moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33, on page 13, with the following:
"the activities described in subsection 5(1)."
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 11, on page 14, with the following:
"10.3(1) Every individual who is required to file a return under subsection 5(1) shall comply with the Code."
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 41, on page 14, with the following:
"5(1), in respect of any matter referred to in any of subparagraphs 5(1)( a )(i) to (vi); and''.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 44 to 48, on page 15 and line 1, on page 16, with the following:
"in respect of any matter referred to in any of subparagraphs 5(1)( a )(i) to (vi), if the Ethics''.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-43, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 29, on page 16, with following:
"section 5, or for any service".
Mr. Speaker, I begin this section of my participation today by commenting briefly on the process we went through. When Bill C-43 was first introduced last June we were relatively new in the House. I did not understand the full impact of what it meant to go from first reading directly into committee. Consequently we had a very good open discussion, I guess because most of the members of the committee were first time members of the House. We actually operated like a group of co-operating individuals for the most part, especially at the beginning of the committee. We tried to come together on a number of issues.
I was really quite disappointed to find that some of the things we tried to do were subsequently defeated or were not accepted as ideas worthy of being put forward.
In this grouping I will talk specifically about some of the motions. It would have been nice if we could have spent a little more time on all of them, but I will not be able to cover them all in 10 minutes. It is important for us as the House to adopt this set of amendments. Obviously I believe that or I would not have brought mine forward. In this instance I am eagerly anticipating that we will come to an agreement to accept the amendments.
I will begin talking about Motion No. 2 because it is a very important one. We need to clearly define who a lobbyist is. This amendment very clearly specifies what a lobbying activity is and how it is defined so that there is no question.
The problem with Bill C-43 and indeed the old Lobbyists Registration Act is that they are not clear as to precisely who is
required to register. We have said a lobbyist is a person who is clearly a lobbyist and there should be no question.
This is the definition:
Every individual who, for payment, pursuant to a contract or other arrangement or as an employee, undertakes or as a part of the duties of employment is required to undertake, on behalf of any person or organization (in this section referred to as the "client"), or on behalf of the individual's employer or the employer's client-
We want to specifically add the activity:
(a) communicate with a public office holder or advise a client how to communicate with a public office holder.
That person would be defined as a lobbyist. This is a critical part of the bill.
If we fail to bring in a clear definition of who has to register, it does not matter what the requirements for disclosure are. The presumed lobbyist can ask whether or not he or she is required to register. If the conclusion is that he or she is not required to register then he or she will not register. The result will be no disclosure at all, which defeats the whole purpose of the bill. That would be a pivotal point in this group.
We also want to include advice on how to lobby. Sometimes in order to avoid disclosure we could have a lobbyist who simply trains someone else. He or she does not make the contacts but does everything else. He or she indicates by the connections with whom to get in contact and shows the tree to follow in terms of making the connections. In other words, basically he or she orchestrates all of the work of the lobbying effort without becoming personally involved. We would include that also in the definition as given here.
In the current definition there is a real loose word. It states: "Anybody who spends a significant of time lobbying". The word significant is really one that is open to interpretation. We could have some people who because of the nature of their jobs spend 50 per cent of their time lobbying. They could actually spend less time than other people who spend 10 per cent of their time lobbying. To leave significant in the definition leaves it open and there is no clarity. This has the added problem for those people who are involved in lobbying to know if they should lobby. Neither will the registrar know by the definition whether or not there is a breach of the law. We should fix that one up.
Turning to Motion No. 7, this amendment is also very important because it provides for disclosure of connections. This is one area where Canadians have taken the greatest offence. After a person has worked particularly in the higher echelons of government, and indeed in the higher echelons of the House as a cabinet minister, retires from the activity and becomes a lobbyist, there is a network which occasionally is very suspicious in the minds of the people. It could happen that what the people are thinking is not accurate. I admit that. However, if we provide for disclosure and openness, at least we can honestly say that we are not trying to hide anything: these are the facts and they stand for themselves.
In this motion we are simply asking that anybody who in their past has had employment with or been elected to office in the Government of Canada, a province or a municipality, because those are important networks as well, be required to disclose it. We are asking that people register by stating that they have held a position with a political party as an employee or have held an office with a political party. Let us not hide it.
Undoubtedly someone will say in debate that it is on the public record anyway. Yes, it is. Anybody who has been a cabinet minister is on the public record. However it should be clear and concise.
When a person looks up the registration of a particular lobbyist it takes little effort for the person to simply delineate it in the registration. People can then see there is nothing being hidden.
We are asking that even those who have been heavily involved in contributing to political parties disclose that. If an individual donated more than $1,000 in aggregate to political parties during the preceding year, then the amount being donated to each party should be disclosed. Again, this is a matter of public record. During an election campaign major contributors are made public. The lists are available to anyone who asks. All we are saying is this should be readily accessible. It is very important for us to consider these different parts.
Another element in this group has to do with the tiers. As we know there are different levels of lobbyists. There are those who are simply professional lobbyists and work in a professional and client relationship. They get paid. There should no longer be a distinction among the different tiers. In other words, anybody who is there to influence government should be able to and should be required to give disclosure. We would like to say that whoever does it, whatever their level, it should be open. It should not be anything that is withheld from the people of the country.
Another element which I think annoys many Canadians and that we can fix in this bill is the disclosure by companies or groups that receive direct government funding. It is really an enigma that we are elected as members of the House of Commons.
During the campaign I certainly emphasized, and members on the government side said the same thing, that we were proud to represent our constituents. In reading the maiden speeches in Hansard by the 200 members here for the first time in this Parliament, almost every one said: ``I am proud to have been elected by the people in my constituency to represent them
here". That is wonderful. That is the way democracy should work.
It annoys Canadians when the very people they send to represent them are not able to do the job, but their tax dollars go to fund lobby groups to influence high government officials to change government policy. Something is backward. They should use the MPs because they are paying a lot of money to run our offices and to have those people in place. Let them do their jobs or reduce the House of Commons to 20 people. They do not need us if we are not going to do our work.
If there are going to be lobbyists, why should the taxpayers be funding the MPs offices, salaries and pensions and at the same time funding the lobbyists? In our system it appears the lobbyists have a greater influence on government policy than do the members of Parliament.
Therefore, we are proposing as stage one that when funding is received from government it is going to be made public. If any lobbyist individually or through representation by an association or corporation receives direct government funding, that should be disclosed. That is step one.
Hopefully step two would be that when this was sufficiently known, the people of Canada would revolt, of course in a friendly manner, at election time. They will elect Reformers who will say it is the responsibility of the MPs and not the lobbyists to represent the constituents. Hopefully with this openness people will at least become aware and will be able to make a rational decision.
I would have a lot to say about some of the other amendments as well since I have been working on this for a year. However, I realize my time is up and I will yield the floor now to other colleagues who will speak on some other matters.
