Debates of April 25th, 1995

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, how tough. We all know how tough it is to get businessmen and women to knock on doors and get involved in the political process. It is not-

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Ce n'est pas cela.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that probably not more than 40 or 50 members in the House can claim that they have more than 100 or 200 businessmen and women knocking on doors and doing polls or getting involved in their campaigns. They might come along and go to a fundraiser but they will not actually go out to do the real slogging.

A motion like this only discourages people from getting involved in the political process. One of the reasons it discourages people from getting involved is because we have a situation, regrettably, where because of the concentration of power-and most of the real concentration of power tends to be with the Conservative Party-quite often large corporations do not encourage their employees to get involved in the political process.

We all know what happened during the 1988 election when large corporations not only took out full page ads saying: "Vote for the free trade agreement", they also wrote letters to their employees saying: "Campaign for the free trade agreement".

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

I thought you were going to change that.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

We made some pretty good changes to the free trade agreement. Do not forget that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

It was the wrong bill.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Do not ask me to get involved in the changes that were made vis-à-vis the environment or labour standards. The point is that we did make some amendments.

The Reform Party amendment calls for past political or government work or political contributions over $1,000 to be disclosed. That works against getting people involved in the democratic process, not to mention the fact that it creates all kinds of paperwork. Absolutely nothing is hidden because the extent to which lobbyists have to register right now is 1,000 miles of improvement in comparison to the previous bill.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the reasoned, intelligent proposals and amendments being put forward by my hon. colleague from Elk Island.

Let us take a look at some of the situations being proposed by these amendments. First, we are talking about adding the names of everyone that the lobbyists attempt to influence to the list of the disclosure requirements. Quite simply, if a lobbyist is paid handsomely to achieve a desired goal, to win a contract, or whatever the case may be, we want to know whether that person has access to the minister, to the deputy minister or whether he is talking to the individual directors. We want to know to whom he is talking. Unfortunately the vast majority of Canadians do not have that kind of access to people at the decision making level.

I cannot understand why the government is opposed to this type of motion. It seems perfectly clear to me and to the Reform caucus that we want to know who is being lobbied by these high priced lobbyists. They have unlimited expense accounts. They can wine, they can dine and they can go on trips. They have money to acquire information. That is what a lobbyist does. All Canadians want to know how the money is being spent to try to win influence from a particular person.

I spoke earlier about the book On the Take . I would hope that nobody else is on the take from that point forward but we can never be sure. One story after another in that book is of people on the take, from riding presidents, to political hacks, to past employees, to friends, to the Mafia, you name it. They were all in it and they were all running around Parliament Hill rubbing shoulders, buying favours and currying attention that they were getting on many occasions.

When Canadians read that book and realize what has been going on they are shocked to the core that these types of things can go on in a democratic system such as Canada's. We are proud of our system. The system has to be opened up so we can see what is going on, so we can ensure that when these backroom deals, which benefit nobody except one or two people, are ferreted out, these people are held to account. It has to be prevented from happening again.

If we are going to hold our heads high in government, one thing that we want to be able to ensure is that all Canadians have faith in the system. That is what we are trying to do with these motions.

How about the motion to which the member for Broadview-Greenwood is so adamantly opposed? We are asking that lobbyists be required to report previous government or political employment, executive positions with a political party and if they have made a political contribution over $1,000.

That does not seem to be an onerous requirement, yet he is totally and adamantly opposed. He says it will discourage people from getting involved in the political process. That is exactly what we want to say. When people are no longer sitting in the House, the day after they are defeated, we do not want them involved in the political process.

After they have been defeated or have retired from politics we do not want to see them back on Parliament Hill talking to their friends and other people they know, saying: "I am now getting paid a large amount of money by some corporation to win influence from my friends with whom I used to work".

I cannot understand why the member for Broadview-Greenwood would be so adamantly opposed to such a situation. He has been around since 1980. He just said that a few minutes ago. That is 15 years he has been in the House.

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

No, no.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

He has been around here for 15 years.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Has he been a member for 15 years?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

No.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

I apologize. He has been a member of the House since 1988. No doubt he knows a large number of people because that is the way Parliament Hill works.

We want to know that the day he is defeated or retired from the House is not the day we find him back on Parliament Hill collecting an even bigger salary, working behind the scenes and currying influence from his friends. That is what we are trying to say. We want to discourage people from getting involved in the political process when they are no longer participating in the House.

A riding president, a member of the party executive have access to cabinet ministers, to the Prime Minister. If they do their jobs properly they win elections for cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister and for all the members of Parliament. They are volunteers. They work hard. We know the people in our constituency. No doubt that applies to every member in the House. Therefore constituency presidents and constituency executives have the inside track in contacting the people in power and we want to know if they are doing it.

Then of course there are those people who have money in their jeans and may feel that by giving a donation to a political party that brings their name to the attention of the member. No doubt the member is grateful for the contribution and some people may feel they can buy influence that way. All we are asking is that these things be brought out into the open.

Yet the Liberal government in its red book said it wanted to have an open and transparent policy on lobbyists. Now that the Liberals are on that side of the House they have changed their tune. We heard a quote earlier today by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who in 1991 said: "What's wrong with a system that would disclose fees and major reimbursements?" Now as the whip for the government side is he supporting our motion? No.

The Liberals have this double speak system. When on they were on this side of the House they said this is patently unfair. They held their hands up in horror and said that it had to be changed. Now when they are on the other side of House only mild, ineffectual, little changes are all that they propose.

We ask that the remuneration paid to lobbyists be part of the list of disclosure requirements. That is not a big thing. We have found out that there are millions of dollars changing hands to buy influence in this country. We would like to think that is the type of stuff that only goes on in other countries that have a much lower parliamentary tradition than we have. I do not want to make disparaging remarks about other countries so I will not name them. We know there are countries where bribery, money changing hands and currying influence is the order of the day and we want to ensure that in Canada that does not apply.

We want all Canadians to know that the system ensures that does not work. We ask that this bill require these contingency fees, if they are not a salary, which can be very large, be disclosed.

Again I go back to the Pearson International Airport fiasco where hundreds of millions of dollars are potentially being made or lost. Unfortunately it is the taxpayers who are going to lose and it is a small group of businessmen, including some Liberal people, who are going to win. All we want to know is who is getting paid what in this deal. It is not much to ask on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer who ends up paying, paying, paying and gets nothing, nothing, nothing.

We want to ensure openness, transparency, fairness. We want to ensure that the individual taxpayer who is paying the bill gets a fair shake. It is not much to ask but obviously beyond the capacity of this government to provide.

What else are we proposing? We are asking that anyone who receives funding from the government or a government agency discloses the fact, including the amount of that funding. Is the group itself doing the lobbying or has it hired a professional lobbyist? This is where we are paying government money to be lobbied to pay more government money. It has got to be the biggest insult of all to the taxpayer. The Liberal member from Wentworth has investigated some of these organizations and finds that by and large these groups exist to get more money out of government to pay their salaries so that they can come back and get more money out of government to pay their salaries. We are asking that this be made open.

I think this type of motion, which suggests we want to know whether government is paying people to try to get more money from it, should be out in the open. I cannot think of any real reason the government would be paying under that scenario. If it is happening, we want to know about it. As I understand, according to the member for Hamilton-Wentworth it is already happening.

The taxpayers are not aware of it. I am sure they would be lining up to get that kind of job, which would become self-serving and a continuing situation. They could go to the government and ask to be paid another $100,000 a year because they claim to represent x number of people. After receiving the money they could come back and ask what about next year, the year after, and the year after that. We are trying to stop that. We want to get it out in the open. These are the situations we are talking about.

I could go on and on. Let this government know they made a commitment through the red book. We expect they would live up to that.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour to report back to Parliament an amended Bill C-43. I think it represented a most historic moment in Canadian parliamentary democracy. I believe it has improved parliamentary democracy. The process we adopted in this particular bill improved democracy greatly.

Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, was tabled by the Minister of Industry on June 14, 1994. As members know, it was immediately referred to our subcommittee, before second reading. That is before agreement in the House on the principles of the bill. I believe it was one of the first bills in Canadian history that has taken advantage of this new parliamentary procedure.

These new procedures have allowed a committee of backbench members of Parliament, including opposition members, to take a government sponsored bill and amend it to its liking with basically no restrictions on how far members of Parliament could change the tabled legislation. All the members of Parliament really tested the new procedure.

As chairman of the committee, I am very proud of the report we used and the powers we were given. Some of my colleagues feel they want more power. They wanted a greater opportunity to make changes. We listened very carefully. We worked as a team. I believe we produced a very good report.

I was very impressed by the wide-ranging and open discussions of the various views expressed by all members of Parliament. We had over 75 witnesses who testified before our committee last fall and into the winter. We had some very lively debates. We had more than 50 individuals and organizations who also submitted briefs before our committee. At the end of the day, I believe a majority of the committee enthusiastically subscribed to some of the important amendments brought forward by some of our colleagues in the opposition ranks.

I also believe that some of the opposition members came to accept some important improvements proposed by the government side. That is precisely what democracy is about and that is precisely what the new procedures were intended to achieve.

In summary, I believe the experience was very valuable. I encourage the government to continue to use this new committee procedure as often as possible. I believe it can only result in better legislation. By giving members of Parliament a more proactive role in drafting legislation, it can only further the people's confidence in our democratic institutions. I think that fostering people's faith in their government is very much what this process is all about. But as the report was entitled, it is rebuilding trust in our institutions. It presumes that over the course of the last eight or ten years some cynicism has crept into the system by virtue of activities of certain members of Parliament over the course of the last Parliament.

I see the members of our committee here today, and I am very impressed that all members are very committed to making those changes. We listened very carefully to members of both the official opposition and the third party when they put suggestions forward.

Let me summarize some of the key elements. In fact there were 13 specific amendments that I believe the government has accepted for this bill. Bill C-43 as it was originally tabled had improved certain amendments on the lobbyists registration. I believe that our committee made some additional improvements. We significantly enhanced the transparency, which is so crucial in breaking the cynicism that has been associated with the lobby industry. We have significantly strengthened the powers of the ethics counsellor. All lobbyists, for example, are going to have to indicate if they intend to use grassroots lobbying in their attempt to influence the government. This was not in Bill C-43 as it was originally proposed.

Consultant lobbyists will have to indicate if they are paid on a contingency fee basis. This is over and above the ban on contingency fees for lobbying on government contracts. Any organization that lobbies the government will have to reveal any amount they receive from any government. That is an important change.

The ethics counsellor, as part as of an investigation, will have the power to disclose information on fees and disbursements associated with any lobbying activity, not only on government contracts. I am particularly proud of this amendment because I think it gives a significantly enhanced new power to the important role of our ethics counsellor.

The ethics counsellor will not only have to report on the results of his investigations of a breach of the lobbyists code of conduct, but he will have to include the investigative findings, conclusions and reasons for the conclusions. That came out of the spirit of one of our colleagues from the opposition ranks.

Finally, the ethics counsellor will have to make a separate report once a year, which will be submitted to Parliament, on his activities with respect to lobbying.

Our committee has also amended Bill C-43 significantly as far as the lobbyists code of conduct-

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened attentively to the hon. member who was chairman of the committee. However, I think that he should save his speech for third reading and I would ask him to deal more directly with the group of motions before us.

I am sure that he has interesting things to say, but I think that his speech today is totally out of context.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It is not a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleagues, I think that the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm is right. We must focus on the amendments. I know that there are a lot but I think that, in the common interest, all hon. members should restrict their comments to the amendments before us. As the hon. member said, we will have an opportunity to go over all the issues at third reading.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to remind my colleagues from the third party and the official opposition that I believe my comments do direct the larger issue. The larger issue is that at committee our colleagues in the Bloc and in the Reform had an opportunity to propose their amendments during that process.

On balance, I have listened very carefully to the suggestions that have been made by my colleagues, and, with the greatest of respect, I believe our new process has worked very well. Also, while I understand the suggestions and amendments our colleagues proposed, I believe we listened very carefully and made some significant amendments, in fact 13 in total.

I would respectfully suggest that we decline supporting those Reform and Bloc suggestions for the reasons I outlined earlier.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some consultations with all of the parties, and I think you may find unanimous consent for the following two motions. First, Motion No. 9 be amended, so that it would now read:

That clause 3 of Bill C-43 be amended by adding immediately after line 44 on page 3 the following:

"(e.1) where, to the knowledge of the individual, the client is funded in whole or in part by a government, the name of the government or government agency, as the case may be, and the amount of funding received by the client from that government or government agency;"

By way of explanation, this just adds the phrase "to the knowledge of the individual". That is the first motion to amend.

The second amendment has to to with Motion No. 16. It is an amendment to the wording in the French. I regret that I am totally inept in the French language. Therefore, I would like to table that and perhaps prevail upon you, Mr. Speaker, to do the reading for me. I think it would do greater service to the language.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member said that you would find unanimous consent. The Bloc Quebecois is not giving its consent to the two proposed amendments to motions, which deal more or less with the same matter. We are not giving our consent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As we do not have unanimous consent, there is no point in reading the motion in French or in English. Accordingly, is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.