Debates of April 28th, 1995

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to invoke the rule of relevancy because we cannot see where the government whip's allegations are leading and what is the link with Bill C-43.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The rule of relevancy is very difficult to apply. It is extremely flexible. I listened carefully to all the speeches, on both sides of the House, and I believe that, to a large extent, the debate has been very relevant.

I would ask the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to conclude his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member for Berthier-Montcalm was quite right to talk about the flexibility of one's conscience; I suppose that he is quite angry at his

colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for claiming that to talk about such a topic, as his colleague did, was against the rules.

I believe that he is going to get an earful from his colleague after questions and comments. I agree with the member for Berthier-Montcalm in this matter. I am sure that he was right to raise this issue. In fact, this is why I am answering. Since he was not called to order by the Speaker when he raised the issue, it means that he was abiding by the rules.

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

This is too much!

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

No. Members across are not in a position to be sanctimonious. This is certainly not the right time for them to vow political chastity. Just think of what was happening recently between the local branch here and the head office in Quebec. One wonders which brand of separation will be preached. Is it the federalist one of the local branch manager in Ottawa, that is the Leader of the Opposition, or the separatist one in Quebec? Which one will prevail in the debate?

It now seems the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is slightly ahead of his provincial colleague. We will see, in the near as well as distant future. In any case, whichever brand of separation, it will still be separation. It is like ice cream. The flavour might be slightly different, it is still ice cream. In this case, however, the product has soured and the public will not buy it.

In conclusion, I will repeat that we have here an excellent bill which was introduced by a minister who really did his homework and which was studied by an extremely competent parliamentary committee. That committee, through its majority members, delivered what we promised in the red book and went even further on some points.

I support their work entirely. I am convinced that this is a good bill. As the Minister of Industry indicated, it is a legislation which has the strictest national requirements in the world. Yes I must repeat it. It is not my fault if such are the facts. Nonetheless, it is still the truth.

I welcome questions from my colleagues across the way on this bill. I welcome in advance their support if they do want stricter rules for lobbyists. We will find out in very short order whether that is really what they want or if all they want to do is complain and not really do anything.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed to see the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell laughing about such an important issue as Bill C-43, an Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, confusing everything and saying almost nothing about the bill itself.

The member talked about sovereignty, about all kinds of issues, about the leaders of the sovereignist forces in Quebec, about almost everything except for the real issue, the one concerning lobbyists. As for sovereignty, during the referendum period, in Quebec, the member will come and talk about the great policies of the stuffed beavers over there. He will come in Quebec and talk about that. However, today's debate is on Bill C-43.

Bill C-43 is a most important bill, and I find it strange that the member has nothing to say about it. I will ask him a few questions but first, I want to make a comment. He underestimated the work done by the committee. He said that the members claimed they alone knew the truth because they had heard witnesses during six months. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. I am not alone in knowing the truth. I only report to the House what I have heard during the hearings of the committee.

I report to the House what witnesses, taxpayers and voters said to the committee about what they would like to see in Bill C-43. I think that the member underestimates the work that has been done, and that is most regrettable.

There are two very important points in this bill. There are many others, but what is important is not what is in the bill. There are, in particular, a couple of points concerning the ethics code and the appointment of the ethics counsellor.

I will read two clauses to the member opposite who suggested that this bill is a model of openness and absolutely the best legislation of its type anywhere in the world, that they are the smartest, the most clever and the boldest in their proposal. Why, then, does the bill clearly state that the counsellor's investigations should remain secret, hidden behind the closed doors of the federal government? We are not allowed to know what is going on behind those closed doors. Why does the bill specify that the code of ethics is not a statutory instrument for the purposes of the statutory instruments act? Are they afraid that the public will initiate legal proceedings to have the code enforced?

Are they afraid of civil suits? How do you explain section 10.5 of the bill, which says that "the Ethics Counsellor shall prepare a report of the investigation, including the findings, conclusions and reasons for the Ethics Counsellor's conclusions"? We insist on having a reasoned report. The ethics counsellor would never tell us how he came to these conclusions.

It is the same with a judge's decision. It is by reading the decision that you know if the judge's findings are right or wrong. We will not have this information because the legislation is made especially for the friends of the government, those who contribute to the Liberal Party's election fund. They do not want us to know how the ethics counsellor came to his conclusions. They do not want us to know how the ethics counsellor really judges a minister, senior official or anyone else working for the

government machine. No, instead they introduce a bill that makes no sense.

I would say to the hon. member that he should have been embarrassed to speak today about Bill C-43. I would have been, knowing that I had signed the Holtmann report, which recommended taking measures that are 10 times stronger and more comprehensive than those in the bill before us.

He was a member of the Holtmann committee, he signed the report regarding the tier system for lobbyists and disclosure, and we are not even doing one-tenth of what the Holtmann report recommended. I would be embarrassed to flaunt that today. I would also be embarrassed to hold up a book, claiming that it is still red. Those small red books may all have come out of the same press, but not two are identical. At least in the version of the book they used during the election campaign they were committed to implementing the recommendations of the Holtmann report.

[An hon. member]

Promises, promises.

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

It was an election promise. Today, their other small red book called "Rebuilding Trust" has nothing to do with that and would have been better named "Breach of Trust". It does not even go one tenth of the way, and that is disgraceful. I would be embarrassed if I were him.

I would like him to explain to me why the contents of Bill C-43 do not jive with the Holtmann report. Let him explain, if he has the courage to and if he even knows, because he has hardly been to two or three meetings in the last six months. And today, he thinks he can teach me something. No, there is definitely something wrong with this picture.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to apologize to the hon. member opposite for the fact that, since then, I became the government whip. During the period when discussions on the bill started and were finally concluded, I had the honour and the privilege-

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

To abandon ship.

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

I do not think that becoming the government whip of one's country means abdicating one's responsibilities, as the hon. member opposite inferred. If some day he manages to get this kind of job, perhaps he will understand. And if he does, I might remind him of what he said today.

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

I hope not.

[An hon. member]

The opposition will be in bad shape.

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

It certainly will if it happens to be him.

The Holtmann committee submitted a good report. For instance, all those who had to register, it is all there in the Holtmann report. Disclosure of information as well. Today's proposals on administration, implementation and enforcement of the legislation are even stricter than what was recommended in the Holtmann report.

Look at what the report recommended, for instance, regarding the creation of a professional association and a code of ethics for lobbyists. It said lobbyists should immediately set up a professional association with a code of ethics. We go even further than that. The ethics counsellor himself will draw up a code of ethics on behalf of the lobbyists. We want it to be even stricter.

The person in charge, the public official, will do this himself, and I am referring to the person who will have this quasi-judicial role to play. He will have that authority. In this bill we have gone even further than the Holtmann report, which was already a good report.

We went farther than the current legislation. There were three stages. We started with the existing legislation, improved it with the Holtmann report, improved it in the red book, improved it further with the report entitled "Rebuilding Trust" and improved it again today with Bill C-43.

We had the benefit of the wisdom of the members opposite, because we even adopted some of their recommendations with regard to their amendments, which we voted on a few days ago. We were proud to do so, because this is what we want, and I hope this is what the hon. members opposite want as well. We want the most practical bill, nevertheless, the best possible, by reconciling everything that needs reconciling so that what we put forward is more than just fancy theories. We have a good bill and we will have the best, when the members opposite decide to let their colleagues vote so we can get on with this matter, which is important for lobbyists, the government and the people of Canada, who elected this government on its agenda, on its red book.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I will simply say that I appreciate the work the hon. member did with respect to lobbyists during the time he was in opposition. He was a good, hard working member and he said a lot of wise things. I wish that his government had followed some of his advice.

I would like to refer to what I call the Liberals' red ink book of broken promises. At page 94 of the red book, under "The Public Trust", it says: "Nine years of Conservative government have brought our political process into disrepute. A Liberal government will restore public trust and confidence in government." Wonderful. Those are nice words. "We will regulate the activities of lobbyists by appointing an ethics counsellor". They have done it. Great. It continues: "We will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament". For everybody who was here before 1988 it is the same old trough. "We will give more power to individual MPs by providing more free votes and more authority for parliamentary committees". That is not happening. "And we will establish strict guidelines for merit in government

appointments". We have lists and lists of appointments on everything other than merit.

I would like to ask the hon. member to respond to this, because this is very serious. I believe that their commitment is honourable, but they are not following through. I would like the hon. member to explain it. He was involved in the reports in the past that made this recommendation. I am reading from page 95: "In particular, a Liberal government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor". He referred to that in his speech. I would ask him to describe how the present appointment mechanism established in Bill C-43 via the Prime Minister and the submission of reports via the registrar general to the House reflects an independence, which is so necessary.

It continues: "The ethics counsellor will be appointed after consultation". Great. But it says here explicitly: "-will report directly to Parliament". That is not happening. The hon. member needs to explain that.

The Liberal government says that it will implement the unanimous June 1993 report; that is the Holtmann report. I cannot give the House the details, but if I had the time I would list two specifics in the Holtmann report that were not implemented. The removal of the tiers was an explicit Holtmann report recommendation. That is not in this bill. The anti-avoidance schemes were specific in the Holtmann report, but not in here.

I would like the hon. member to respond as to why the government is not doing those things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two points. First, I thank the hon. member for his questions. They were indeed very pertinent and I would like to respond to them. I know the hon. member has been very diligent in his work on this.

I would like to suggest a comparison. The Minister of Industry also has reporting to him, albeit nominally, because he works independently, the director of investigation and research. That person investigates what we formerly called the combines investigation and so on. Does anyone ever say that the person who does that judicial function, because he reports nominally to the minister, who then tables his report in the House, is somehow tainted by the fact that he reports to the minister? I do not think anyone has ever said that.

I do not know why anyone would say that a report delivered by the ethics counsellor to the minister in his capacity as registrar general, which is then tabled by the minister in the House, is somehow tainted. The member across will surely know that is not the case.

With regard to the tiers or the categories, I want to outline something for members across and indeed to all Canadians who might read Hansard . I cannot discuss watching TV; that would be inappropriate.

The federations of agriculture and other organizations came to testify before us. They told us that the governments consult them, and because the governments consult them, the new and stricter requirements that we will be imposing on the contract type of lobbyist should not apply to them, that it is in fact unfair to them.

If the member wants to say that we should give far more bureaucratic type of work to be done by the dairy commissions or the dairy councils, the federations of agriculture, the milk committees, and groups like that, let him say that, if he wants to impose those kinds of onerous requirements of the kind that we are placing on contract lobbyists.

[An hon. member]

He didn't even move those as amendments.

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

No one even moved amendments to that effect.

Because we are making the requirements so strict for others, that is why those things in there cannot be applied to groups like the federation of agriculture in my riding, or the milk committee.

I will be meeting with the milk committee from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell next week, Mr. Speaker, and you are invited to attend the meeting. All three milk committees are uniting at St-Isidore-de-Prescott in my riding. I will be meeting with their executive next week. That is a lobbying activity. They have asked to see me in order to lobby me on a very important issue.

This is not a joke. The dairy producers in my riding, who feel these issues are very important to them and lobby their member, think this is pretty serious stuff. They do not want to have imposed on them the same kinds of requirements we would impose on a guy like Frank Moores. I do not even know if he is still working, but Mr. Moores, in the heyday of his Tory lobbying, would have had, under these rules, the same kind of requirement as l'Association des producteurs laitiers du comté de Russell.

I do not think I would put these groups on the same footing with regard to disclosure. If the members opposite think that is the right way, let them say so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I hope and trust that I read the mood of the House correctly when I allowed the question and comment period to go a little bit longer than the period normally allows for. Following that, we have approximately five minutes left to this day. Do we in fact want to continue and allow the member for Skeena to take the floor, or are there other suggestions?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask that you seek unanimous consent to simply continue the debate with the present member? I would appreciate that. I think it would be useful because of his experience and wisdom in this.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House is the master of its own destiny. It is by unanimous consent, with the understanding that the day will end at 2.30 p.m.

The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm has the floor on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the five minutes are in order to finish, only five minutes.

As for the rest, regarding the wisdom of the hon. member, I cannot say I quite agree, but that is another matter. However, as regards unanimous consent, you have it for five minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

If I have understood everyone, we will still adjourn at the time agreed upon, that is, at 2.30 p.m., but we will continue with a period of questions and comments for the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this.

The member indicated that there were no amendments to remove the tiers. I want to inform him that in fact one of our amendments at report stage dealt with exactly that issue, and it was turned down. That has happened here.

The member did not adequately explain how the independence of the ethics counsellor is achieved through the present system. When we compare it to the independence of the auditor general, there is quite a difference. Certainly in the perception of the people there is a large problem if the ethics counsellor is investigating an issue that deals with the registrar general. In that instance, the ethics counsellor would be doing an investigation and reporting to the very member he is investigating and then through him to the House. There is a perception of not having adequate independence. I want the hon. member's response to that. This is not adequate.