Debates of April 28th, 1995

Lobbyists Registration Act

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

As the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the excellent member for Kingston and the Islands has just said, it is called the red book. Yes, it is the red book.

What was promised by the Liberal Party in the red book is what we are delivering to the people of Canada as we continue on our very successful program of delivering on our commitments to the people of Canada. Through the excellent leadership of the Minister of Industry we are delivering on that commitment in this third reading debate on Bill C-43.

We promised as a party that we would restore integrity in government in a general sense. That is exactly what we have done with the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister. We said that we would have stricter rules of conduct for lobbyists. I will get into those details in a minute. We also said that we would establish rules of conduct for members of Parliament and senators, and that item is on the Order Paper for debate on Monday. Immediately when we complete this facet of ethics in government we will deal with the next part, which is the code of conduct for MPs and senators.

I am anxiously waiting the support we will get toward bringing that resolution to a successful conclusion and to start our work in that regard. If members across the way do not adopt the motion to start that work, we will have to conclude they do not want rules of conduct and ethics to apply to them. We will see about that in a few days.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We will see that on Monday.

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

As the parliamentary secretary says because he is charge of such matters, we will see that on Monday.

In the red book we committed ourselves as a party to deal with the issue of lobbyists. Let us remember how we got the rules that presently exist for lobbyists. Prior to 1985 there were no rules for lobbyists. On September 9, 1985 after a number of questions were asked in the House-and if I do say so myself I asked a good number of them-the then prime minister decided to announce a series of measures. Two years later-

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

The Conservatives?

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

It was a Conservative Prime Minister.

Two years later when that same prime minister had not produced the rules, we prodded him and finally got a commitment from the government to establish a parliamentary committee. That was the Cooper committee.

I sat on that committee. I will claim some responsibility for some of the recommendations in its report. It was chaired by the member for Peace River. We arrived at a unanimous report. The then New Democratic Party member for Nickel Belt, several Conservative MPs and I under the chairmanship of the member for Peace River produced a report.

From that report the government produced a bill. That bill is the law in the country. It was referred to a parliamentary committee, the Cooper committee. We dealt with it, made some improvements to it and now it is the law of the land.

One of the clauses that came from the committee was the sunset clause of sorts on which there would be a review. The review was to improve on the bill. Pursuant to that we did the study under the able chairmanship of the member for Fundy-Royal. We now have before us a bill to amend the present act. That is how it all came about.

When five years of having the first law were completed or close to it the government, again at the request of the opposition, appointed a committee under the leadership of the member for Selkirk-Interlake, Felix Holtmann, who is in Ottawa; I saw him 10 or 15 minutes ago. He chaired the committee that produced a report I have before me today.

The Holtmann committee report was entitled "A Blueprint for Transparency: Review of the Lobbyists Registration Act". The Liberal Party used that report as the basis for its own red book.

[An hon. member]

That is not so.

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

A member across the way says that it is not so, or he is questioning whether it is accurate. I will read to him the relevant sections of the red book at page 95:

In particular, a Liberal government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

Are members opposite listening?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Why bother consulting with them? They are not interested.

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

As a matter of fact the Prime Minister consulted with the two opposition parties.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

And now they are complaining.

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

Now they are complaining, as the hon. member so eloquently said. It continued:

The Ethics Counsellor will be mandated to develop a corresponding code of conduct for lobbyists-

That is enshrined in the bill before us today.

-and to examine and recommend responses to the ethical and business practice issues that arise from time to time in government relations. The Ethics Counsellor will be able to offer guidance to both the lobbyists and their clients and, if necessary, so that they can judge in advance the acceptability of any proposed contract or activity.

A Liberal government will give the Ethics Counsellor the power to investigate complaints and review specific dealings between the government and lobbyist to ensure that the Code of Conduct is honoured. The Ethics Counsellor will be available to the Prime Minister to investigate allegations of impropriety by Cabinet ministers.

[An hon. member]

It is all there.

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

It is all there. The part dealing with lobbyists is in the bill, if not more.

The red book went on to state that we would adopt the recommendations of the Holtmann committee and that is what we are doing.

So, let me quote from the Holtmann report on which was based the red book. Listen to what was said about the independence of the registrar. At the time, the title used was registrar instead of ethics counsellor. The title recommended by the Holtmann committee for this position was registrar.

On page 19, the Holtmann report says, and my colleagues may want to listen carefully and even write this down: "We listened with great interest to the arguments presented by these witnesses", meaning the witnesses who wanted the registrar to be placed under the authority of the House of Commons, but "heard no evidence that the Registrar has been hindered in the execution of her duties. Nevertheless, we are anxious that both the excellent performance and the public reputation of the Registrar be maintained. We feel that this can best be accomplished by giving the Registrar an increased measure of independence and additional authority to report on matters pertaining to the Act. Apart from the obvious benefit of reducing the possibility of political interference, this would allow the Registrar to comment on deficiencies and problems with the operation of the Act. Therefore, the committee recommends-listen to this-that the Registrar be appointed by the Governor

in Council-in other words by the Prime Minister and the cabinet, and get this-subject to the approval of a committee of Parliament".

There you go. It is already provided for in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. As you can see, the complaints and the lamentations that we heard earlier today from the members opposite-

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The moaning and groaning!

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

The moaning and groaning, it is nothing but a show.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That is what it is.

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

Absolutely. It is nothing but a show. The members opposite got what they asked for and, indeed, what had been promised to Canadians. As usual, the Liberal government is determined to keep its promise to the people of Canada.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As always!

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

As always, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands so rightly said. So we have not diluted our commitment in any way as alleged by the opposition critic, the member for Berthier-Montcalm. He said earlier today that we have lenient rules. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The member has certainly not heard the Minister of Industry, who said in this House today that we have the strictest rules of all the countries in the world.

[Some hon. members]

In the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will shortly be having a question and comments period, and I would invite the member for Berthier-Montcalm, in the preamble to the question he will no doubt ask, to tell us what other jurisdiction has stricter rules for lobbyists than are found in Bill C-43 before us. I invite him to list the countries for us. It will not take him long-there are none. I am familiar with the situation in the United States. There are absolutely none there. In the United States, only dealings between a lobbyist and a legislator are recorded. No record is kept for a member of the executive, or even for staff member or even for the highest government official in the country. Only in the case of a conversation or other communication with a legislator, not a member of the executive.

In the United States, there is no record either of lobbyists costs, unlike what we will have here in certain controversial cases, as the minister indicated so well. In the United States, only the honoraria of foreign lobbyists are recorded when they lobby in the United States and only when foreign interests are concerned.

I went to Washington with the committee, I saw what was being done there and I invite the members opposite to get their facts straight on this matter. I was, I humbly point out, the only parliamentarian to take part in the Cooper and Holtmann committes. The member opposite claims to have become an expert on the issue after spending some months on a parliamentary committee-and the Bloc Quebecois even switched its critic mid-way through. I do not question the hon. member's competence.

[An hon. member]

No, he is very competent.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

But he must not lay claim to a monopoly on insight into this kind of thing, because I have been working on this matter for close to ten years now. I think I can safely claim to know at least as much as he does.

I know that the opposition is quite upset about the issue. They see that in a few minutes we may vote in a new law which will strengthen the great confidence that the Canadian population already has in its government. The Liberals have been working like they always have on this issue, and that is what we intend to continue doing, that is what we promised and that is what we, as the government, will indeed do.

A little earlier, I heard the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm talk about what he called the Liberal government's flexible conscience. Now, this is from people who got themselves elected under the separatist banner, calling themselves moderate separatists during the election campaign. They called themselves strong separatists in separatist ridings, and moderate separatists in those that were not. But, once they got elected and came to Parliament, they all threw out those principles and became militant separatists. Now, all of a sudden, the leader of their party decides to champion a form of federalist separatism. Look closely at what the members opposite have done. Separation with Canadian passports, Canadian currency and a federal Parliament. That is what some members opposite start calling separatism when they see that their agenda is going nowhere.

So, we are now dealing with federalist separatists and separatist separatists across the way. But now, we must know whether the separatists-