Debates of April 25th, 1995

Environment

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. court of appeal did not deal with the substance of MMT; it dealt with the process.

The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States has no intention of licensing MMT for use. We do not want to see Canada and Bulgaria being the only two countries in the world that continue to allow the particular additive, unless the Reform Party member would like to see the cost of Canadian automobiles increase by approximately $3,000, which is what will happen if we do not get MMT out of the Canadian gasoline industry.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry.

The industry minister clearly knows that the oil and gas industry and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association are on opposite sides with respect to MMT. He knows that the only wise course is to bring in a neutral third party evaluator.

How can the minister justify to the oil and gas industry that banning MMT without any impartial evidence is indeed harmful to the environment, the health of Canadians or any of the new cars?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the member is aware of the importance of the automotive industry to Canada. He will know, for example, that Canadian producers account for about 17 per cent of automotive production in North America, whereas we only consume about 10 per cent.

Key to that is uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada. The member will know that MMT is not permitted in the United States by legislation. It is crucial that we have

uniformity of standards. The effort we put into trying to ensure there was a voluntary agreement between the two sectors has been well placed, but finally governments have to decide.

Health Care

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister will know there is great concern across the country about the transfer of health and social programs, the transfer legislation. There is no doubt, given that federal funding under this legislation will end in 2005, that people are rightly concerned it is the end of a national health care system.

Would the Prime Minister put a moratorium on this transfer and ensure that public hearings are held across the country on this issue?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question does not really put forward the fact that the new transfer payment gives the federal government a much greater and stronger ability to continue to ensure the basic principles of the Canada Health Act are maintained by consolidating the cash transfers under the three programs into one solid fund. It used to be given separately for health, education and welfare. We now have the continuing ability to ensure that leverage is exercised and to make sure the accountability under those five principles of the Canada Health Act and the residency requirements of the Canada assistance plan are maintained.

Contrary to what the hon. member is imputing in her question, the transfer payment strengthens the federal ability to ensure the responsibility of the provinces to live up to those national principles.

Fisheries

[Bonnie Hickey, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform member for Prince George-Peace River seems to think the government should just abandon the fishing families of Atlantic Canada. Can the minister please explain to this member and the third party what the TAGS program is doing to help the people of Newfoundland and the maritimes survive this difficult time and improve their chances for a much better future?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question.

In my previous answer I cited statistics that showed over 25,000 Atlantic Canadians are now engaged in programs. Let me now talk specifically about real issues.

There is a family in Newfoundland I receive correspondence from who have left the fishery. The father has now established himself through a nautical training program as a mate on the Irving Oil line. The grandson and their daughter, through training in electronics, have now become active workers in the local television company.

In North Sydney there is a group working on beachfront development under the green project.

Perhaps most directly, I received a letter from a gentleman in his mid-forties who has been illiterate since he started working in the fishery 20 years ago. For the first time he is able to write letters directly to his sons and daughters across Canada and communicate with them.

That shows the people in the Atlantic region are taking up the challenge and have the motivation to change their way of life and change their occupations.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Cambodia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would also like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Veysel Atasoy, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of the Republic of Turkey.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Ways And Means

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of this motion.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related

amendments to other Acts, as reported with amendments, and of Motions Nos. 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said there were some very recent cases that have proved beyond a doubt that in Canada lobbying can be excessive, dangerous and costly and can have an impact that is rather disturbing to Canadians who, for some time, have been demanding a bill that would regulate the activities of lobbyists on Parliament Hill.

In fact, in its red book, this government promised, as we all know and as many have said repeatedly, to introduce a bill with teeth. Of course we realize that, when the bill was being examined, lobbyists themselves managed to get certain proposals eliminated from the bill, to the extent that the bill before the House today has no real impact on the power of lobbyists. There has been no real increase in transparency. That is what we want and what the people want. Canadians want assurances that lobbyists will not operate in a way that constitutes abuse of power or undue favouritism.

The Bloc Quebecois was the party that suggested a series of amendments, that made recommendations for the purpose of improving this bill. Motion No. 22 proposes that we should have an ethics counsellor who is not appointed by the Prime Minister, as is the case now, but elected by the House of Commons. We suggest that the ethics counsellor should be independent and only accountable to the House of Commons. This is one of the suggestions for improving Bill C-43 and giving it some credibility. It was also suggested that this bill be enforceable by the courts, that there be disclosure of fees and meetings with senior officials and ministers. These are all measures to strengthen Bill C-43, to encourage transparency in this area which is, as I said, quite troublesome in Canada.

There was the Pearson scandal. There was the case of the Minister of Canadian Heritage interfering in a matter handled by the CRTC, an agency for which he is responsible. These are all cases which make the public suspicious. In addition, there was the BST case, where representatives of the Monsanto company offered Health Canada officials $2 million to approve BST.

But, in my opinion, these are just drops in the bucket, despite the fact that they are already very serious incidents involving large sums of money. But the most flagrant abuse of power was when the federal cabinet decided last week to intervene in a decision which the CRTC made, according to its own standards in the usual fashion, in order to favour a company owned by Power Corp. We know that Power Corp. has a considerable influence over cabinet. We know that Paul Desmarais, chairman of Power Corp., has close family ties with the Prime Minister of Canada. To me, the fact that Paul Desmarais' son André is married to the Prime Minister's daughter is indication enough that there is such potential for abuse of power that cabinet could even intervene in the CRTC's decisions.

If one adds to that the fact that the Minister of Finance used to work for Power Corporation, that he was vice-president of Power Corporation, it is obvious that this company has exerted a powerful influence on cabinet. These are cases of abuse. It is reported that André Desmarais, Paul Desmarais's son, was the main organizer of the Prime Minister's trip to Asia last year-a trip which was therefore organized by representatives of Power Corporation, who were so influential that it is during that trip that the Prime Minister changed his policy toward China. Just imagine, lobbyists like Power Corporation can have such an influence that they can make the Canadian government change its foreign policy.

Unfortunately, I see that my time has expired. Thank you.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, once again I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation.

I believe that the members of the Bloc are not being fair, in the sense that they are not explaining to Canadians some of the real amendments that have been made to this bill, which have increased transparency way beyond the previous piece of legislation. The member says there are no increases in transparency. He obviously has not read the bill.

I would like to take a moment on this whole notion of the Power Corporation. Let us talk about Mr. Desmarais. I cannot understand why the opposition casts aspersions on people who have had previous experience with leaders from the business sector, the entrepreneurial sector.

I have a great difficulty with that. I was in the business realm before I came here. I worked for a large multinational corporation, Magna International. As members of the House know, when we take a position in cabinet or as a parliamentary secretary and we sit down with the ethics counsellor we are asked about our previous lives, about our relationships. It is all on the public record.

The position members of Parliament take when they are on the government side, when they have had a previous experience with an industry or a corporation that deals with government from time to time, is that one absents oneself from decisions taken that directly affect that corporation.

If transparency and accountability are the objective of this bill it would seem to me that in the case of the Power Corporation, which the opposition has mentioned several times today, or the Desmarais connection, to use the member's words, there is

probably more scrutiny on that relationship than any other relationship in the House because it involves the Prime Minister.

Members of the opposition are trying to insinuate that in some way, shape or form this bill inhibits transparency or would diminish the exposure or the analysis or the relationship between members of Parliament and their previous lives or their continued relationship with previous organizations. I cannot figure out where they are coming from. As an MP who comes from that background, I do not want to hide my relationship with my previous employer.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Why should there be any worry if you have not done anything wrong.

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

There is no worry. It is on the record. It is publicly known if one goes to the registrar. As long as I am not in here trying to lobby the cabinet or officials on behalf of my previous employer, I do not see where the difficulty is.

I do not understand where the members on the opposite side are coming from. What I find distressful about the tone and the approach from the members opposite is that it seems to me they are suggesting if we had some kind of a relationship with the private sector or a high profile organization we are putting ourselves in a position where we cannot be a member of Parliament where we can be above reproach.

I expect that all of my actions in relation to my previous employer to be scrutinized. I expect if I have received a campaign fund or received moneys from my previous employer to promote a particular cause or whatever, I do not have any problem with that being analysed. The opposition is really missing the point. It is saying that when one has a relationship with a major corporation that person's ability to do work as an MP is questioned.

That is a sad state. I do not want my friends in the House who are lawyers, doctors or from other professions to take this the wrong way, but we need more men and more women who have had entrepreneurial experience, who have had business backgrounds.

With that type of experience we might be able to re-energize that part of our responsibility which has to do with the economy. When opposition members single out relationships that existed either in the past or in the present with corporations or multinationals because I either worked for them or had a relationship with them, it casts aspersions on that relationship in a way that is counterproductive to why we are all here.

The essence of this bill has to do with increasing the transparency, making sure all the activities of lobbyists and their relationship with the government are enhanced, documented, that we have an ability to get a sense of how we as members of Parliament are being lobbied and sometimes even manipulated. Does this bill meet that test? I believe it does.

We have the appointment of the ethics counsellor, a new creation of this government, and as time moves on that position will evolve and be refined. The code of conduct for MPs we as a committee will work on, refine and improve. We have committed ourselves to that process and if we continue this type of debate eventually the final product will be something all Canadians and all members of Parliament can be proud of.

The bill goes a long way in taking us in that direction.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a principle in law which says that one should always be presumed to be in good faith. I do not wish to use the tabling of Bill C-43 and its amendments as an excuse to go against that principle.

Yet, I find it somewhat strange that a government which used any means it could during the 1993 election, namely in the famous Toronto airport case, and swore left and right that once elected it would impose an ethics code and put some order in the scheming of lobbyists on Parliament Hill, I find it strange that this government now puts forward those concrete proposals. I also found that strange when the bill was introduced. I was among the privileged who received a short briefing the morning the bill was introduced. I was there with the leader of my party when counsellors from Justice, Industry or Commerce-I forget which-gave us a crash course on the bill.

I could already see that with the title of ethics counsellor the government had toned down those nice principles it defended in its red Bible, which was probably red with shame since the electoral campaign. The title ethics counsellor reminds me of a style of politics "à la" Pol Martin: you have recipes for favouritism and political influence. As the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said earlier, the success of that law depends on all members and ministers. Therefore, why not acknowledge their wishes and appoint an ethics counsellor by means of a motion in this House?

You know, it is quite something to have judicial independence. This ethics counsellor will have to make rulings on quasi-judicial issues. He will have to make value judgments about the actions of members of Parliament. He will really perform a quasi-judicial function. The independence of the courts has always been recognized, whether they are judicial or administrative tribunals or, as we call them, quasi-judicial courts.

But the party that is now in office does not want to get involved in this sort of thing. It seems peculiar to me that the Prime Minister is the only one to whom the ethics counsellor is accountable, even if I do not want to assume that he would act in bad faith. The judicial courts judges who were supposed to be

charged higher parking fees in the Justice Department buildings, in Quebec, rose up against this practice, not long ago, giving as an excuse their need for independence, their need to cut all links with the administration or the executive, that is, the legislative power.

I did not really understand their reaction at that time, but in this case, it is crystal clear. The only one who will be entitled to appoint the ethics counsellor is the Prime Minister. The only one to be able to call him to account is also the Prime Minister. Again, he can only be dismissed by the Prime Minister. Now, I am told that this counsellor will be impartial, that he will not feel that the Prime Minister is trying to appeal to his emotions, depending on whether his opinions are negative or positive.

Really, all this is nothing more than a dog's dinner. Why not let Parliament, the House of Commons, all of us here make the decision through legislation about the appointment of this official. There is another side to these things. During the campaign, the Prime Minister talked about how this scheme would be nice, great, pure and neat. Now he comes up with a piece of legislation that is not clear and is stifled by its own interpretation. Bill C-43 and other bills, particularly Bills C-61 and C-62 with their infamous clauses opening the doors to lobbyists as never before, look like an invitation to lobbyists saying: "From now on the place is wide open, come and make your representations".

Let us consider clause 9 of Bill C-62: "The designated regulatory authority-" Now we have regulatory authorities. Who are they? They are public servants. "-must evaluate and decide whether to approve the proposed compliance plan-" Let us take, for example, the candy maker who decides to replace white sugar with brown sugar. He comes here and talks to the official who buys that idea, saying it is all right. Do you think that a provision like this one in clause 9 of Bill C-62 does not represent an invitation to abuse? With those compliance plans, one will be able to replace anything with anything, anytime, anywhere.

If that is not an invitation to lobbyists to come to the Hill and do their job, I do not know what it is. Bill C-61, now, is even worse.

[An hon. member]

With a donation to the party.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

With a donation to the party, of course. Bill C-61 is awful. For a given violation or offence, a penalty of $2,000, $1,000 or $500 can be meted out, or it can be waived entirely, at the discretion of a public servant who will decide if we are guilty or not and who will assess the degree of guilt depending on whether we belong to the right party or have contributed or not to the election fund. What are we to understand? Where are those great values of openness which the Prime Minister and his colleagues advocated in 1993? Why invite criticism so blatantly? The government could have simply recognized that the amendment makes sense and realized that it was about to make a big mistake. Why not be open to openness? Why not demonstrate openly that they are what they pretend to be? No, that was not meant to be.

Liberals will fight tooth and nail and stop at nothing to reject the amendment moved by the opposition parties concerning the ethics counsellor. It is already bad enough that there is only one counsellor. But if he is going to advise us, it would be perfectly normal that we appoint the counsellor or at least suggest or refuse nominations. All those powers are taken from us, but we are told the ethics counsellor will be our counsellor. Do you not find all this very strange? I wonder where such an attitude is leading us.

When the Pearson airport issue was raised, I told the House that cancelling the contract would cost at least $250 million. The transport minister, in the House at the time, jumped from his seat and said: "That cannot be. It will cost $25, $30 or $35 million at the very most. It is unthinkable that it could cost more than that". Legal proceedings have already cost us $444 million and the matter is not settled yet.

No, they are always the only ones in step, like in the army, they are always the only ones to know the truth and to understand everything, especially the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell with all his phone numbers. They are the only ones who are right. Do you not find this frustrating in the long run?

We are simply asking them-since I do not want to call them hypocrites because apparently it is not a parliamentary expression-to stop burying their heads in the sand. They are all for women when we debate women's issues, but they are against women when we talk about the budget. It is always the same thing. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. While the right hand was saving money, the left hand was putting us $600 billion in the red. That is what the Liberal Party is all about. We talk about the old approach and a renewed approach, but it is one and the same.

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

It is a good thing they only have two hands.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Yes, it is a good thing they only have two hands, but they do not seem to know what to do with their two ears. Even if they had no ears at all, it would not change anything, because as much as we try to make them understand and see the evidence for themselves, they do not understand anything. Give them more hands to replace their ears and they would be happy.

This is our tongue in cheek way of saying that this debate is pointless, because they have already made their beds, they already know where they are heading and they are not listening

to what we are saying here, even though it makes sense and even though the public's perception of the government is at stake.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this motion, which is to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Unfortunately, I deplore the fact that this bill does not go far enough in controlling the activities of lobbyists and reinforcing the openness of public activities. Yet the Liberal Party made many promises in its red book. I ask members to take a look at my copy of the red book. This is what is left of it because every time the Liberals introduce a bill, I tear a few pages out. Since they never keep their promises, my copy does not have many pages left.

What did the Liberals say on lobbying in the red book? They said: "The lobbying industry has expanded enormously in Canada during the nine years of Conservative government. 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".

This is obviously the case with the DirecTV project which is presently being debated in this House in another context. There are still lobbies at work. However, we do not know much about them; they are not registered and we did not do everything we should have to ensure the desired transparency.

According to the red book, "the cosy relationship between lobbyists and the Conservative regime has contributed not only to public cynicism about politics but also to the sense of americanization of Canadian government". So they also insulted our neighbours. "Serious concerns have been raised in the minds of Canadians about some of their political representatives and some of the companies and individuals who lobby".

And it goes on like that. What are the Liberals doing now that they are in power? They said that they would make a law on lobbying. So, we are checking up on them. If we look at the famous committee report and at the bill now before us, we can see that the Liberals did not take any account of what they said when they were in the opposition, they dismissed that completely and, today, they introduce a bill that, except for a few minor points, could have been introduced by the Conservatives if they had been elected instead of the Liberals.

And yet, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who sat on the committee, said some very interesting things. The government did not retain a single element of the report. The promises have evaporated. What did our friend across the way, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, tell us? "I do not agree with you when you say that all that is unimportant, that the question of knowing how much money has been spent on lobbying interests neither the concerned parties nor the public". So, he was in favour of the disclosure of revenues. But is there anything about that in the bill? No. The Liberal Party has forgotten about all that. But it keeps saying that the mushrooming of lobbyists is a cause for concern. The public has a right to know who does what and to whom. And must we add, at what cost? All that was included in the unanimous report of our committee. And it came from the mouth of the aforementioned member.

Another Liberal promise concerned the appointment of an ethics counsellor. They promised to appoint an independent counsellor in consultation with all parties in the House and they said that he or she would report to Parliament. What do we have in this regard in the bill before us? Again, absolutely nothing.

That is why we are proposing amendments so that things can be done exactly the same way as the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was pointing out in the committee report when he was a member of the opposition. Section 10.1 of the act says that the Governor in Council may designate any person as the ethics counsellor for the purposes of this act. So we want to change that. We want to amend clause 5 of the bill, which amends sections 9 and 10 of the act. We want to replace section 10.1 by the following:

"10.1(1) There shall be an Ethics Counsellor who shall be appointed by commission under the Great Seal after approval of the appointment by resolution of the House of Commons.

(2) Subject to this section, the Ethics Counsellor holds office during good behaviour for a term of seven years, but may be removed by the Governor in Council at any time on address of the House of Commons.

(3) The Ethics Counsellor, on the expiration of a first or any subsequent term of office, is eligible to be re-appointed for a further term not exceeding seven years".

That is the way to fulfil a promise. That is the way to correct the very things that the previous government was criticized for. That is the way to give Canadians more confidence in the lobbying system, which is probably impossible in today's politics. Bureaucracy has become so cumbersome that it may be necessary to have lobbyists who are able to tell us on which door to knock, how to knock, how to open the door, how to dress, how to talk, etc. That is basically what lobbyists do when they lobby on our behalf so that we can obtain more easily what we ask for as a legitimate right and not as a privilege. People must not think that we are against lobbying. We know it is necessary, but we want the rules of the game to be clear. We want the rules of the game to be transparent. We want the credibility and the ethics of this person to be solid so that people put their trust completely or renews their trust in the men and women in politics.

The government had the fine idea of fulfilling its promise and having someone appointed by the House, who would report to Parliament. Unfortunately, the Liberals never carried it out. Mitchell Sharp was initially appointed to advise the Prime Minister. They ended up hiring a personal adviser. Everytime we asked the Prime Minister or a member of the government about the famous role of the counsellor, we were told that he was

consulted after the fact, and it was not entirely clear that the advice was actually given to the Prime Minister. Finally, we have no idea whether this helps the Prime Minister, except that it costs us a fairly substantial salary, which raises questions about the role of this counsellor, when we give him a particular role. It has not, however, raised the credibility of someone who was the Prime Minister's counsellor.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing this amendment. Despite the remarks of my colleague, which I fully support, we have the impression of playing opposition here. People must not think we are playing games. We are trying to show the government that points in their legislation are unacceptable and could be taken further. We really have to amend the policy somewhat in order to improve things. We are not being paid to do nothing. We are being paid to express the viewpoint of people outside government, who do not have the same focus on things.

The government could easily agree to change certain amendments and even carry out some of its promises. Can you believe it, we in opposition want to help the government? We tell the government to be as good as it promised, to keep its promises. What more could the public want from a government and an opposition that work for the collective good in order to protect the interests of the people?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, in considering the motions proposed at the report stage of Bill C-43 on lobbyists' registration, to go back to the definition of lobbyist. Without reading the definition in the dictionary, I can say that a lobbyist is a person who gets paid to influence government decisions to the benefit of his employer, who can be a person or a company. For example, lobbyists are hired by the Canadian Bankers' Association to ensure that Canadian banks do not pay more taxes. Employers rely on public relations experts who make these kinds of representations. Another example is the courier companies that would like to break the monopoly enjoyed by Canada Post and make representations to that effect to members of Parliament.

We can see right away that this has a very long history. It involves what I would call the dark side of a politician's life. That is why it is very important, in dealing with this issue, to preserve openness so that ordinary citizens can see very clearly that elected officials responsible for running the government are free of any dishonest or undue influence. Legislation in this area must be very clear and there must be specific rules to ensure openness. The key principle is that decisions must not only be proper, they must also be made openly and legally without any undue influence.

This has an impact not only on the quality of decisions but also on the quality of democratic life in any society because citizens who believe that parliamentarians are influenced by all kinds of hidden forces on which they have little control may feel that their role as citizens is less important than it should be and that they may not take part in democratic life to the extent that they should.

Yet it is very important, and that is the message conveyed by several of the motions before us. They are designed to improve on this bill because, as it stands, it contains very interesting principles, but the wording does not go as far as it should to ensure the kind of transparency to be expected regarding lobbying.

Take Motion No. 22 for example. It specifies that the ethics counsellor should be appointed by the House. The difference between being appointed by the House or by Cabinet may elude laymen. But there is a very definite difference: Cabinet appointees are actually appointed by people they will have to evaluate later on. This is totally unacceptable.

People know full well that, in their everyday life, if they hire someone to keep an eye on their property and their own activities, they control the way this person perceives them and does his job because they are the ones paying him. That is why a high degree of transparency is required, and it is recognized in every parliamentary system that individuals appointed by the House of elected representatives have greater credibility.

Here is a case in point: the returning officer responsible for the entire electoral system of a country or province. If appointed by the government instead of the House of Commons as a whole, he will certainly have less credibility. The same problem arises here. That is why an amendment was moved to ensure that appointees will truly be serving the people of Canada, not the government, let alone the Prime Minister. This is not a chief of staff or a political adviser we are hiring, but a person who will be able to ensure that things are done within acceptable ethical limits.

Similarly, to ensure transparency, the number one criteria in my view when it comes to lobbying activity, we must be able to hold public inquiries. We all recall the example provided by the Prime Minister, with his personal ethics counsellor briefing him on such and such situation in a confidential report. We could not even have access to the document per se. In such case, even if what the Prime Minister says and the report says is true and accurate, because there is not a strong enough colour of fairness, equality and transparency, the medium becomes the message and, since the medium as such is not believable due to its lack of flexibility, no effort is made to check that the content is sufficiently objective.

I think that it would be in the government's best interests in the future to recognize the need for this kind of courageous action. Of course, we may find out that there is abuse-nobody is perfect on this earth-and we will deal with this in due course. But in the long run, this will improve the system by ensuring that the public in general can assess the situation, have access to facts and conclusions and, therefore, be truly in control of the system. It is important to have an amendment to that effect and that it be passed.

Another amendment deals with the tabling of the ethics code. Let the rules of the game finally be laid on the table. What are the rules and regulations? What game is this? What constitutes acceptable behaviour and what does not?

In this area, this democratic society of ours, one of the most developed democratic societies in the world, still has a long way to go. It needs to get out of the dark and the slightly ambiguous situations we sometimes encounter, such as the whole issue of Pearson International Airport.

An act on lobbyists which would clearly define the various situations would have two positive effects. First, it would deter those who might be tempted to line their pockets when they are not supposed to, or who might be tempted to do things more or less legally. Second, it would give a clear picture to everyone.

For these reasons, the opposition must ensure that the bill will be the best possible piece of legislation and that it will reflect the objective pursued. The government seems to have forgotten the principles which underlie its election promises. It now has an opportunity to amend the bill and ensure that it accurately reflects the commitment made during the election campaign.

Let us consider the ethics counsellor, for example. If the counsellor is appointed by cabinet, then he is actually designated by those whom he must monitor. This creates a strange situation. The person responsible for saying that a minister acted inappropriately in a certain situation will have been hired by cabinet, which includes the minister in question. This puts the incumbent in an impossible situation. I am prepared to predict that, if the bill is passed in its present form, problems will surface in two, three or five years, and the next government will have to make changes and improve the legislation to make it more acceptable.

I do wonder about this bill. Why does the government not put more distance between itself and lobbyists? Why does it perpetuate the impression that governments are more or less puppets controlled by secret groups? What is the purpose of acting like that? Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have come to realize that lobbyists can take up my whole day. They can ask to meet regularly with me. They can act so as to get a lot of my time, through visits and meetings, sometimes at the expense of my constituents. Why does the government not clarify the whole situation and make our lives as members of Parliament easier and simpler by promoting direct contact with the public?

I think the answer has to do with the way that federal political parties are financed, and particularly the contributions made by corporations, including Canadian banks. Indeed, banks are known to make large contributions to several political parties. The Bloc Quebecois does not accept money from corporations, but the law currently authorizes such contributions.

If our elections act allows such donations, we are sure to find it difficult to pass a law to enforce tighter rules on lobbying because the people who contribute to election funds are the ones who hire lobbyists. Both acts would be at cross purposes. It is easy to understand why this Liberal government, after making terrific promises in its red book, is not able to deliver the goods, and comes up with such a toothless bill.

To conclude, I urge government members to examine carefully the proposed amendments and more particularly Motions Nos. 22, 25, and 19. Passing those amendments would give us a bill that would allow once and for all adequate control of lobbyists and make it clear to Quebecers and Canadians alike that politicians are here primarily to serve them.