The hon. member for Elk Island cannot wait for his chance so he is talking away over there. I am trying to answer his questions.
We put this direction on the table in the House of Commons on Wednesday. It launches a process. Throughout this every step of the way we have followed the principles of transparency and legislated authority. The authority to issue a direction is clearly established in the Broadcasting Act. It has a process attached to it. That is the rule of law. It is open and transparent.
I invite members opposite to criticize the content of the direction and the expert panel report. Instead, repeatedly they choose to cast aspersions and raise innuendo about integrity.
This bill is about ethics, lobbyists and transparency. It creates principles by which government can function in a real world. I do not understand the notion that governments should exclude all outside influences.
Some of the proposals put before us both in committee and in the House would have the effect of ensuring that no official or minister would ever talk to anyone outside government. It would create a freeze in the kind of dialogue and openness that ought to exist in a free and democratic society.
The bill is about creating the appropriate balance. If we start from the presumption, as I believe some members opposite have done, that all officials, all elected representatives and all ministers are likely to be dishonest then the bill will surely prove inadequate. The government does not start with that assumption.
The government starts with the assumption that virtually all public officials are honest and motivated to do the things in the best interest of the country.
One of the things Canadians sometimes fail to appreciate enough is that many businesses that speak to me about their efforts to trade around the world tell me that throughout the world countries like Canada which have a political and bureaucratic system almost entirely free of corruption are very rare. This is something we have for which we should be eminently grateful. The purpose of this bill is to try to ensure that at the same time as preserving and protecting the fundamental honesty of our government system, we are also recognizing the fact that government needs to be open in a democratic society. People need to be able to consult and to contact their government.
It also operates on the assumption that all lobbying is therefore not bad, that lobbyists are not evil people. Some members opposite think that word just by its very nature has a negative connotation. In listening to some of the debate, I think in some cases they would like to eliminate lobbyists. That is fine and dandy for the large corporations, because they can always find other ways to get their messages across. But for the small firm, say in Saskatoon, that cannot have ready access to government in Ottawa or wherever, it is sometimes necessary to get professional advice and assistance. It is a useful function. As I said, often governments need to consult.
Having an open system requires achieving the right balance. This bill is about balance. It is about achieving the proper equilibrium. If we do not want any lobbyists at all, I am quite prepared to admit that the bill does not go far enough, because it does not outlaw lobbying. But it is intended to ensure that the activities of lobbyists are sufficiently transparent to assure the integrity of our system and yet do not impose upon officials or bureaucrats obligations that are so onerous that they would rather not talk to anybody in the outside world, but just stay in their glass towers here in the city of Ottawa.
Striking a balance is open to debate. Have we erred too far one way or the other? That is a point of legitimate debate. But to suggest at the extreme that we need a process that shuts the system down I think is wrong. I believe we have struck the appropriate balance in this bill.
I think that also pertains to the issues of integrity and honesty. The system must speak for itself. We ought to be trying for transparency and then when issues of integrity or ethics are raised we will have the facts to deal with that.
I implore members of the House of Commons to remember always that today's accuser may tomorrow stand accused. To make accusation without fact, on the basis of circumstance or innuendo, and thereby impugn a person's reputation-which in the final analysis is all that any of us have that is worth
preserving, our reputations-is something members of the House should be reluctant to do.
I am convinced that members from all parties represented in this House will welcome the legislation before us, which is about to be read the third time.
Bill C-43 is the result of the work of previous committees and the testimony of all the stakeholders. Bill C-43 will improve government transparency.
It will significantly strengthen the powers of the ethics counsellor. But perhaps most important, we have given the elected representatives of Canadians more say in creating the laws that will restore the people's trust and confidence in government.
I hope all members will join me in voting in favour of Bill C-43.