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.
Official LanguagesRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, covering the calendar year 1994, under our standing orders and under section 66 of the Official Languages Act.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)( b ), the document is deemed referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 34 petitions.
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of 61 people in Deloraine, Manitoba. The petition calls on the government to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a child care expense deduction that is available to all families, regardless of the income level of the parents, the amount of child care expenses incurred, or the form of child care chosen.
As members will be aware, my private member's bill, C-247, did just that. It is too bad that the government chose to defeat it, largely because of special interest group agendas and the fact that stay at home parents do not provide tax revenues for government coffers.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a number of petitions on behalf of my constituents, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition requests that current laws regarding assisted suicide be enforced and no changes that would sanction or allow suicide or euthanasia be made to the law.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second and third petitions ask Parliament not to indicate societal approval of same-sex relationships or homosexuality by amending legislation to include the undefined phrase "sexual orientation".
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, the next petition prays that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by human beings to unborn human beings.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, my constituents have also requested that I submit their petitions asking Parliament to support laws that punish criminals using firearms; to support, recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and to abolish any existing gun control laws that have proven ineffective.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, my last petition asks Parliament to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament. The signatories feel the rights and interests of all Canadian citizens cannot be adequately protected by the Bloc Quebecois.
Réginald Bélair Liberal Cochrane—Superior, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this morning to present to the House of Commons a petition containing 1,375 names.
The petitioners humbly suggest that there is a need for more crime control in this country, not necessarily more gun control. The petitioners also ask for the removal of the firearm registry from Bill C-68. The petitioners also ask Parliament to concentrate its efforts on the criminal element of our society and not to erode gun owners' rights in Canada. The petitioners ask that common sense prevail.
Vic Althouse NDP Mackenzie, SK
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present petitions gathered by people along the Chelan Subdivision of the CNR, which is now, thanks to government order in council, no longer protected to the year 2000. Virtually every resident along that line has signed this petition.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life by rejecting the policy proposals of lifting the prohibition order on branch lines and developing agricultural and rural development policies for Canada in which rural citizens are considered to be human beings with spiritual, social, and economic needs and not just economic commodities or statistics.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today with which I agree.
This petition asks that Parliament do not include the phrase "sexual orientation" in Bill C-41. This is one of many petitions that come from my constituency on this issue.
John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present a petition asking that sexual orientation not be included in any new hate crimes legislation. I endorse this petition. It is from the riding of Victoria-Haliburton in Ontario.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 136.
Question No. 136-
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
With respect to the old age pension ( a ) how much money is paid in old age pension to citizens of Canada now residing outside the country and what are the top five countries to which payments are made; ( b ) what residency requirements are necessary as a pre-condition to collecting old age pension; and ( c ) is it necessary to have paid taxes in Canada in order to collect old age pension while living outside Canada?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
(a) During 1994 approximately $177 million in old age security, OAS, benefits was paid outside Canada. It is not known how much of this was paid to citizens of Canada because an individual does not have to be a Canadian citizen to qualify for OAS.
The five countries to which the highest overall OAS payments were made in 1994 are in descending order:
United States-$92.2 million Italy-$17.8 million United Kingdom-$13.6 million Greece-$5.3 million Portugal-$4.7 million
(b) To receive an OAS pension an individual must be a Canadian citizen or legal resident of Canada on the day preceding approval of the OAS pension application; or if no longer living in Canada, must have been a Canadian citizen or legal resident of Canada on the day preceding the day he or she stopped living in Canada. In addition, an individual must have resided in Canada for a minimum of 10 years after age 18. To receive an OAS pension outside Canada, an individual must have lived in Canada for at least 20 years after age 18.
The amount of the OAS pension paid either within Canada or abroad depends on how long an individual has lived in Canada after age 18. A full pension is payable with 40 or more years of residence in Canada after age 18. A partial pension is payable with less than 40 but at least 10 years of residence after age 18, accrued at the rate of one-fortieth of the full pension for each year of residence after age 18.
Individuals with less than 40 years of residence can qualify for a full pension under a former set of rules that is being phased out over a 40-year period which began July 1, 1977. A full OAS pension can be paid if, on July 1, 1977, an individual was 25 years of age or over, and lived in Canada on July 1, 1977; had lived in Canada before July 1, 1977 after reaching age 18; or possessed a valid immigration visa on July 1, 1977.
In such cases, an individual must have lived in Canada for the 10 years immediately preceding approval of the OAS application. Absences in this 10-year period may be offset if the individual lived in Canada after age 18 and before the 10-year period for periods that equal at least three times the length of the absence. In this case, however, the individual is required to live in Canada for a full year immediately preceding approval of the OAS application.
The Old Age Security Act permits the inclusion of the old age security program in reciprocal social security agreements. Such agreements enable people who live or who have lived in the other contracting country to add periods of residence abroad, or in some cases periods of contributions, to periods of residence in Canada to satisfy the minimum eligibility requirements for the OAS pension, and the income tested spouse's allowance. For example, someone who lived in Canada for less than the 10 years required to qualify for a partial OAS pension in Canada would be able to use periods of residence in the other country to meet the 10-year requirement. As well, a similar provision would apply to someone who lived in Canada for less than the 20 years required for payment of the OAS pension outside the country.
Once eligibility for the OAS pension is established in this way, the actual pension paid is based only on actual periods of residence in Canada.
The answer to (c) is no. Payment outside Canada depends only on whether an individual has resided in Canada for at least 20 years after age 18 or is living in a country with which Canada has concluded an international social security agreement.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Kingston and the Islands Ontario
Liberal
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Starred Question No. 163, I would ask that the answer be made an Order for Return, in which case the return would be tabled immediately. I would ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is that agreed?
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Question No. 163-
Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB
With regard to the Prime Minister's recent trip to Latin America, ( a ) how many business people accompanied the Prime Minister, ( b ) what was the total amount of federal government assistance to business people on the trip, ( c ) which Canadian companies signed firm deals, ( d ) what was the total dollar amount for these deals, ( e ) what was the extent and source of federal government financing to make these deals possible, ( f ) which memorandums of understanding were signed, and ( g ) what promises were made of possible federal government financing or other assistance if these MOU's should result in firm sales?
Return tabled.
The House proceeded to the 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) from the committee.
Lobbyists Registration ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
There are 33 motions in amendment in the Notice Paper concerning the report stage of Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
Motions Nos. 10 and 20 are identical to motions presented and rejected in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76(5), they will not be selected.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 26, 27, 32, and 33 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a) A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 24, 26, 27, 32, and 33.
(b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 will obviate the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 3, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
i. Motion No. 11 will be voted on separately.
(c) However, a negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 3, 11 and 16.
i. A vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motion No. 15.
ii. A vote on Motion No. 11 applies to Motions Nos. 17 and 18.
(d) Motions Nos. 7, 9 and 21 will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 19 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 22 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 23. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 22 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 23.
Motion No. 25 will be voted on separately.
A vote on Motion No. 28 applies to Motion No. 29. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 28 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 30. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 28 necessitates the need for the question being put on Motion No. 30.
Motion No. 31 will be voted on separately.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
moved:
That Bill C-43, in clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 20, on page 2.
Mr. Speaker, it is distinct pleasure to address the questions before us today on the Lobbyists Registration Act.
One of the pledges of the Liberal government was to rebuild trust in government which has been eroded to a considerable extent over the last number of years under previous governments. I use the plural extending to more than two.
The amendment is very specific. The government labelled the report on this bill "rebuilding trust". Therefore our party has tried to come up with amendments-this will be true for the one before us now and for the others we are proposing-that work toward that goal.
In a way we are trying to help the government to achieve the goals it stated but for some reason has now become unwilling to follow through on.
We are moving an amendment to increase the openness, the accountability and the disclosure required under the Lobbyists Registration Act so citizens can see more clearly what is happening. In a very general sense hopefully the more they know the more we will move toward a true democracy since it seems we have lost the sense of true representative democracy.
MPs are elected and sent to the House to represent their constituents but sometimes are not allowed to vote according to the wishes of those they represent; the decisions being made in smaller rooms elsewhere and the results being orchestrated from here. Obviously if people want to have their input into how government works they will find out where the decisions are made and then proceed to use that particular approach.
How did lobbyists gain such a large force? The people have discovered that it is a way they can get to the root of where the decisions are made in government. It is not through the members of Parliament. They have essentially lost their representative function.
The way one influences government policy is by getting to the decision makers. The decision makers are the top bureaucrats, the deputy ministers, the ministers and the Prime Minister. Backbench MPs on the government side ultimately feel that pressure. I have spoken to some who have expressed some consternation about the fact that they are not free to express their views in the House because of the element of party discipline.
The amendment we are moving would require more openness and disclosure. Therefore when people become aware of how government is being influenced, hopefully the more they know the more they will dislike it and we will then be able to achieve a shift toward true representative government via members of Parliament.
I found the work in the committee on Bill C-43 for the most part very interesting. It was a good committee. Our chairman was very capable and very personable. Sometimes he tried to push things through too fast. We had a committee that worked together and pulled him back. For the most part things went very smoothly until we came the end. Suddenly there was a dramatic shift on the part of government members. They stopped listening to reason and suddenly it was orchestrated from the back rooms.
When the motion simply says to delete some lines and introduce new ones, it is not really clear to the average person or even to some members exactly what this motion proposes.
Presently the bill exempts from registration requirements any meetings initiated by public office holders. In other words, the Lobbyists Registration Act says if you lobby government, you are supposed to register. That is an acknowledgement that there is a lobby group, organization, a business, a firm or a corporation trying to influence government.
We found out that quite often the government makes an initiative to talk to lobbyists because it wants to find out something about a particular business sector or it has some other reason. It initiates the call.
If it is a straight transfer of information, information gathering and if all of our amendments are accepted, that would not be included in a registration requirement. Where the lobbyist is trying to influence the government, however the first contact is initiated it ought to be disclosed. Bill C-43 as proposed by the government does not include that.
We are saying there should not be an exemption from registration if a department official or the minister or anyone else in government initiates the communications. In other words, if there is communication taking place, the purpose of it is ultimately in order to influence government, however it was implemented.
We need to be careful because if we do not permit this amendment, we will provide a very easy loophole. If we are rebuilding trust, the last thing we want is to provide a number of escape routes from accountability. The present bill has that escape route because it says that if a government official initiates the meeting, then registration is not required. Therefore what happens in that meeting may be greatly directed toward
influencing government. A government official has asked for it but immediately the lobbyist is influencing government.
It would not be correct to provide a means whereby the person doing the lobbying is now exempted from registration just because he did not take the first motion.
I will quote a local columnist: "Any lobbyist who cannot finagle an invitation from a public office holder is not worth his retainer". That is true. If a lobbyist wants to influence government but wants to do it in such a way that is not disclosed all he has to do is, in the words of this columnist, finagle an invitation.
That is very easy to do if one has a good lobbyist network. That is what these guys are about. This is their business. Therefore members can see where the lobbyist would meet casually with the government official and say: "Invite me down, I would like to talk to you about some things". There is a delay of a couple of days. Then he gets an invitation and now he is not required to register.
There is some question as to whether this would inhibit government officials from genuinely seeking information. I need to have the members, when they are considering supporting us in this amendment, to remember that we are also proposing another amendment that really is necessary to understand in order to approve this one. We want to also change the definition of lobbying. Lobbying is not well defined in the present act. We would like to change it so that the element of influencing or attempting to influence government is an integral part of definition of lobbyist.
That way if there is a genuine request simply for information there would be no requirement at all to register in any case. That is not a lobbying function. That would be a very normal routine of talking to some sector of industry for absent association in order to find information.
This new definition, if we say it must include influencing or attempting to influence, would totally look after that. Therefore in supporting the amendment we are proposing the government would do well. It would be fulfilling its own red book promise of increasing transparency, increasing accountability, increasing the openness with which government operates so hopefully the result could be achieved. We want to make sure all aspects of government operations whether procurement or influencing of government policy be done in the open so people know what is happening. Hopefully they can renew their trust in the officials, in the MPs and in the cabinet ministers elected by them.
Dennis Mills LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what the member for Elk Island said, that it was a great experience working on this bill in committee. We on this side of the House found it satisfying as well.
The member's motion will not be supported by the government because we believe the bill covers the very thing the member says it does not cover. If a lobbyist were to lobby for an issue with a public servant even though the initiation was made by a public office holder on a totally different issue, it does not take away from the responsibility of the lobbyist to report that piece of lobbying in the context of a government initiated meeting.
There is a balancing act between transparency and making sure there is a good working relationship between the government and the private sector in the interests of developing good public policy.
We did say that in the interpretation bulletin from the registrar that the area the member is concerned about is crafted precisely to make sure there would not be any kind of loophole.
The essence of the bill states clearly that if a lobbyist within 10 days of registering is arranging meetings or attempting to influence legislative proposals, bills, resolutions, regulations, policies, programs, award of grants, contributions, other financial benefits, or award of contracts, must be duly noted.
Another thing the member talked about in his speech was the need to make sure all of this information was open and accessible. All of these registrations, all meetings and all of this information would be available through computer access via Internet. Therefore there is no need for this amendment. The bill has gone a long way in advancing the transparency of the relationship between lobbyists and the Government of Canada.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, like my two colleagues who spoke before me, I will make a brief comment on the work done by committee members who considered this bill. I sat on the committee myself and attended most of its meetings. I followed proceedings very closely and listened to many witnesses. I can tell you that I am a little disappointed in the very partisan work done by government members.
The attendance record of the government members was not as good as that of the representatives of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, so that it was extremely difficult to agree and achieve one of the objectives, namely to reassert the value of the work done by ordinary members of Parliament through exchanges between government and opposition members.
When people opposite us keep changing from one meeting to the next, it is very difficult to resume a discussion or complete the arguments introduced one or two days before the last meeting. Yes, there were good exchanges at the committee level.
There is, however, room for improvement with respect to the attendance record of government members and how they could follow up the work done in committee.
With regard to the objective sought by Bill C-43, I think that no one in this House can be against it. True, taxpayers and constituents from across the country have lost some confidence in the government for several reasons. One only has to look to the past to find many reasons to lose one's confidence in the government. Bill C-43 is designed to ensure a certain level of openness, to show everyone what the power brokers in Ottawa are really doing behind the scenes.
In any case, the objective of Bill C-43 was to make all lobbyists-or influence peddlers as some people call them-accountable, to make their work on Parliament Hill more transparent, to show the people that, in the end, the government was justified in doing business with a given individual, in changing the regulations, in drafting a bill or anything else.
This goal is commendable and the opposition agrees with it. The reason we agreed to work with the government was to achieve greater transparency. However, the bill we are debating, Bill C-43, is very disappointing in that it did not achieve this goal. Today, I am doing the same thing I did at the committee stage, when I suggested a number of amendments to promote more openness and bring about the desired transparency. It is one thing to have a goal, but efforts must be made to achieve it.
I suggested a number of approaches-twenty or so-at committee level, but this government, government members who, by the way, had not even heard the evidence, attended our meetings and heard witnesses request specific measures, rejected every one of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. They voted them down. Today, the government is given another opportunity to improve this bill through a series of amendments. We have 33 motions before us and I think that some of them would greatly help improve transparency, as Bill C-43 seeks to do.
I urge the government to give serious consideration to these motions, to review the goals it set in its famous red book during the election campaign and then to look at Bill C-43 in order to determine whether or not these goals were met. I am convinced that it will come to the conclusion that, indeed, they were not. Now, the opposition is offering to help the government achieve a goal it has set for itself during the last election campaign.
I must say however that Motion No. 1 may not be going in the direction that I just mentioned. Let me explain. I agree with the government that Motion No. 1 should not be passed.
We must set Motion No. 1 in context and see what changes it introduces. It amends clause 2 of the bill, that is to say section 2 of the present act, under definitions. It also affects subsection 4(2) of the act, under application, which specifies to whom the act applies and particularly to whom it does not apply, because I think arrangements have to be made so that citizens can contact the government. I think that honest citizens who are looking for information, want to express their views before our committees and act openly and publicly should not be restricted in their right to contact the government to make representations.
In fact, two exceptions to subsection 4(2) are already contemplated. The first exception concerns those who make representations before a Senate, a House of Commons or a joint committee. Several pieces of legislation are reviewed in committee, and it only makes sense that those who submit briefs and come to tell the committee what they think of a bill should not have to register. That exception is already included.
The second exception deals with the case of a taxpayer who phones a public servant to obtain an interpretation regarding existing legislation. Again, it goes without saying that the person should not have to register, nor state his reason for contacting the government, since it is normal to communicate with public servants to obtain details regarding legislation.
This amendment to Bill C-43, which the Reform Party wants to eliminate through its motion, would affect all those contacted by the government. During the review conducted by the committee, I referred to these situations as "government initiatives". Before awarding a contract or considering a specific measure, the government, for a number of reasons, usually contacts some organizations to get their opinion. It approaches various groups and asks them: "Do you have a problem with this legislation? Would you be in favour of improving it in this fashion? Would you be opposed to such a measure? What do you think?"
If an exception is not provided regarding clause 4(2) of this bill, people will stop providing such answers to the government. The witnesses heard by the committee clearly said that, if they have to comply with the provisions of Bill C-43, they, as officials representing mostly non-profit community organizations, will definitely stop providing opinions to the government and help it make choices. These people added that they would certainly not pay to reply to a government's request.
So, that amendment, which is just about the only one accepted by the government, should not be set aside right away. It should be reviewed, and I ask the Reform Party to really consider the purpose of this amendment, which is the only one which was accepted by the government following the review of this bill by the committee.
The amendment is very simple.
The bottom line is that any oral or written submission made to a public office holder by an individual on behalf of any person or organization will be exempt if it is in direct reply to a written request from a public office holder for advice or comment in respect of the specified provisions. Other clauses are also quoted to specify who the clause will apply to.
The wording of the clause now before us guarantees that the fears the Reform member just expressed will not be substantiated, that there will be no bending of the rules or attempts to get around the law, because everything will be done in writing. And I think that, under the Access to Information Act, we as taxpayers can obtain copies of this information. Therefore, we can check the public servant's request and the organization's reply because they will be in writing. This applies to a direct, written reply to a request.
Bill C-43 and the amendment proposed this morning, which the Reform Party does not support, would not exempt the information in cases where, following analysis or research, it was discovered that the public servant asked the organization whether it would support such and such legislation and it is obvious from the organization's reply that it would only support the government's proposal in exchange for such and such a contract or an amendment to such and such other regulation. Therefore, the organization in question would have to meet the requirements of Bill C-43.
Motion No. 1, as it is written, quite simply moves that the entire amendment or the content of clause 4(2) of Bill C-43 be removed, and I cannot support such a motion. This and all of the reasons stated above is why the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, will vote against Motion No. 1.