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.