House of Commons Hansard #187 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was lobbyists.
Lobbyists Registration ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
If the whip of the government is suggesting that the member who heckled him was not present for the debate, he knows as well as I do that is an improper statement. I would ask him to be more careful about what he is saying in the House.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
No, Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that. I was implying that perhaps he was not listening to my comments previously, for whatever reason. I will let the House decide what the reasons were; I did not attribute them.
The member, who was not listening to my remarks previously, for whatever reason, would know that in fact the government's effort in this bill, including the acceptance of amendments from the opposition and amendments proposed by the parliamentary committee, is evidence that we have tried as a government to get the input of all members of the House and from people outside to produce a good report to present to this House in an effort to get something unanimous. We wanted to get something that Parliament as a whole could live with in terms of a piece of legislation.
As critical as I was of the previous government, Mr. Speaker, as you will no doubt recall, you will remember that when we produced the bill that is presently the law of the land in regard to lobbying, I supported the bill in the end at third reading and recommended, as the critic, to my colleagues to do so. I thought it was important that whatever law we had on the statute books dealing with lobbyists be supported by all of Parliament.
At that time the New Democrats did not support it, and I thought that was wrong, because it was sending the wrong message. The message would have been sent, had I not supported it and recommended that support to my colleagues, that the law was inherently flawed and those administering it could never do a proper job. I do not think that was true, notwithstanding the partisanship that was there at the time. I know a little bit about being partisan.
Today we have taken that law that existed, we have taken the Holtmann committee report, which was unanimous, adopted virtually the whole thing in the bill that we have before us, and we have added to it amendments proposed by members of the Reform Party, government members, and people who have come to testify before the parliamentary committee.
We have added from where we started off, which I do not think was even a bad law. Yes, we said that five years later we had to redraft it, taking into account new situations and how the bill had worked.
However, I believe that a bill on the registration of lobbyists can only work if the members of this House want it to work. I personally think that this is a good bill and that the proposed amendments are appropriate. If the members opposite think about it for a moment, they will certainly come to the same conclusion.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that it was improved. Again, the hon. member may not have been listening carefully when I said a little earlier that we accepted amendments from the parliamentary committee and from the government, and that today we will even accept some from one of the opposition parties. We incorporated these changes to an existing bill, and we also took into account a report tabled in this House by a parliamentary committee.
That was a unanimous report. The member opposite may think that he has the monopoly on virtue. Good for him. However, those who were here during the previous Parliament also believed in what they were doing. Together, we proposed what we have today, and we even included all the amendments I mentioned earlier.
I believe this bill deserves the support of the House. When the bill comes back at third reading and when we vote on it, we will have to ensure that the ethics counsellor, who will be responsible for the application of all these rules, can rely on the support of all parliamentarians. Otherwise, it will mean that we sabotaged the bill ourselves. We have to make it work. This is about parliamentary integrity. This issue does not only concern the government: it concerns all of us in this House, as well as those in the other place.
We can make this bill work. The way to do it is to co-operate. We are not just dealing with an issue that involves government. It is Parliament, both houses of this institution. If we do not work together to support the bill, then I suggest it will not work and it will be the fault of those who have chosen not to give it their support.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, allow me to briefly comment on the chief government whip's comments before moving on to my comments on certain amendments or certain motions in amendment, in particular Nos. 22, 28 and 29 which were introduced by my colleague from Berthier-Montcalm.
The chief government whip has just talked about the co-operation, openmindedness, and responsibility that parliamentarians have regarding this bill. Let us put this into perspective.
First of all, we are talking about keeping better tabs on lobbyists. Let us not forget that the government manages and spends close to $160 billion annually. I think that it would be worthwhile to tighten the controls on those who influence the government's decisions.
He also told us that this is the responsibility of all parliamentarians and not just government members, the Cabinet and ministers. This is pretty well the spirit of the proposed amendments. The issue is having the House nominate the person who will be ethics counsellor, which is in line with what the whip was saying. In this case, we are told no; let us choose the person who will be answerable to the Prime Minister, not only to the government, but to the Prime Minister. And there, he went against what he was suggesting earlier.
The current debate seems in a way to be an attempt to get out of a commitment that they regret having made now that they are in power. One must understand party funding, for example Liberal Party funding, to understand that, once under the direct influence of lobbyists, it is less desirable to keep better tabs on lobbyists than it was when they were in opposition. A remarkable change in attitude.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
And well noted, indeed. Regarding this issue, I would like to quote a few sentences from the red book. During our first months in this House, the first months of the election campaign-our ears were ringing with the contents of the red book, the famous red book. The book talks about the integrity of the government and the trust relationship between it and the population. The book says: "The integrity of government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public view".
I discussed this bill with some of my constituents and certain colleagues, and none of them feel that the bill changes this perception. On the contrary, because in the meanwhile, we noticed-some of us did our homework-that lobbyists had even influenced this bill in order to reduce its impact as much as possible.
And now, if I may, I intend to quote the Canadian Press which said that, according to information obtained under the Access to Information Act, it would show that lobbyists had stepped up the number of meetings during the months preceding the tabling of this bill and that some had vowed to start legal proceedings if the new legislation obliged them to disclose their political connections.
This was information obtained under the Access to Information Act, so it is not pure conjecture. In La Presse , there was a revealing headline: Lobbyists manage to get rid of constraints Ottawa would impose on them. The lobbyists came out as winners in the struggle around a bill that was supposed to regulate their dealings with the government. Now people opposite talk about restoring the people's trust. There is a serious problem.
Motion No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, proposes to have the ethics counsellor appointed by the House and to make him accountable to the House. I think that is perfectly normal. After all, we are elected by the people, who put their trust in institutions, not only in the person of the Prime Minister, and they expect Parliament to have a say in these matters. The government is doing everything it can to avoid this, although the government whip was no doubt entirely sincere in his desire to empower parliamentarians and ensure that everyone feels bound by this bill.
The House has before it a number of proposals to improve a bill that is not bad but could certainly stand some improvements, but the government is reluctant to make genuine improvements. Why? Perhaps we should start wondering whom it may have met in the past few days, weeks and months. There may have been people who convinced it to change its mind and who had every interest in doing so.
Since this government came to power, we have had several cases that remain to be clarified. There is the Pearson airport affair. There was also the case involving the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and here we had a telling example of the powers of the ethics counsellor. Three weeks after the Prime Minister asked him for an opinion, he very discreetly took steps to cover the minister's tracks.
When all is said and done, the role of the ethics counsellor would appear to be to cover for the government in matters that raise some controversy. The ethics counsellor is used to make the government look good. They say: Look, the ethics counsellor said there was no wrong doing. The fact is, the ethics counsellor is accountable to the Prime Minister and his job depends on the good will of the Prime Minister. There is a serious problem here.
The motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois suggests appointing this person for a period of seven years. As a result, he will not always have connections with the party in power. There will be changes in governments, and that will give him a certain amount of independence. That will mean more power, particularly because he will not be accountable to anyone who could decide from one day to the next to dismiss him on the basis of the opinion.
Some information should be made more public and not simply left as conclusions of a report. He is asked to report on his investigations, but only the conclusions are made public. In some cases, it would very interesting to know more than just the conclusions, to know how they were reached. This is another important step in response to the wishes to the whip and the entire Liberal government, which has been saying since its election that it wants more transparency, that it wants political action to be as transparent as possible. The waters look pretty
cloudy to me, as if an effort is being made to create some confusion and prevent people from seeing the real picture.
I will not get into the whole question of the scandal surrounding the deductibility of lobbying costs. In the end, the public is indirectly paying the lobbyists to influence decisions according to certain specific interests. This warrants serious consideration.
It seems to me it would be in everyone's interest to make Parliament credible. It is also what the Reform Party would like to some extent and I think what the government whip would like, but his hands are tied-I think everyone is basically good, but on this, his hands are tied somewhat. People put their trust in individuals and in political groups and expect Parliament to play a role.
In this regard, I hope with all my heart that the government will support this amendment, which will give us a better bill in the interest of all taxpayers.
It must be remembered that the government spends $160 billion a year. This is a lot of money. We must make sure that this money is not spent in the interests of a few privileged individuals with good connections with previous, present or future governments, or even with corporations the government is closely connected to through their funding of political parties. These are the reasons why we must make sure we succeed.
I would like to quote Mr. Reisman, a committee witness who supports the recommendation made by my colleague from Berthier-Montcalm. He said: "If we get into the business of a code of ethics to govern the behaviour of the members of this industry, it ought to be kept out of partisan politics as far as you possibly can. I think one good way of doing that is to make the appointment an appointment by Parliament, rather than by the government of the day". There it is. The Bloc members are not the only ones to think that way.
This may not be a guarantee in itself, but it certainly helps, as he more or less suggested when he said: "You are more likely to get someone more objective. If he is appointed by Parliament, I think he should report to Parliament-which is the recommendation in any event-and be accountable to Parliament". There are other reasons why he should be accountable to Parliament.
So this seems to be a fundamental point on which everyone, including the government, should agree.
In conclusion, I expect this government will abide by its commitments. I hope they will not bring in a legislation simply to mask their change of heart when moving to the other side of the House. I hope they will meet the initial commitments made at the beginning of the election campaign and written in the red book, bible of the Liberal Party, and that they will support the recommendations of my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm. These give the government an opportunity to respect its own commitments and restore the bond of confidence that existed between the Canadians and their institutions so that the ethics counsellor will not simply be a coverup for the Prime Minister, his ministers or government members when they get into difficult situations.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by talking about just how this code of conduct is developed, why and what happens to it.
Currently the code of conduct is developed in the same manner as it has been, but it is approved by the House of Commons. The ethics counsellor tables his report with the Registrar General. The Registrar General who receives this report is currently the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
I have some problem with the ethics of that in itself because of a lot of the dealings I have had in this House with the particular minister who receives that report. I dealt with an issue just yesterday in question period with that minister. I question very much the avenues that were taken to disburse federal funds through a provincial road program. Even a member opposite called the disbursement of those funds misappropriation. I have a real concern with these kinds of reports going directly to a minister rather than to the House. After all it is the House of Commons that has to deal with the ethics, is it not, and not the Prime Minister or not a minister?
I want to raise another issue and that is an individual who is a member but is not a minister who I have long said should come under the auspices of an investigation by the ethics counsellor. Again I question. If you cannot be entirely ethical as a party or a minister how in the name of heaven does one get to receive reports from an ethnics counsellor and deal with them?
It is just not the right way to do it. All members of this House have the right to receive the reports directly. They have the right to make the appointments. They have the right to set the standards. I cannot comprehend why this government, after all the talk about ethics during the election, has turned around to table something which says that the appointments should be made by the Prime Minister and the report should be given to a minister. It is hogwash.
Why is it that the Liberals do not want the ethics counsellor to report to the House of Commons? What is wrong that we cannot understand that it should come to the members? If we can understand the longstanding traditions of a traditional party, the difficulty it has is that it does not trust itself or its own members.
It does not want to be put into a position of being embarrassed down the road.
I would like to say one more thing about the minister with whom I was dealing yesterday. I found out that there is a federal-provincial agreement on roads in Nova Scotia. I found out that the minister and the Minister of Transport deliberately made a deal to transfer moneys from a federal highway program to a provincial highway program. They made a deal on it.
Why did they make the deal? It happens that the money they wanted to take from the federal program is going to the minister's riding. The federal road they had the money for is considered one of the most dangerous roads in this country. The road the minister had the money transferred to in his own riding happens to be a road for tourists. It is a make work program. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the ethics of that manoeuvre. So do the people of Wentworth Valley in Nova Scotia.
How on earth can I comprehend this government taking the very same reports from an ethics commissioner and giving it to the very same minister who made the transfer? Talk about ethics.
What happens if an ethics counsellor or an ethics commissioner in this person's government makes a report which chastises somebody from the government? The Prime Minister takes that report and downplays it. We in the House probably will not even get the report. The public will never see the report. On it goes. If he makes the mistake of divulging what is in the report, he gets canned. That is why this counsellor must report to the House of Commons and not the Prime Minister.
We can look back at all of the processes we have gone through on ethics in this House. For instance, there is the ethics having to do with patronage appointments. Time and time again the government talks about ethics and patronage appointments. What does it do day after day? It gives all its hacks, everyone it can, patronage jobs. The Liberal I defeated in my riding just got his plum. That is ethics over there.
Lobbyists Registration ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
It has nothing to do with ethics. He is qualified.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member says: "It has nothing to do with ethics. He is qualified". These folk only have to know the individual I defeated to find out if he is qualified. They should have had a good look at him. The difficulty with them is that they do not know what ethics are. How can an ethnics counsellor report to the Prime Minister when they have no idea what ethics are?
Suffice it to say one of the most important issues for Canadians today is ethics. Another important issue for Canadians is integrity. Politicians across the country suffer in the eyes of Canadians because they do not believe they have integrity.
There is an easy way to try to help the situation. The counsellor should be appointed by the whole House of Commons, not just that group. I question the ethics of some of its members and will continue to do so.
It is not good enough to legislate integrity. We have to believe in it. Will the government look at the amendments on the table and vote for them in favour of objectivity, in favour of integrity and in favour of informing the people of Canada in the proper way? Or, will it be business as usual from a traditional party and in some cases a traditional party that has already proven it has questionable activities, particularly the ones I mentioned before.
Mary Clancy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments.
Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS
I am sorry my hon. friends are so disturbed and that my intervention might upset them. Given that the hon. member made comments about route 104, I thought it might be an idea to set the record straight about Nova Scotia. Being born there is not quite as good as growing up there and living there, although it is good to be born there and we are glad he was.
The Nova Scotia solution offers the quickest, safest and most cost effective redevelopment of highway 104 possible. The important issue is safety. I know the highway. We cannot lose sight of the necessity of safety because of those who engage in petty and partisan bickering.
By working in co-operation with the private sector the Nova Scotia government is protecting and promoting the interests of the taxpayers by levering private sector funds, by creating jobs and by providing for a safe and competitive transportation system. I think the people of Nova Scotia-I do not know about my hon. friend-deserve nothing less.
It is not about $26 million. It is about a $110 million project that runs right through Cumberland-Colchester. That is not bad from any standard.
Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec-Est, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 gives us the opportunity to ask ourselves: Who exactly is running this government? Is it the people through its elected representatives or is it private interests, corporate interests? The people of Canada are concerned. For a long time they called for a law governing lobbying activities on Parliament Hill, even before the arrival of Conservatives and Liberals, because they know that lobbyists exercise undue pressure. They know that patronage exists within the government, as well as waste and corruption. They know it, although they do not have
any concrete proof, but there are signs, gestures, and recent events that show without any doubt that lobbyists manage to extract favours from the government by undue pressure. For example, there is the Pearson airport case which involved millions of dollars, and even today the people of Canada do not know what the players, the lobbyists and the various interests actually did.
The case of the Minister of Canadian Heritage was mentioned. Although he is the minister responsible, he interfered with the CRTC and this, of course, raised the question of the role played by the ethics counsellor within the government, a person who was not even consulted by the Prime Minister in this case.
In the case of BST, a hormone developed by Monsanto, we read in the papers that this company had people, lobbyists, who met with officials of Health and Welfare Canada and offered some 2 million dollars to convince them to approve BST for use in Canada. These are but three recent cases among the very many which prove the abusive role of lobbyists in Canada.
I will come back to this with an even more distressing case.
Lobbyists Registration ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members.
The hon. member will have the floor after question period.
Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate a success story in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex based not on government handouts but on true community spirit and the refusal to let a dream die.
On March 11 pledges from a variety of local service clubs for about $125,000 were announced toward the construction of additional facilities at the Brooke-Alvinston-Inwood Community Centre complex.
After no government grant money was available, organizers decided that the project would not go ahead if it meant an increase in tax dollars for local ratepayers. Instead, based solely on the generous contribution of thousands of dollars from a variety of service clubs in the riding, plus the donation of material, products and volunteer assistance, ground breaking will begin this spring.
This project exemplifies the rural community spirit that is alive and well in the riding of Lambton-Middlesex.
My congratulations to all participants in this very worthwhile community project, and a special mention to Doug Redick, chairman of the building committee, and Ian Lehrbass, the arena manager.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, in this National Volunteer Week, I am pleased to pay tribute to the 13 million devoted and dynamic men and women who have chosen to get involved in our society, particularly by helping those less fortunate.
However, it seems that the federal government has a whole other view of volunteer work. Whereas a brochure from the Department of Heritage highlights the importance of their action, the government has no qualms about drastically reducing assistance to volunteer agencies. Indeed, their budget is dropping from $1,066,000 in 1993-94 to $65,000 in 1995-96.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, condemn this shameful decision. Not only did the federal government miss an opportunity to really support these groups, but it has also been indifferent to the have-nots in our society.
Allan Kerpan Reform Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the opportunity to meet a friend of mine, Mr. Lee Bellows of Moose Jaw. Mr. Bellows has been involved in the sport of rodeo for many years.
Lee Bellows is highly respected in Saskatchewan for his common sense and great wit. Mr. Bellows is also a cowboy poet. On his behalf I would like to quote a few of his thoughts:
What's your thoughts on gun control? They ask, but they don't hear. They run 'round "chicken little style" and share with us their fear. I've done a bunch of ponderin', and its become plain to see the controlling of my old rifle would be the best if left to me. Your logic misses the point, my friends. Don't inflict your values on to me. Life's different where the pavement ends and you know what's bothering me Well, I'll tell you with this rhyme, You've went and gone and convicted me, befor' I done the crime.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, at the Reform Party policy convention in October, 1994 the delegates passed two resolutions. First, if elected the Reform Party will introduce legislation by which the criminal use of firearms will be severely punished and the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms will be protected. The amendments introduced to the Young Offenders Act by our party include stricter penalties for crimes using firearms.
The second resolution stated the Reform Party supports the rights of citizens to protect themselves and their property against criminal acts using all reasonable means and that the right to do so has priority over offenders' rights.
This resolution has been marketed to the gun lobby as the Reform Party's answer to gun control. It is a motherhood and apple pie statement that could only confuse the people who would believe this is a Reform Party position against the gun control act, yet another example of Reform Party pretence.
Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, April 24, over 2,000 protesters rallied on Parliament Hill for the 25th time to remember and pay tribute to 1.5 million Armenian victims of the first major genocide of the 20th century. This genocide was planned and executed by the Ottoman Empire on April 24, 1915 as a brutal and final solution to the Armenian question.
The Permanent People's Tribunal in Sorbonne, France considered the Armenian genocide in April 1984 and ruled that it was an international crime for which the Turkish state must assume responsibility.
We must not allow the international community to simply dismiss Ottoman Empire crimes against the Armenian people. Benjamin Whitaker, a British writer, said if we cannot face yesterday's truth how can we ensure tomorrow's justice?
Tom Wappel Liberal Scarborough West, ON
Mr. Speaker, on March 20 of this year the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic signed an historic treaty in Paris. One highlight of the treaty is an agreement between Hungary and Slovakia to refrain from the threat or use of force against one another's territorial integrity and political independence.
Another highlight of the treaty is the confirmation that the protection of national minorities and the rights and freedoms of individuals belonging to a national minority are a matter of international human rights. In this sense the problems of minorities are not exclusively an internal affair of states but rather a matter of legitimate interest for the international community.
This treaty sets an example for all the world. From African nations to the former Yugoslavia the world is witnessing a dangerous rise of ethnic conflicts. This treaty provides an example of what nations can achieve with negotiations, not guns; with discussion, not destruction.
Bernard St-Laurent Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, five months after taking office, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans won the award for claiming the highest travel expenses of all federal ministers. This piece of news had already angered taxpayers, who expected the Liberal government to keep its promises and stop wasting taxpayers' money.
Well, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has done it again, spending over $200,000 on redecorating and refurnishing his headquarters in Ottawa.
How can we let a minister spend so much money on fancy furniture, when his own government is cutting billions of dollars from social programs?
The Liberal government is asking the middle class and the most disadvantaged to make sacrifices in the name of deficit reduction, but is unable to eliminate the advantages enjoyed by the lucky few who are squandering taxpayers' money.
By acquiring this furniture, the fisheries minister is taking taxpayers for a ride.
Sharon Hayes Reform Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canadian parents and families are being threatened by a movement to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code.
Section 43 presently permits parents and teachers to use reasonable discipline on children should the circumstances warrant. Repeal would reduce parental authority and replace it with state authority.
This government interference would undermine the integrity and viability of Canadian families.
Today in the news there is a case in London, Ontario of an American tourist charged with assault for spanking his 5-year old daughter. In Calgary a triple amputee mother was similarly charged.
The justice and health departments have been reviewing section 43. The government has to come clean with Canadians as to its intentions. Polls tell us Canadians do not want more government interference in their homes and families. It is the parents who know what is best for their children, not interest groups, bureaucrats or so-called experts.
I call on the justice minister to reaffirm parents' rights to reasonably discipline their own children.
Beth Phinney Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House will join with me in opposing attempts by various media organizations to allow public viewing of the Paul Bernardo video tapes.
The public showing of these tapes would not serve the public interest. This is not, as the media claims, a matter of free speech. The Bernardo trial will be open to the media and to the public.
Attempts by the media to gain access to the video tapes are simply an effort to boost ratings at the expense of the victims' families. The families of the victims have suffered enough without having these videos broadcast. This is a prime example of tabloid journalism at its worst.
I hope the courts turn down the media's request. I call on the media to show some restraint and consideration for the feelings of the French and Mahaffey families. They have suffered enough.