh, they tell us we will review and study the legislation. This actually is Tory legislation from the previous government dealing with registering lobbyists.

Note that although the Prime Minister says the interests of all must be considered, only the Prime Minister and not the duly elected representatives of the people through Parliament will decide who is the ethics watchdog. Only to the Prime Minister, not the duly elected representatives of the people through Parliament, will the ethics counsellor be accountable.

Given all of the public attention and the humble, trust us kind of speeches made by the government on public trust and accountability, together with the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday on appointing an ethics counsellor, I must say I am little saddened.

Canadians demand action on this issue. Can hon. members not sense and understand that? Canadians are sick and tired of slick rhetoric and public relations. They see right through it and no wonder. They certainly have had enough experience with that type of activity over the last 15 years. Action is what they want. Action.

Canadians are no longer willing to stand idly by as outsiders while politicians line their own pockets and promote their own interests or those of their friends and relatives. If we as elected officials really and truly want to clean up this place, if we really and truly want to dispose of shady, sleazy politics which cast shadows not only over this fine city, but the quality and degree of democracy in this entire country, all of us can do it.

The vast majority of members know on any given day for any given subject what the consensus majority of their constituents believe and want. As a non-professional politician I would say that is one of our most important jobs. The other even more important job as publicly elected representatives is to represent our constituents' views.

This indeed is how I interpreted the Prime Minister's remarks. I will repeat what he said: "We must take into account the interests of all Canadians, not just the privileged few". Yet the Prime Minister is against allowing MPs in the Liberal Party to vote freely according to their constituents' views. The Prime Minister is against the idea of allowing constituents to recall their representatives if they do wrong. Are such policies not contradictory to the humble power to the people statements he made yesterday and which are printed in the Liberal red book?

I leave the answers to these questions to the existing seat holders in this Parliament. We who occupy these privileged places must eventually reconcile our consciences. As long as we represent to the very best of our abilities on each and every issue the consensus views of those individuals who are paying for us to be here, the many thousands of people in our constituencies and our parliamentary raison d'être, we should have no difficulties whatsoever at the end of the day saying to our constituents, our families, our children and our grandchildren that we did the best we could.

Should anything we do in whatever way cause us to contradict the consensus views of our constituents, then we must ask ourselves: Who are we doing this for? Is it for ourselves to promote our narrow self-interests? Is it for our friends or relatives to promote their narrow self-interests? Perhaps we could justify our representation in the interests of Canada, maybe Alberta, or maybe Quebec. Perhaps we could justify voting a particular way on certain issues simply in the interests

of our party. Of course that would be good for Canada, whether Canadians know it or not.

As a parliamentarian I believe there is no cause which should take greater precedence than to do things that in our hearts we know it is what our constituents would want us to do. They know what they want. We just have to ask them more often.

What about those other noble causes: our friends, our relatives, Alberta, Quebec, Canada, our parties? I believe our constituents would tell us that by simply representing their views accurately on every issue we would automatically collectively represent what is best for Canada, our political parties, our true friends, our families, our children and our grandchildren.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech. I still cannot figure out whether the member is for or against the bill. It is indeed most difficult to do so. I know the hon. member is in favour of families and that is very good. He is probably in favour of wholesomeness as well and that is good too.

We are dealing with a bill today as proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister and as presented in the House by the Minister of Industry. I have waited a long time for this bill.

In 1987 I was a member of the Cooper committee, the original parliamentary committee which produced the legislation that exists today. The legislation was less than perfect. It did not include the major recommendations of the committee at the time.

One of the highlights of the Cooper bill was that after three years of coming into force the legislation would be up for review. The Holtmann committee did that review. I also was a member of that committee. If members have not guessed because of the defeats last year of course I am the only survivor of either committee and a survivor of both. Therefore, I have had the opportunity to work on this issue on several occasions in the past.

The report presented last year by the Holtmann committee was not a Tory bill as the member across the way said. It was a unanimous decision of the committee which was presented and received the broad support of the House. Maybe it was not the Reform bill but I do not apologize for that. It was a report produced by the duly elected people. Maybe that concept is alien to the member who just spoke as well, but it was produced by all of us in the last Parliament and it was unanimous.

Today I stand proud because the Prime Minister in producing this legislation included most of what we asked for. Ninety per cent of what was in our report has ended up in this legislation. Furthermore, there were things I was looking for as an individual member and the rest of the committee was not willing to put in the report last year. This Prime Minister has addressed those issues as well.

For example, last year the committee recommended in recommendation 22: "That lobbyists proceed immediately to establish a professional association with an industry-wide code of ethics". I wanted that to go a lot further. I produced an amendment to that at the committee saying that in addition to what was in recommendation 22 we should also have a measure whereby if lobbyists failed to produce their own code of ethics the government would impose one on them. That is what I wanted last year.

Guess what is in the bill now? The Prime Minister said that we will impose a code of ethics through the new independent officer who will overview this system. He will develop a code and he will impose it on the lobbyists. They have no choice. The lobbyists have had years to produce such a code but have failed to do so.

I recognize some of the difficulties that industry has. A few players in there were less than desirable characters but that is not true for the majority of them. Some very honourable people are lobbyists. No one can tell me that the representation from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to my office is less than honourable.

Nobody can tell me that when people from the UPA call their MPs they do not have the best interest of their members in mind. Being a lobbyist is not in itself an undesirable activity. They are not all mean bastards. But a few rotten apples have spoiled it for everybody else.

And that is the truth. I say to the member who spoke before me that after being in Parliament for a while, he will realize that most lobbyists are honest, but a few of them have done rather suspicious things, to say the least.

Where does that bring us? Last year and the year before we were studying lobbying legislation. We were studying a new conflict of interest code. The Prime Minister has found a way, through this ethics counsellor, an independent officer, to impose rules that are even stronger than what we have now on the registration of lobbyists. He has addressed the issue of conflict of interest: one for ministers, their spouses and families; on the other side for members of Parliament, once we develop a code for ourselves. That is a very important consideration. It has been done. It has been addressed.

I want to speak briefly about the independence of the ethics counsellor. I have heard one or two members make allegations that the ethics counsellor is not independent because he reports through a minister to the House. That is not necessarily true. The assistant deputy registrar general, which is the position this officeholder holds right now, operates in a quasi-judicial manner.

The Competition Tribunal and other bodies like it report through ministers but they operate independently, quasi-independently, or at arm's length from the government. The Director of Investigations is another one. That is probably a better example of someone who operates very much in an independent manner, yet the estimates and so on report nominally through a minister. There are plenty of cases like that.

In this case the Prime Minister looked at a person who was holding an independent office of the kind I just described. He was chosen to do the job, after consultations with both opposition leaders.

Finally, once the person is appointed, the appointment has to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee under our present standing orders. Need I remind members of that. Therefore it is an independent position.

Yes, the reports as to whether or not a lobbyist breached a code will be made through the Minister of Industry, who must report to the House within 15 days of having received that report. It is not optional. That report is automatically tabled in the House.

What will be in this report? It could, for instance, tell the House about lobbyists who charged fees that were too high, and therefore suspicious. I believe it is a good initiative. It goes very far in the sense that lobbyists will be identified publicly and individually.

I am one of those who thought that lobbyists' fees should automatically be made public. It is one approach and it is the one I put forward. Today, I recognize that this information would be buried under the mountain of data released.

We call that the paper blizzard. If you provide enough information it is about the same as not providing any.

The Prime Minister has very cleverly designed this plan so that only those lobbyists who do controversial things will be reported to Parliament through the registrar general. This would include the fees of those lobbyists. Therefore, if lobbyists-and I assume they would generally be tier ones-do something questionable, it would be reported to Parliament.

The rules in themselves do not change parliamentarians and they do not change people. We do need good rules and we will have good rules. These proposals will be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. I hope to have the honour of representing my party on that committee.

I will conclude by saying that what is most important is good ethical and moral behaviour by all of us in Parliament. I think that will then filter down to people in the public service and everywhere else and we will regain the confidence of the people as we have started to do over the months since our party has been in office.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. This legislation will regulate the work of those who lobby government departments and agencies on behalf of their clients' interests.

I have read the bill and support a number of its provisions. Naturally, I support the fact that the bill requires lobbyists to disclose the nature of their activities. I also agree that the departments and agencies who are being lobbied must be identified. I also believe it is a good idea that the identity of individuals or corporations involved in lobbying be clearly disclosed.

These are the main provisions I see in this bill. Basically, we expected these provisions.

Other positive aspects of the bill, to my mind, are the fact that it calls for the establishment of a code of ethics governing lobbying activities and the appointment of an ethics counsellor to oversee the application of the legislation.

Generally speaking, these are the positive sides to this bill. It would be rather ridiculous if we only had negative things to say. However, if we examine the bill in relation to what has now come to be known as the Pearson Airport scandal, we see that as it is now worded, the bill would not have prevented this scandal from occurring. We would not have received any new information besides what we already have.

With this bill, we would have learned that some lobbying took place with respect to the privatization of part of Pearson Airport. That is nothing new. We would have learned that the Department of Transport was also lobbied. But we knew that already. Perhaps an inquiry would have been called by the person responsible for the application of the legislation. Well, an inquiry was held into the Pearson Airport deal. The Prime Minister appointed a special investigator who looked into the deal and released a report, which explains why certain facts came to our attention. We have learned in particular that there was something in the wind because the investigator did not have the power to force people to testify, so that we could find out what really happened.

The bill before us provides for a code of conduct which is not a statutory instrument and cannot force people to testify.

Having reviewed the bill before us, I submit that this bill would have been of no use to us in getting to the bottom of the Pearson Airport scandal.

As you can see, this bill is seriously flawed. I will try to describe briefly the flaws I see in this bill and explain how I would like to contribute to future debates on this bill.

Flaw number one: the ethics counsellor is appointed by the Governor in Council, in other words, the government, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, as in the case of Mr. Nixon, who was appointed to investigate the Pearson Airport deal. I would say his being appointed by the government undermines his authority. As I see it, he should have been appointed by the House of Commons, just like the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. This gives him unquestioned prestige and authority.

Flaw number two: the code of conduct is not a statutory instrument. This code, as described in the bill, seems to be little more than a pious wish list. Lobbyists are advised to behave in a certain way, but the code is not a statutory instrument. This is going to make it difficult for the person responsible for its application to summon witnesses, to question their statements, to shed light on suspicious deals. I think the non-regulatory status of the ethics code is a major weakness of the bill before us.

Another shortcoming is that lobbyists are not required to make public the amounts involved. When a lobbyist receives $10,000 for his services, I think he is not in the same situation as if he received $1 million or $2 million.

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who spoke before me, said that he thought of disclosing the amounts paid to lobbyists. The argument he just put forward to justify his change of mind is that there would be so much information that it would be impractical for potential lobbying researchers to dig out the figures. I think the hon. member changed his mind a little too fast because of an apparently flimsy justification. Whether there are 5,000 or 10,000 reports, Canadians interested in democracy will make an effort to look at them. Whether there are 10 or 20 people looking, if they see problems, they will be able to warn the population, and I think journalists will be smart enough to use this information. I think it would be important to know how much lobbyists received for their services.

Another element of the bill that has not been pointed out but should be in my opinion-I will be told, I am sure, that it has to do with the Income Tax Act or with other tax laws-is that the government has kept the tax deduction for lobbyists' fees. It is somewhat ironic that, on the one hand, the public is denied this information and that, on the other hand, since the people who hire lobbyists benefit by being allowed to claim a tax deduction, this information is provided to the Department of Revenue.

It could be said that lobbyists want to have their cake and eat it too. It means that when things are not favourable, they want to keep it a secret, but when they can benefit financially, there is no problem as long as tax confidentiality is preserved. I think that this tax deduction is very questionable, especially since President Clinton of the United States, who wants to regulate lobbying, is thinking of eliminating it.

The bill also makes a dubious distinction between two types of lobbyists: consultant lobbyists paid to make representations on behalf of their clients and in-house corporate lobbyists whose main duty is to lobby departments and governments in order to obtain benefits for their companies. The bill is tougher on consultant lobbyists than on in-house lobbyists.

But we must say that in-house lobbyists are often employed by large corporations which can afford their services and which must be accountable to the public. So I think that the lack of uniformity in the way this bill treats the various lobbyists is a major weakness which may bring the public to question the effectiveness of this bill.

Another feature I find particularly surprising is that lobbyists are not required to name the people they contacted in the agencies concerned. A report might say: "So-and-so contacted the Department of Transport, the Department of Human Resources or the Department of Justice". But we would like to know whom this person contacted. Was it the minister or a senior official? I think that it is important to find out what went on and to shed light on lobbying activities.

I shall conclude because my time is almost up. Basically, Quebecers and Canadians want to know who is lobbying. They want to know for whom the lobbying is done. They want to know how the lobbying is done. They want to know why the lobbying is done and how much it costs. I think that it is important and when the principle of this bill is considered, my party will seek to ensure that this law has all the necessary provisions so that the people of Canada and Quebec are kept informed of lobbyists' activities.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the government's motion to send this bill, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, to the committee prior to second reading.

No Canadian requires the services of a lobbyist to approach this government. I am sure that all members of this House would agree that our doors are always open to our constituents and we

do our best to ensure that the views of those constituents are well represented in government decision making.

Moreover, all Canadians have a right to make their own views known to ministers of the crown. Every day ministers receive hundreds of letters from Canadians expressing their opinion on matters within their jurisdiction. Many Canadians make their views known directly to the department or agency of the crown that handles the issue under consideration.

I refer particularly to the farm organizations in the constituency that I represent which deal with matters such as cattle, hogs, chickens, wheat and a number of agricultural commodities that have had representatives here in Ottawa for 20 or 50 years. They have a right to do so.

This government upholds the right of Canadian citizens to deal with public officials but as we know, some Canadians do hire lobbyists. At the same time, government sometimes seeks the advice of groups and organizations in order to find out what impact its actions will have on Canadians. Our challenge is to ensure that lobbying does not discredit the democratic process.

I would like to outline why this legislation does not follow the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations to eliminate the distinctions between tier one and tier two lobbyists.

The committee had concluded that tier one and tier two lobbyists perform similar functions and recommended one definition and the same reporting and disclosure requirements for all lobbyists. This legislation on the other hand is based on the premise that lobbying performed by consultant lobbyists is different from that done by in-house lobbyists.

It has named three different categories: consultant, corporate in-house and organization in-house lobbyists. I believe that this accurately reflects the kind of lobbying activities that are going on out there and in fact prevents any kind of confusion of the issues in terms of those who are writing reports or consultant reports for individual organizations and non-profit organizations. Those are the so-called big guns, the Canadian Bankers Association for example. Those two types of activities are different.

In other respects the legislation follows the committee's recommendations closely. It implements more detailed disclosure of all lobbyists. The question of whether increased disclosure requires the elimination of two tiers was one that the government had to examine very carefully. All organizations have told us that they agree with the need to make lobbying more transparent. No one is disputing that. They accept the need to provide more specific disclosure. They recognize that information filed under the existing Lobbyists Registration Act is not adequate.

When it comes to the question of removing the distinction between the two tiers, representatives of corporations and organizations say that there are significant differences between their work and responsibilities and those of, as I pointed out, the consultant lobbyists in the tier one category. Corporate and organization in house lobbyists are by nature and status very substantively, fundamentally different from consultant lobbyists who operate under contract on behalf of clients.

To begin with, the activities of the in house lobbyists are already well publicized. Further, associations are informed by their members to pursue their common objectives on an ongoing basis. That is why we are requiring the association rather than the individual to file on an annual basis. Non-profit organizations will also have to disclose substantially more information, but this will not create administrative demands beyond their ability to comply.

These organizations recognize the value of greater transparency in their activities. All in house lobbyists will be required to provide annual listings of issues or specific subjects of concern, the departments or agencies they expect to contact, and in addition the communication techniques they plan to use. They will also have to provide updates as changes or new information arises or if the project is terminated. They must also provide annually a description of the organization's goals and objectives or their business activities. Corporate in house lobbyists must give the name of the parent company and any subsidiaries with a direct interest. Organization lobbyists must describe their membership.

The government wants to continue the valuable dialogue and discussions with associations and organizations in order to find out how the government's actions might affect Canadians. At the same time the bill will improve transparency of these processes by requiring again all lobbyists to disclose substantially more information. That is why I support the legislation.

The subcommittee on industry will want to look at these issues once more when it studies the legislation prior to second reading. The government assures us that it will maintain an open mind on the amendments the committee might recommend.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion to refer Bill C-43 to committee prior to second reading. That is significant in that a broader discussion regarding the transparency of the political process and the accountability of politicians to the Canadian public may take place before coming to the House for full debate. Therefore I am pleased to endorse the motion referring the bill to committee prior to second reading. In my support for

the motion I will explain what I believe to be the strengths and the weaknesses of the bill and then I will suggest some changes.

There is an attempt here to make the political process more open. This is a necessary move, given that there are today few professions despised more than a political career. There is a good reason for this sorry fact. Constituents in my riding of Calgary Southeast have told me time and time again that they want to be included in the governance of their country. They want to have decisions made that reflect their wishes and that benefit their best interests. These Canadians are tired of a government that ignores them and succumbs to the special interests of powerful lobbyists. Part of the mandate that members of my party have received is to put an end to this disempowerment.

In my last town hall meeting we were discussing the issue of criminal justice reform when a man rose to express his concerns. He challenged me when he said to all in attendance that their input would not make any difference, that politicians were not interested in hearing what constituents had to say, and that if politicians did hear the message was ultimately ignored. That was pretty harsh criticism. All of us here should take note that Canadians remain frustrated and worried about where their country is going.

It is often said that perception is reality. In the case of disempowered Canadians the opposite is true. In fact reality was perceived. My colleagues on this side of the House in the Reform Party have a comprehensive package of policy proposals that will change that cynical reality. Our proposals will give the power back to the constituents where it rightfully belongs.

The government has borrowed another idea from the Reform Party by allowing Bill C-43 to go to committee prior to second reading. It is easy therefore for me to support the motion when it has come so clearly right out of our blue book.

The motion engenders everything that Reform stands for when we speak of opening up the political system and making access to the political process more transparent. As well, the intent of the government to make amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act, the LRA, is to require lobbyists to disclose more information to the public. I applaud some of these changes for they too are right out of the Reform blue book.

Maybe I should send a copy of the blue book to the other side of the House because we hear there is confusion among Liberal backbenches as to what legislation will be brought forward next in the House. We can end their guesswork. They need only check our blue book to find out what the government plans to do next.

What is happening in the House this session is quite interesting. We have Liberals trying to pretend that they are Reformers. They recognize that our policies are those Canadians want to see enacted in legislation. However and unfortunately we see what happens when Liberals try to be Reformers. They cannot get things quite right. They tried for criminal justice reform but because they are not Reformers they miss the big picture. The same thing is happening with Bill C-43. The Liberals are missing the big picture. Making changes to the LRA and appointing an ethics counsellor are fine as far as they go, but typically they go off track in some important respects and they definitely do not go far enough.

Bill C-43 will give the ethics counsellor the power to require lobbyists to report lobbying fees with respect to government contracts. In giving the ethics counsellor this power the bill fails to define clearly his authority. A question comes immediately to mind such as: Under what circumstances will the ethics counsellor require a lobbyist to disclose this information? The circumstances appear to be discretionary and given that the counsellor reports directly to the Prime Minister he may be subject to undue influence.

Bill C-43 is a classic example of a bill with much bark but no bite. There is a simple solution to the problem. The bill should require all lobbyists to disclose all donations and fees received over $500 and expenditures over $10. They should be required to file quarterly reports and to file year to date information as well. This process is currently used in the United States. It appears to be an appropriate and adequate model.

In the last Parliament another bill on the same topic died on the Order Paper. It was coincidentally also labelled Bill C-43. The reason that bill did not go anywhere was that it created another layer of bureaucracy. We were assured during the briefing on the bill yesterday that Bill C-43 would not do that. We have yet again more verbal assurance from the government. We know what happens when we get verbal assurances, do we not? We need only to look to the Ministry of Canadian Heritage to confirm that.

Bill C-43 would appoint the existing assistant deputy registrar general as the ethics counsellor. However we are told that he will keep his old job as the ADRG. Now I ask: Will he receive two salaries? He presently requires a staff of 25 to fulfil his responsibilities as ADRG. Now that he has two jobs it would seem that his staff will have a lot more work to do. There are only three possibilities here. He could do one job terribly. He could do both jobs poorly. Or, he could hire more staff in order to do both jobs well. I suspect he will want to do both jobs well. At least I hope he will.

How much more money will his office require to fulfil his new responsibilities? Can the government tell us how much this new ethics counsellor will cost the Canadian taxpayer? Despite the

assurances the government has given us that it will cost nothing to implement the bill I remain highly sceptical.

The Liberal government talks the good talk of opening up the political process but it does not understand what that really means. When it states that it wants to facilitate better action to the political system it demonstrates through legislation like this that it does not fully understand the magnitude of the problem. Tinkering with the LRA will only take us one small step toward regaining the confidence of Canadians. The focus of this discussion for me is the confidence of Canadians. Tinkering with the lobbyists act demonstrates that the government recognizes special interest groups, endorses special interest groups, listens to special interests, funds special interest groups, and enacts legislation to satisfy special interest groups.

The Prime Minister speaks often of restoring the trust of Canadians. Neither the bill nor the motion will allow Canadians to control the government's overspending or to control its deficit of some $40 billion and its debt of some $519 billion. If the government were serious about winning the trust of Canadians it would get its fiscal house in order. Let me remind members opposite who have forgotten what real access to the political process means that the last government did not know what it meant. We all know where its members are buried. It appears that this one does not either.

Real access to the political process means giving real power back to Canadians as individual constituents. Let me share with the House, as I conclude, some beliefs that will demonstrate this. The government should be guided by stated values and principles shared by Canadians in their political beliefs. We believe public policy and democratic society should reflect the will the majority of the citizens as determined by free and fair elections, referendums, and the decisions of legally constituted and representative parliaments and assemblies elected by the people. This does not include buckling to undue pressure from lobbyists.

We believe in the common sense of the common people, their right to be consulted on policy matters that are public ones before major decisions are made, their right to choose and recall their own representatives and to govern themselves through truly representative and responsive institutions, and their right to directly initiate legislation for which substantial public support is demonstrated.

Unlike the hon. member for Saint-Denis we do not believe the average voter is illiterate and cannot print his or her name on a voting list. We believe in the accountability of elected representatives to the people who elect them and that the duty of elected members to their constituents should outweigh pressure from lobbyists and special interests.

Above all else, we must listen to the voices of our constituents. We will not permit the lobby of special interest groups to narrow our agenda.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-43. We cannot represent others if we cannot control ourselves. I think that is the essence of the bill. It is very important members of Parliament, parliamentary secretaries and cabinet ministers be able to control themselves.

The essence of the bill is basically to restore integrity to our system. We can all remember going through the last election that one of the big issues was respect for members of Parliament. Clearly members of Parliament were not well respected. They were held in contempt in some cases. Some of this issue has not gone away by the mere exercise of an election. There is still a great deal of mistrust out there. It is a very good move our Prime Minister is so concerned about the issue that he personally brought the bill to the House.

I would like to discuss two specific aspects of the bill into which it is basically divided. First are changes under the Lobbyists Registration Act and second is the establishment of conflict of interest guidelines.

Why would we need a lobbyist in the first place? Companies do have the right to have lobbyists. I know we talk about tier one and tier two lobbyists. Essentially companies would have the right to be represented to their governments.

I think the real essence of it is that this representation needs to be tempered. There must be a balance. What do I mean by a balance?

In my riding this week I dealt with a Mrs. Elizabeth Wardell of Bowmanville. She was trying to live on a disability income of $850 while at the same time paying $350 a month for drugs. She gets no support from our system.

I would like to argue that Mrs. Wardell has just as much right to consideration under drug patent legislation as the largest drug companies of this country. Indeed many of us may argue that she has more of a right. I will repeat again, influence must be tempered.

The most important views of this country are not those of Bay Street, James Street or Howe Street, but of Main Street, Main Street Canada. The new legislation will increase the visibility of the lobbying process.

I would like to refer to those areas of changes to the existing lobbying registration act. Lobbyists will now be required to disclose what departments and government agencies they will contact, disclose communication methods to be used and register the name of the departments and governmental agencies to be contacted.

In essence when all is said and done the ethics counsellor will be able to decide what areas these particular lobbyists are interested in focusing in government. This will give us a concept from where this kind of activity is coming from and where it is directed at government.

Many people have argued in the House that it does not have any teeth, that it is a waste of time and it is a media show. I have discovered that here are some of the teeth in the legislation. For those who do not adhere to this process there are fines of up $25,000, the role of the RCMP is being strengthened by increasing the limitation period for laying charges in summary proceedings from six months to two years. If lobbyists knowingly make false or misleading statements they could be liable to a fine of up to $100,000 and a prison term of two years.

These are very serious charges. These are very serious results of not abiding by this legislation. I think very clearly the government is very interested in cleaning up our act.

Through these changes I believe that we will start to temper the views of lobbyists and special interest groups but, more important, give government back to the people.

I would like to discuss a second aspect of this legislation which is conflict of interest. I am a chartered accountant. I have been enrolled in the Institute of Chartered Accountancy since 1974. We have a code of ethics. Most professional organizations have a code of ethics. If you break it you are out.

Why not in this House have a code of ethics? That would assume we are professionals. I will give a quick definition of professional. It is one who values the interest of their clients over those of their own personal interest.

In reality what conflict of interest guidelines and ethics counsellor are attempting to do is make the people of Canada our clients, to put the importance of our clients way above our own personal interests.

This is what the Prime Minister means when he is clear to the commitment of duty, but the interest of the electorate must come before those of ourselves.

I am sure many members of Parliament have had the same kind of problem from being a respected professional to going out and being a politician. I remember an incident at a spring fair in the last election. People would come up to me and say: "So, you are a crook too". Nobody has ever in my life referred to me as a crook. Because I had changed my cloak, if you will, and had suddenly become a "politician" aspiring to be a member of this House, I was thought of as a crook. In some ways that kind of spirit is still out there. We have to address the root causes of that. We have to set standards in this good House.

This section has teeth as well. I would like to refer to section 20 of the guidelines. This refers to parliamentary secretaries and cabinet ministers: "Guest hospitality, other benefits, including those described in section 21, that could influence public office holders in their judgement and performance of official duties and responsibilities shall be declined".

I just picked that out of interest. I wonder how many of our parliamentary secretaries and the cabinet ministers are going to be looking under their Christmas tree this year, wondering whether these things have to be returned based on this legislation. I think it is very real. It is a very real influence.

To bring the two aspects together, one being the conflict of interest aspect and the second being the reform to the Lobbyists Registration Act, the ethics counsellor basically has a number of functions. One is to develop a code of conduct in consultation with interested parties. A second is to have the powers to investigate possible breaches of the code of conduct.

The most important aspect of all is to make a public report as a result of this investigation. This will be done once a year. When I saw this I immediately thought of the Auditor General. I thought of the great opportunity for the opposition parties to make political hay from this. That is a possibility, a good possibility.

Imagine a government dedicated to integrity and changing the system that would invoke legislation of this kind which will only serve to possibly embarrass it. We can clearly see the strong commitment our party has to changing the integrity and the office of elected officials.

In conclusion, under these revised, specific codes of ethics, they will clean up our system. The only problem with these things is some people will say they do not go far enough, that we could have extended it more specifically to all members of Parliament.

The people who are exempted from this legislation are the opposition parties. There is no code of ethics for them. There is no commitment to a higher standard for them. There is no professional enrolment or engagement for them. Maybe they would like to bring forward their own code of ethics.

In any case, this is a tremendous move in the right direction for the people of Canada, empowering the people of Canada to bring back government and the voices of the people of Canada to this House.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Three minutes, unfortunately.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Three minutes.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There has been some consultation. I am not sure whether it is a conclusion yet. Perhaps while I am making this proposal, it will give further time for the House to consider it.

I would like to seek agreement that consideration for this particular bill be extended. In other words, that government business be extended by one-half hour, and that at the conclusion of the half hour the issue be disposed of, this particular item be disposed of at that time.

Second, that in exchange for doing that, so as to not inconvenience any members, we would agree by unanimous consent to have only two speakers at Private Members' Hour, dealing with the item put on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Kamloops. Only he and one member for the Reform would speak on that particular private members' item.

At the conclusion of that debate, the initiative of the member for Kamloops would be withdrawn and referred to a parliamentary committee. I do not know whether there is consent for the parliamentary committee on agriculture to be more specific. I know this is a lot to digest in a very few seconds.

It is done to accommodate members of one party who would prefer to speak on this bill and forgo the time for speaking on the other one. The ultimate effect essentially is not to lengthen the time of the sitting, that the House would terminate at exactly the same time. I do not know whether that suits hon. members.

Perhaps there is a request to repeat all of that. Of course I am willing to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps we could split that in half. Is there unanimous consent to extend debate for half an hour?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to the second part of the deputy whip's motion that only two members speak and that the matter be referred to the standing committee on agriculture?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you have listed the first and third items. There was one in the centre that was not addressed. It was the issue that this government order be disposed of at the conclusion of the 30 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I sort of assumed that was the case. Is it also agreed that it would be disposed of?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, I do have ten minutes to make my speech. Thank you very much. I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-43.

When we looked at the Pearson Airport deal, I think we were all hoping that a bill would be tabled to tighten up the Lobbyists Registration Act, and are pleased that the government decided to propose this legislation, even though it is, in our opinion, far from being enough.

I have rather mixed feelings about this bill. On the one hand, I agree that it is a first step in tightening up the provisions concerning lobbyists but, on the other hand, I feel that the proposed measures are not enough. I will discuss this more in detail later on.

Earlier this morning, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria said that lobbies were an essential component of our democratic system. She may be right, but we must ensure that lobbying does not corrupt the democratic process, and I think this is the goal of a bill designed to better monitor the role and the work of lobbyists.

The hon. member for Jonquière was quite right when he said that the bill, in its present form, would not have prevented what we refer to as the Pearson Airport scandal. In fact, it is very symptomatic to see that the government waited until the conclusion of the debate on the bill concerning compensation to those involved in the Pearson Airport deal, before finally tabling its legislation on lobbyists.

This bill is essential because, if we look at the American experience-which we can observe from up close-we see that lobbyists in the United States have gained such power that, in a way, they control several decisions made by the White House and the Congress. A number of positive points must be emphasized in Bill C-43. First of all, the appointment of an Ethics Counsellor. I think the principle is fully justified and that there was an obvious need to appoint an Ethics Counsellor. We also find it very positive that this Ethics Counsellor is being given investigative powers.

As the Leader of the Official Opposition said yesterday, we fully support Mr. Wilson's appointment to the position of Ethics Counsellor. Mr. Wilson has had a highly respected career; he is a very honourable man, and we think he is fully qualified for this position.

We note the government's intention to establish a parliamentary committee whose mandate would be to develop a code of ethics for senators and members of Parliament. We also note its intention to expand and tighten the code of ethics for public

office holders, namely ministers and senior public servants; also, its intention to establish a code of ethics for lobbyists.

I personally feel it is entirely appropriate that the Ethics Counsellor be responsible for administering these three codes of ethics. This will eliminate the scattering of responsibilities. I do feel, however, that there are a number of shortcomings in the bill. First of all, the Ethics Counsellor will not be appointed by and accountable to Parliament, but rather by the Governor in Council.

While the Ethics Counsellor is required to present an annual report to Parliament, and while Parliament must periodically review this legislation, the fact remains that, because he is appointed by the Governor in Council-therefore by Cabinet and the Prime Minister-it is difficult to establish a clear administrative link and reporting relationship; in my opinion, this is all the more incongruous in that the registrar will continue to report to the Department of Industry. I think we should ask why the Ethics Counsellor is appointed by the Governor in Council, therefore, by the Prime Minister. If we want the Ethics Counsellor to be entirely credible and as unbiased as possible for this work, which would include dealing with possible conflicts of interest involving Cabinet members, I think this appointment should not be made by the Governor-in-Council, representing the wishes of Cabinet, but rather by Parliament itself.

According to the red book, and I quote, "the Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons".

I cannot deny that the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of the Reform Party were informed of Mr. Wilson's appointment, and I do not deny that we are entirely in favour of this appointment, as I noted earlier. But, given the measures provided for in this bill, we must wonder about the attitude subsequent governments might take. Would subsequent governments pay just as much attention to the opposition's point of view on the appointment of an ethics counsellor? This is what we are questioning with respect to the prospect of designation by the Governor in Council.

We must also deplore the fact that the distinction between the two types of lobbyists is maintained. I will, with your permission, refer again to the red book that has been quoted so many times since the beginning of this session because, of course, the government boasts about this process of transparency in parliamentary and government institutions it will undertake in order to restore public trust in our parliamentary institutions and our government.

So the red book says, among other things, and I quote: "To increase the transparency of the government's relations with lobbyists, and to give effect to some of the measures described here, a Liberal government will implement the unanimous June 1993 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs respecting the Lobbyists Registration Act".

Well, the first recommendation of the Holtmann report suggests that, and I quote "The distinction between Tier I and Tier II lobbyists be eliminated". But it is maintained. How do you explain that a lobbyist working for a large corporation can have two months to file a return while consultant lobbyists have only ten days? What is the basis for such different treatment?

We should not differentiate on the basis of status, but rather according to the type of activity. Someone who plays the piano is a pianist; someone who lobbies is a lobbyist. Whatever status they have, all lobbyists perform the same activity and we should not keep this artificial difference.

I also believe that we should have done away with the fiscal exemptions for lobbying expenses, something which, by the way, was suggested by the Minister of Transport. These exemptions mean that the government is subsidizing the work undertaken by private interests to influence the decision-making process.

I believe that direct referral to committee, which virtually does away with second reading, something we regret a little, has a positive aspect in that it allows members to voice their opinion on the principle of the bill. In committee, the Bloc Quebecois will try to prevent this bill from becoming an empty shell, a mere cosmetic operation. The Bloc Quebecois will co-operate with the government, but it also expects the government to be open and receptive to the constructive suggestions that might be made by the various political parties in the House.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to this motion to send Bill C-43 to committee.

I cannot think of a type of legislation that is more important to all members of the House of Commons. I like to think that this is the kind of thing I was sent by the people in my riding, to do in the House.

I took notes of two things as this debate progressed. One is the tremendous co-operation that has been shown by members of the opposition parties to examine this bill very candidly and to look for ways to improve the bill and to find deficiencies. I also took note of the minister's statement this morning that he is willing to entertain any kind of bona fide, progressive suggestion, any kind of amendment.

I do have something I would like to add to this bill as an amendment. It has to do with a subject that is of great interest to me and to other members of the House and that is special interest groups.

For the last three months I have made it my particular interest to examine the past practices of governments funding special interest groups, particularly government funded advocacy groups. These are really another type of lobby as we have heard already in the House.

I have looked very carefully into these groups. They are usually non-profit organizations. They are usually umbrella organizations that claim to represent hundreds of thousands of Canadians and hundreds of other organizations.

One of the very great difficulties with this situation where organizations like this are funded is that the nature of the law, both the Access to Information Act and the laws governing Revenue Canada make it impossible for a member of Parliament or a member of the press to independently examine the books of these special interest groups. Even their applications are protected under the Access to Information Act. The balance sheets they present annually are as they choose to present them. They are not subject to close examination unless by chance government audit. We have no control in that respect.

Even if these special interest groups, be they advocacy groups or other special interest groups are audited, it would be found that the majority of them are incorporated companies. It means that the principals of those companies which are not accountable for how they spend government money, are not accountable when the auditor comes by and perhaps finds something very much amiss.

I do not want to name any particular groups. I am deliberately being general. This goes even beyond that. In my research I have looked at many government funded advocacy groups that are up front, but among the special interest groups there are many groups that ostensibly are using the money for charitable or non-profit purposes. Because we cannot independently examine their books, we do not know whether they are using some of this money for lobbying purposes. We have no control. We may have lobbying with government money under the table, shall we say, and this is a very serious concern.

I would like to address this problem with two amendments to Bill C-43. We are talking about special interest advocacy groups, probably over 100, and we are talking about millions of taxpayers' dollars. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give your due attention to the wording of these two proposed amendments. I have worked very hard on them. I have to say I am not skilled in preparing amendments and I am sure the staff can do better than I.

The first amendment I would suggest is that for individuals or organizations defined in the act as lobbyists it shall be an offence to use money received from government to lobby government. That is the first amendment and would take care across the board of all these umbrella groups that are taking money from the taxpayer and using it to lobby government, which at the very least is a conflict of interest.

On the other hand, we do not want to discourage legitimate charities or legitimate non-profit organizations from lobbying government when situations arise that affect them very closely. I would suggest that the Canadian Cancer Society certainly would want to speak to the government on the issue of the price of cigarettes and similar health issues. We have to provide that they can still lobby to some degree while shutting off those special interest groups that are secretly lobbying.

The second amendment I propose is this. For individuals or organizations that are not lobbyists as defined in the act it shall be an offence to use more than 10 per cent of money received from the government to lobby government. In this way we have taken care of the legitimate concerns of charities while actually putting teeth in the law for those who would abuse the privilege of receiving government money for acts of charity and use it instead to lobby for special interest purposes.

I hope that when the committee considers Bill C-43 they will also consider these two proposals.

I would like to just touch very quickly on a few deficiencies in the act. Some members of the Bloc have mentioned them. I have difficulty with the one tier, two tier system, but for different reasons than I have heard here. The one tier system is defined as an individual, whereas the two tier system is basically organizations and corporations. The one tier individual actually is required to declare more than the tier two organization.

The difficulty is many lobbyists incorporate themselves as companies so rather than being individuals they can incorporate and become tier two. We need to very carefully plug up that problem because we want to make sure that the individual consultant type lobbyist is fully governed by the restrictions and limitations that we wish to put him under.

I have one other difficulty. I have a problem with the ethics counsellor and the concept of an ethics counsellor in one respect. He is empowered to investigate and bring forward the results of his investigation to Parliament.

The problem is that nothing in the act indicates whether the ethics counsellor, when he gets his evidence, whether that evidence is going to be subject to the restrictions of the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act.

In other words, you could have a situation where the ethics counsellor gets third party information which he is not allowed to disclose as a result of the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act.

You would have a situation in which he would be investigating but we, the parliamentarians, would not be able to see a full and candid report.

Therefore I really urge the committee to look very carefully at the implications of these two acts, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and make sure that however it is done the ethics counsellor is able to report as fully as possible on his findings before this House.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to acknowledge that the bill entitled An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act is a step in the right direction. It imposes additional requirements on lobbyists and provides the public with a better understanding of the role they play.

This bill is, however, nothing but a watered-down version of the red book commitment to implement the June 1993 report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations respecting the review of the Lobbyists Registration Act.

What kind of promises were contained in the red book? The first commitment made was to eliminate the distinction between Tier I and Tier II lobbyists. The government has not followed up on this undertaking, which means that there will continue to be two categories of lobbyists to whom different rules apply. Yet, the Liberal members were the ones who demanded that the distinction be dropped during the discussions on the registration of lobbyists in the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.

Here is what the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell had to say about this matter on February 2, 1993: "There is a concern about the in-house lobbyists, about the fact that we are not asking as much information from them as from others; namely, we are not asking the topic about which they are lobbying. Does this not make it easy for someone to hire a Tier I lobbyist and merely put him on the payroll? In other words, you convert him into a Tier II and you put him on the payroll for a year because you know this person will be lobbying for the drug patents act or some other controversial topic, for example. By putting him or her on the payroll, you effectively reduce the information that you have to divulge".

The second commitment made was to establish a code of ethics governing conflict-of-interest situations involving public figures, for example, members of Parliament or Cabinet and senior officials. The government has only partly fulfilled this particular commitment since it has not given this future code regulatory status, which would have made it more legally binding. Therefore, any attempt to deceive will be met merely with a reprimand, not with legal or criminal sanctions. This government is harder on young offenders than on friends of the system and the parliamentarians who are at their beck and call.

A third promise made in the red book was to eliminate tax deductions for lobbying expenses. Canadians must realize that they have elected 295 members of Parliament to represent them and that day after day, opposition members question the government in the hope of getting answers which, when they do come, are only partial, while Parliament Hill bustles with 2,800 lobbyists who call the shots with taxpayers' money. Let us recall the role played by lobbyists in what has come to be known as the Ginn Publishing and Pearson Airport scandals. In his report on the latter scandal, Mr. Nixon noted that the lobbyists played a prominent part in attempting to affect the decisions that were reached, going far beyond the acceptable norms of "consulting". That is totally unacceptable.

Also, nothing in this bill provides for lobbying expenses to be made public, even as part of an inquiry. Yet, such information is extremely useful in assessing the activities of lobbyists. On that subject, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated on February 23, 1993: "I do not agree that knowing how much is spent on lobbying is of interest neither to those involved nor to the public". In the case of the Pearson scandal, it is in the public interest to know who are the lobbyists who worked on that deal and how much they were paid to do it. It is even more important because in this case as in many others, former high-ranking government officials are now selling their knowledge of the inner workings of government and using their former contacts. It is the revolving door approach.

In the case of Pearson Airport, the scandal is overwhelming. On the one hand, lobbying fees were deducted from the taxes paid by the corporations involved in the attempted privatization of Pearson Airport, and on the other, taxpayers will be hit a second time since, under clause 10 of Bill C-22, those corporations will be compensated.

Still on the issue of lobbying fees, the government allows conditional fees to be paid by people who hire lobbyists if and when they succeed in getting certain favours from the government for their client, such as a contract, for instance. On February 16, 1993, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated very clearly, and I quote: "I believe that conditional fees should be banned".

The fourth undertaking in the red book was to reveal the players in the government decision-making process by asking various questions, for example: Who could be influenced? Which lobbyist requested a meeting with which minister? Which public servant met with which lobbyist to discuss which issue? What was the particular item on the agenda, or what issue did the parties discuss? Was it a bill, an amendment, a subsidy, a

regulation, a policy, a program, or the awarding of a contract? Here again, the promise has not been kept.

This is probably the most disappointing aspect of the bill. Indeed, merely requiring that all lobbyists disclose the government department or agency contacted is clearly unsatisfactory. Real reform should help us find out the names of the people lobbyists are trying to influence. While in opposition, a lot of the current ministers, cabinet and government members were very harsh with lobbyists, but now they seem to have changed their minds. Maybe because lobbyists are hanging around their offices all the time.

For example, in June of 1993, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said that the public had the right to know who is doing what to whom and for how much money. At the time, he thought it was unfortunate that these considerations were not included in the legislation.

He also said, on February 16, 1993, that he was one of those who favoured a registration system as long as loopholes were eliminated and the parties concerned required to provide useful information. He went on to say that the system could be improved by providing accurate, concise and valuable information.

In conclusion, the Liberal government was obviously under pressure from the lobbyists and from friends who hire them. This shows, I think, that we probably should have started by amending the political party financing legislation in order to be able to examine quietly and without undue pressure the issue of lobbyists, unlike what seems to have happened with this bill. I hope that the working committee will take note of these recommendations.