Debates of April 28th, 1995

Petitions

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Finally, I have 500 or 600 signatures on a petition in response to the budget that just came down. Again, these petitions are still coming in.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to present four petitions this afternoon. I have one petition here with over 400 signatures.

The petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal government spending.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is a petition with roughly 75 names. These petitioners are requesting that Parliament not amend the human rights code and the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase "sexual orientation".

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

The third petition that I offer today under Standing Order 36 is that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition that I present is again from many residents in my constituency who are asking that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with proposed section 718.2 as presently written, and in any event not include the undefined phrase "sexual orientation", as the behaviour people engage in does not warrant special consideration in Canadian law.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege and pleasure to present these petitions today.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all the questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

Lobbyists Registration Act

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

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I started pointing out the flaws in Bill C-43. I mentioned the staging of the ethics counsellor's appointment and the authority he was supposed to have. I highlighted the discrepancies in the Liberal position and their about face regarding several points, including the different categories of lobbyists.

One will recall that the Liberals, when they were in the opposition, wanted to have only one category for lobbying because, in their opinion, lobbying was lobbying.

But once they came to power, their friends, probably the ones who fund their electoral campaigns, told them: "No, no, no! We would rather it stay the same, with three different categories". So, the Liberals reviewed their position and now, Bill C-43 meets the lobbyists' demands, maintaining three categories.

Before question period, I was dealing with the third flaw I found in Bill C-43. In total, there are eight major flaws which were deliberately introduced with a view not to reach the stated goal of Bill C-43, which is transparency. The third flaw I found has to do with the compulsory filing of a return. As I mentioned earlier, the scandal regarding Pearson airport, in Toronto, is ample proof of how lax the present rules are in this area.

One will recall that the privatization contract was signed at the height of the federal electoral campaign, in 1993, and that subsequently an inquiry looked into that deal. The Nixon report, issued on November 29, 1993, revealed several instances of misconduct on the part of lobbyists, officials and political aids to the ministers concerned. The report raised several other questions which have remained unanswered to this day. For example, who are the lobbyists who contravened the most elementary rules of ethics? When did these events occur? How did they act illegally or unlawfully? Who are the officials and political staff members who went too far in this matter?

The Liberal government did not answer those questions. They chose to close their eyes to such stratagems which undermine the credibility of our democratic institutions. Most unfortunately, Bill C-43 offers nothing new. We remain totally in the dark. The clique exercising such undue influence will continue to have its way, and that is terrible. While they were in the opposition, members of government had promised they would bring transparency into this issue.

If the Liberals were serious about transparency for all government undertakings, why do they now refuse to force lobbyists to indicate which contracts they are trying to influence the federal administration on? Furthermore, why do they refuse to disclose which contracts are attributed in a discretionary fashion, without any call for tenders? I regret that the Liberals absolutely refuse to shed any kind of light on this issue.

If the Liberal government were really serious when it talks about integrity and transparency, would it not demand that lobbyists also disclose their fees? I learned, through the Minister of Industry, that in Ottawa, some lobbyists charge up to $5,000 a day to negotiate small arrangements with government.

In such a case, people have the right to know who is paying this kind of money, who has an interest great enough to pay up to $5,000 a day to have a minister or the government change its position or decision. But no, Bill C-43 says nothing about that.

When they were on this side of the House, the Liberals were in favour of such disclosure. They thought, quite appropriately, that lobbyists should disclose their fees. I will give you specific examples of Liberal members who have changed their tune since they took office.

The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and government whip, said on February 2, 1993: "In other words, the public has the right to know who does what and for whom, and at what cost". When in opposition, that is what they were asking the government. Put even more eloquently, on February 16, 1993, the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry said, about the disclosure of lobbyists' fees: "One of the reasons I stand firm on the issue of disclosure is that your organization does not work only in the area of politics. You now have a polling department and a media relations unit. Your organization"-he was answering someone in committee and knew what he was talking about-"has a strong influence not only on consumers but also on government and the media. In a town like ours you only have to be a few days in the press centre to have almost any idea accepted. One of the reasons I believe your fees must be disclosed is that it sometimes happens-Take the referendum for instance: millions of dollars have been put in the system by lobbying firms advocating a position while we knew almost nothing about them".

The parliamentary secretary to the minister said only a few months ago that lobbyists fees had to be disclosed. Today in Bill C-43, the minister says that fees will not be disclosed. What did members say? What did the parliamentary secretary to the minister mention? I will not answer that question. I will not answer it because I find it deplorable that a member did not raise to express his concerns and or defend the ideas he had when he was in the opposition. Power corrupts and gives Alzheimer's to Liberals.

I would now like to refer to another issue over which the Liberals ranted and raved when they were in the opposition, and that is the contacts initiated by lobbyists with ministers and officials. They seem less concerned about that issue today, although the problem remains unsolved.

Suppose that Bill C-43 had been in force during transactions which led to the contract to privatize Pearson airport. I often choose that example because it was a scandal known to all Canadians and to the Liberal themselves. The new registry would have told us on what contract a consultant lobbyist had worked, and that this lobbyist contacted the relevant department, in this case the Department of Transport. So what? Such are the changes brought about by Bill C-43. That is the information we would have.

This new obligation to disclose is being presented as a bold move by the government and the Liberal majority in the committee. It goes without saying that, for the Bloc Quebecois, it is essentially pointless. It is obvious that a lobbyist trying to influence the government on an issue relating to the privatization of an airport would contact the Minister of Transport. That is obvious, we do not need a bill to know that; one does not have to be a rocket scientist to guess that.

To really have transparency in its dealings, the government should have agreed to lobbyists revealing their meetings with a minister and the names of the senior officials involved. Bill C-43 should have required lobbyists to say they had contacted a given minister or a given senior official at a given time, that they had discussed a given issue, that they wanted the government to make a decision on a given subject. Bill C-43 does not say anything about that; it does not give us what we wanted.

Such transparency would have helped to restore the integrity of institutions in people's minds. Once again, the government missed the boat. Once again, we proposed some amendments to this end, but the government said no to the transparency and the integrity proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

Also, why not require lobbyists to reveal their political ties? It would be interesting to know that a given lobbyist is employed by a given political party. It might be interesting to know that a given lobbyist had once been a candidate for a political party. It might be interesting to know that a given lobbyist is the president of an association or was a minister's chief campaign organizer. It might be interesting to know also that a given lobbyist gave $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 to the Liberal Party's fundraising campaign. It would be interesting to know that.

But no. When the Liberals had trouble collecting a nickel, that was required from the government, the lobbyists had to reveal that. But now that they are in office, now that they have cocktails and luncheons at $1,000 and $2,000 a plate, they do not want this information. They have changed their tune.

Since time flies, I will not deal at length with the contingent fees some lobbyists ask from those who hire them. They say: I will charge you $5,000 an hour-as in the example given by the minister-to make representations to the government, and if you win your case, you will pay me $250,000 on top of my fees. I am using large figures to put my point across more clearly, but that is what is meant by contingent fees.

The Bloc Quebecois thinks Bill C-43 should prohibit contingent fees. Of course, as you have seen, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals rejected that amendment. However, witnesses who appeared before the committee said that contingent fees lead to scandals and influence peddling. The higher the contingent fees, the more forceful lobbyists will be in their representations to the minister and the more they will use all kinds of tactics. Today, the Liberals find that quite acceptable. It is not. Those are the kind of things they criticized when they were the opposition, but now that they are in power they are too busy at the trough and feel everything is fine. Such smoothies.

I repeat that I could keep talking for hours on this important issue. As a matter of fact, it is so important that the committee heard about 80 witnesses. We received brilliant briefs. This was the third time a group of parliamentarians reviewed this issue. We have had the Cooper Report, we have had the Holtmann Report and now you have before you today the Zed Report.

Three times, parliamentarians have said: "We have to give teeth to the Lobbyists Registration Act". And what do we have before us? A toothless bill, a spineless bill, that will not reach the goal of openness that had been set. There is nothing new in this bill, and scandals will occur again.

Talking about scandals, about current events also, as you could see during question period, all kinds of revelations are being made. These issues have been raised for weeks now. We are not the only ones saying that there is something strange going on in the government machinery, something that is going wrong. Except of course for The Gazette . But nobody wonders why The Gazette is supporting the government.

What all these elements are showing us I think is that there has never been such an urgent need for a bill to closely regulate the lobbyists. That is what current events show us, with the saga of patronage by the Liberal government in its policy on direct to home satellite broadcasting.

Here is what Jean-Robert Sansfaçon wrote in today's Le Devoir : ``Seldom has the federal government been more obviously under remote control than with this decision to suspend the rules set out by the CRTC. This is an action whose only purpose is to allow onto the scene a certain player, none other than the company run by the Prime Minister's son-in-law, André Desmarais. Once more, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Michel Dupuy, looks like a puppet, unable to apply either the letter or the spirit of the Canadian Broadcasting Act''.

All that has been done through lobbying, meetings and visits with the minister. And all that is the doing of the powerful PowerCorp lobby.

We now have Bill C-43 before us. It could not have come at a more appropriate juncture. We have the proof we need to say that with Bill C-43 as enacted, as drafted, nothing will change and scandals as those we have witnessed this week will occur again, and our questions will never get answered. We will never really know what guided the minister in his decisions, his visits, his meetings, etc. That is a true scandal.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to be able to rise in this esteemed House, the one to which all of us were elected to represent the people of Canada, to address the question of lobbyists.

I will begin by commending my colleague from the Bloc who just spoke. He presented a very good case and I very much appreciate the points which he raised.

I would also like to comment briefly on the process we went through. As most members know, this was the first bill that went through the new process of going to committee after first reading. As I have said previously in this House, I found that experience both frustrating and rewarding.

It was rewarding in the sense that we had a very amiable chairman. I have said that before and he usually grins when I say that, and I give him that compliment again. I also got to know and to like all of the members on the committee. It was a very good, free and easy exchange.

We were assured during that process that we could think out loud. We could bring out ideas which perhaps we did not really espouse but we wanted to raise as questions. What would happen if we did this or what would happen if we did that? Being a neophyte, I thought that was a wonderful way of discussing and debating. I thought that we were going to get a really good bill out of this process and I was very enthused for most of it.

We had excellent witnesses. Again, I would like to go on record as commending them. They did a good job in presenting their cases.

Underlying all if it, I always wondered whether we really needed the lobbyists. As a matter of fact, if I can express my naivety, I came to Ottawa as a new MP in the fall of 1993 thinking that strictly speaking lobbyists are redundant and they should not be here. To a large degree I still think that way.

That reminds me of a story my assistant shared with me about a problem with some ravens that apparently had pretty well taken over the city of Ottawa. The ravens were becoming a real nuisance. They not only messed up cars, they occasionally attacked children and on occasion even, shall we say, bombed some public officials. That is when action had to be taken.

The mayor of this esteemed city put out a call saying that there would be a $5,000 reward for anyone who could get rid of all of the ravens. Lo and behold someone from the country said to the mayor: "I will solve your problem but it will cost you $5,000". The mayor said that very well, it was worth it because when that last official got bombed by one of the ravens that was the end of it.

The young man had a cage which contained a blue raven. He went to where all of the other ravens were, opened the door and let the blue raven out. That blue raven somehow attracted all of the other ravens and they flew together out of town and were never seen again.

The mayor said to the person: "Here is your $5,000, but I have a question for you: Do you have any blue lobbyists?"

That is a question. Should we get rid of all of the lobbyists? Should we get one of them to take the rest of them out of town?

I will admit that I underwent a minor change in my thinking during the work on this committee. I met different people and different groups and particularly, certain professional associations, business and industry associations which came to make presentations before us. In fact, they were quite successful in convincing us of their importance. I will not mention any of them specifically by name.

Certainly, just as what happens in this place deeply affects citizens, it also affects groups of citizens, businesses and different professions. Therefore, for the government to have some kind of an interface with an association of all of the dentists in the country instead of having to deal with each one individually probably has some merit.

Another one that comes to mind is a presentation that we had from an association of the forestry industry. In this particular instance public policy measures of taxation, environment protection and so on impact greatly not only on the industry's ability to do business in this country but also on its ability to compete worldwide, a factor which is ever more present with us.

Consequently, I came to the conclusion after thinking about this that there probably was some justification for these people to be represented by a smaller association which would specialize in making their views known to the government.

I still think though that for the bulk of public policy issues, lobbyists should be unnecessary. As a matter of fact, as a member of Parliament I am frequently asked whether I will meet with this or that group. I have several rules. One rule is that I usually respond by saying that I do not meet with lobbyists. My constituents, the people who elected me, are my lobbyists. They are the ones I am here to represent.

I have a few little subrules as well. If a lobbyist group comes to see me and one of the delegation members comes from my constituency, I do not care what their issue or cause is, they automatically have an in. I will never refuse to talk to any member of the Elk Island constituency for any reason.

I also have a couple of other little subrules. Occasionally there are groups that have done a lot of research and are specialists in their field. If they can increase my understanding from a technical point of view or from the government impact point of view on the wider population not just in my constituency but throughout the whole country and I have an opportunity to learn something, I will not deny that opportunity.

Therefore, I have had the opportunity to deal with a number of lobbyists directly. In most instances I have appreciated this.

We need to talk about this bill because it seems to be a foregone conclusion that the work of the MP is not effective. I hate to stand up and say this. I know that in a way I am impugning all of my colleagues, myself included, and certainly all of the backbenchers on the government side. It is true that our access to the decision making loop really is limited.

I was interested and paid close attention to the minister's speech this morning. I am going to respond to a few things he said. Among other things, he indicated that it was the government's goal to give MPs a greater role. I wrote that down. I remember reading that in the red book during the election campaign. I must confess that I never did read the whole book.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

That was your first mistake.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

I read enough to get the gist of it. However, I do remember reading this part. I was afraid that perhaps we would not win the election. If the Liberals had as their platform a greater role for the MPs and limiting lobbyists and so on, they were stealing our platform and maybe the people would believe them and elect them and then we would not win.

Well it so happens that despite that, I did in fact win in the Elk Island constituency. When I was asked to be on this committee it was great. It was something I really believed in and would be able to work on.

The minister this morning made reference to the specific statement that there would be a greater role for MPs. Frankly I have not observed it. I observe that decisions are still made mostly in the offices of upper level government officials in the departments, the top bureaucrats, in consort with deputy ministers and ministers. For ordinary people, including members of Parliament, to break into that loop is difficult. I understand it is almost as difficult for members on the government side as it is for those in opposition.

We all have influence. I am aware that Liberal members have influence in their caucus. However there would be no lobbyists if the people were able to successfully promote their views of what kind of country they would like and what our public policies should be. Their MPs are free. Well, they are not free. Taxpayers pay very handsomely for them, including the MPs' pension plan to which the government so eagerly hangs on. There is no additional or incremental cost to someone who wants to send a message to government if they do it via their member of Parliament.

That lobbyists exist is mute testimony to the fact that many people, being pragmatic, recognize that if they want to have their issues heard, they know that is how they have to do it.

I would like to say a few words about the changes we have produced to the bill. It was a good experience in the committee to propose amendments and to talk about them. Many of them were done before there ever were any clauses.

The final clauses were done quite unofficially without formal amendments. Then we began the process of formal amendments. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, as in the House, the committee is made up of a majority of members from the government side. The member for the Bloc and myself representing the opposition were, shall we say, considerably outnumbered.

I will say to the credit of the government members there that we did have an open discussion. We were heard. For the most part there was a high level of respect. I really appreciate the relationship that developed and the ease with which we were able to discuss things.

Then my hon. colleague from the Bloc, as he mentioned in his speech, proposed a large number of amendments. Those amendments were uniformly declined by the members on the government side. I was very disappointed. The House has already heard the member for the Bloc speak today. He described his amendments and their justification. Certainly there was justification for that. The government lost a great deal because it failed to put those into the bill and therefore they will not become law. That was very frustrating.

Then I brought in a number of amendments. As you know, Madam Speaker, we voted on those several evenings ago. I felt badly about it. It was due to the many amendments we brought forward from our party that all of us had to sit here for about an hour doing all of those votes. In order to maintain my integrity I had to bring those forward. I had to make sure that the government would go on record as saying "yes, we want these" or "no, we do not", just so the lines could be clearly defined.

I am pleased. As far as I know it is a record that two opposition amendments were accepted. I believe it is the first time that opposition amendments at report stage in this Parliament have been accepted. They were very good amendments, not because I brought them but because they were well supported. It shows they were logical and represented the wishes of the people. It was very gratifying to have those amendments passed.

A number of the amendments we made were declined by the government. Unfortunately this is going to be the proof of the pudding. This is going to be the Achilles heel of the government, where given an opportunity to really increase openness and transparency it declined the opportunity.

I do not want to be only negative. I said when I was elected a member of the opposition, not only would I criticize when things were wrong but that I would also try to give accolades when things were good.

Some things in the Lobbyists Registration Act are fairly positive, for instance, the increase in the disclosure requirements. If people now want to know who is lobbying who, they will know more than before Bill C-43 is passed. I presume it will be passed next week because of the Liberal majority.

The Reform Party thinks it is important for members of coalitions to be represented and registered so that if there is an association, its registration indicates all its member organizations.

We believe it is important, and this was our amendment, a very significant one, that when a lobbyist or association or corporation they represent receives direct government funding it also be disclosed.

I was asked about that not long ago by a member of the media. I said it really is stage one. Once Canadians find out that they are funding groups whose business it is to step in front of ordinary citizens in order to try to influence government, that funding will soon cease because of public pressure. Obviously there has not been the political will to stop funding lobby groups at this stage. Now that will be disclosed and people will be able to know exactly how much the government is spending on funding these various organizations.

When people know I am sure they will start sending their politicians a message that says stop funding them. That is our goal. There is no doubt in my mind that a lobbyist group should be funded by the people they purport to represent. If they do, they have full legitimacy.

A group whose first lobbying function is to lobby the government for its own funding so that it can continue to exist and then purport to represent a whole bunch of people is just not authentic. It totally minimizes its effectiveness and is a waste of money, besides being an aberration in the democratic process.

I am very pleased that the bill provides for the electronic filing of returns. One of the things we heard is that more and more government is intruding on our lives. It is making report filing more difficult. Certainly Canadians are very aware of that at this time of the year.

Under the Lobbyists Registration Act lobbyists can register and complete their information electronically so it is less onerous. It was a very fine idea to have the time of registration extended. Most of the time it is not urgent for these registrations be filed immediately, when the activity is taking place.

To ask for a final disclosure does two things. It is now required that every six months they bring their file up to date. What makes this good is knowing that it has to be disclosed is in itself a form of control. I think of it the same as when I do my work as a member of Parliament. I try to keep in the back of my mind the objective that we need to write and behave in such a way that anything ever made public will not bring us into disrepute. If we adopt that attitude, ultimately the people of Canada will be the judges. Then we will have a good process.

I need to criticize a little bit. The minister took the occasion in his speech this morning to deal at length with the question of restoring trust and confidence. He talked a bit about some of the current issues. I asked a question and he made a comment that: "The member for Elk Island cannot wait to have his say". It is true. I was trying to get his attention. He was talking about the current problem and giving the government's point of view.

I was trying to get something from the minister but unfortunately he did not respond. How does Bill C-34 solve the problem? I was not heckling him. I was simply trying to get his attention. The minister ignored that and proceeded with his statement, which is fine. In his speech time he is entitled to finish what he has to say.

The reason he could not answer is because Bill C-34 will not solve the problems that come before the House from time to time, including the current questions before the House. We all know what they are.

Issues that are important here are openness and accountability, showing that things are being done right. We could have a situation where things are not being done right and if people never find out about it, they will continue to be done in the wrong way. If we have an openness, a transparency-that is a word which means we can see through things, we can see right to the back of it-then these kinds of problems and issues could be put to rest reasonably quickly.

I do not believe there is sufficient meat in Bill C-34 to achieve the goal. That is regrettable because it was an opportunity for all members of the House to assure the Canadian people that, in fact, their government is honest. I am not implying it is not. I am talking about the assurance part of it. Even if it is honest and if the people perceive differently, then the battle has not been won. It needs to be correctly communicated in such a way that it has credibility.

Bill C-34 fails to do that for a few reasons. I will only have time to state a few of them. I want to use my time to talk later on about the big issue.

First I would like to point out that the red book promised in the 1993 election that the Holtmann report on lobbyists would be enacted. There are a number of areas where that has not been done. One explicit recommendation of the Holtmann report on lobbying, which was a couple of years ago, was that there should be an elimination of the tiers.

I suppose a lobbyist is a lobbyist is a lobbyist. If the purpose is to either procure a government contract or to influence government policy, then they are lobbyists. From the taxpayers' and voters' point of view, it really does not matter whether the association hires an external lobbyist who goes to government or whether the association or organization sends one of their own. That tier distinction for most groups is irrelevant. In every instance a lobbyist is out to influence a government decision. We felt very strongly that the distinction between the tiers should be removed.

I will admit again that I went through a metamorphosis here. At one stage I thought that very strongly, and then for a while I was thinking there is some justification for having a differentiation and perhaps less onerous reporting requirements. However, with further reflection, thought, and analysis, I came back to the conclusion that indeed there should be open and full disclosure of all of them equally.

Another problem is the definition of lobbyists. It is quite clear for association lobbyists and is included in the act that if they do lobbying for pay they are lobbyists and are required to register. However, the way C-34 is written for tier two lobbyists, the association ones, those who represent an organization from

within are only required to register if the lobbying activity, by some undefined definition, is significant.

We think the word "significant" leaves it wide open. In fact, people could be lobbying for a fair amount of time, but if they do very much other work then this two or three day amount of lobbying could be interpreted as insignificant. But if that lobbying is done by a person who has high government contacts, perhaps just a one-hour or two-hour luncheon meeting could have tremendous impact on a government decision. For that not to be disclosed is again a breach of the confidence that Canadian taxpayers are expecting.

Another issue we thought was very important is that there be a disclosure of political ties. This always comes up: So-and-so talked to so-and-so and got this achieved. Who did he or she know? What was the connection?

I know we also attract a large number of people. Just as the Liberals have a large number of supporters, party members, people who work on campaigns, so do we. Anticipating that not long from now we are going to be on the government side, I welcome the disclosure; I welcome the fact that if some time we are over there, there should be a total disclosure of someone who has worked on our campaigns. What's to hide? Why should we try to deceive the Canadian people on an issue like that? That should have been included in this bill.

We also believe that significant political contributions should be registered. We just pegged $1,000 as an arbitrary amount; that could be changed from time to time. But usually, if someone will put down a cheque for $1,000 they are more than just a casual supporter; they are usually people who are highly influential, or at least more influential in the party.

We can see that following the election it could happen that those same people want to try to influence the government. I would like to recommend very strongly that this should be disclosed. Again, what's to hide?

It has been a while since I have conducted 55-minute classes, so my voice is getting a little raspy. The difference is that when I used to teach at the technical institute my students paid attention and learned something. Now that was an unkind statement.

There is one more flaw to discuss before getting to the next section. Another considerable flaw in this bill is that there is no requirement to disclose the name of the government official being lobbied. We require the name of the lobbyist; we require the name of the groups or associations that are represented. But all that needs to be said is that, for example, in the Pearson airport deal the Department of Transport was being lobbied, and I think it would be very useful for Canadian people who judge matters like this if they could have a clear indication of who in the department was being influenced.

I want to talk a little about the ethics counsellor. There are other issues, but I am going to run out of time.

To me, the ethics counsellor is the pivotal point of this whole bill. I would like to begin by commending the government for bringing in the position of an ethics counsellor. It was long overdue. I suppose we could applaud that and say to the Prime Minister and to the government that this is a step forward. Unfortunately, the position of the ethics counsellor will end up being the weakest point of the bill, and it did not have to be. This is most regrettable.

The only time the ethics counsellor is needed is if there is a suspicion. Normally, if there are good relationships between companies or between associations and government, and there is no allegation of wrongdoing, the ethics counsellor can just sit in his office and go about his usual duties.

I would reflect on what the minister spoke about this morning. He talked about the deal with the minister of heritage. He mentioned it at length this morning. When I was trying to get his attention as to what Bill C-43 would do about it, I was hoping he would say that the ethics counsellor will investigate and put the matter at rest. I was trying to give him an out, and he did not bite at the bait; he ignored it.

That is a demonstration of the flaw in this bill. The minister did not recognize that in this particular case, where he claims over and over again that the minister did nothing wrong, the government did nothing wrong and the Prime Minister did nothing wrong, it is not convincing. It is the fox declaring loudly, "I did not eat the chicken", while the feathers are dangling from his mouth. Even if it is right, it requires independence to have credibility.

When we form the government I will welcome an independent ethics counsellor. I want one. If there are allegations that are untrue, I want an ethics counsellor to be able to investigate and to declare to the Canadian people beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was not any kind of influence or pressure and that he has investigated and has found nothing wrong in order to clear the name.

Under this bill the ethics counsellor is appointed by the Prime Minister, he answers to the Prime Minister, and he reports to this House through the registrar general. Everything is done through the government. Usually the allegations are of wrongdoing between a member of the government or a member of the bureaucracy. Any thinking person can see that if the ethics counsellor is appointed by and answerable to and through the government, any minister or the Prime Minister, he is basically unable to do his job. That is most unfortunate. It is most regrettable. That is the greatest missed opportunity in this bill, and it is the one I emphasize the most.

I would like to talk about both sides of this issue. When there is an allegation of wrongdoing there are really only two possibilities, with perhaps some interpretation along the spectrum in between. Let us consider the current issue that is before us in these dealings we have had during question period and in all of our debates this week. Either there is nothing wrong, as everybody over there keeps saying, or there is something wrong.

First, I would like to deal with a supposition. Here is a hypothesis. Let us suppose that in fact there was something that was not right. I want to have an ethics commissioner who has total freedom to investigate and to declare to the public via this House directly that he has investigated and this and this and this is wrong.

The other hypothesis is that there is no wrongdoing. Under our present system and under the one proposed by this bill, if the ethnics counsellor investigates and then says there is nothing wrong, the people of Canada will say we are not really sure we can trust him. It is not because he has not done his job. The current person who holds that office is a person of high esteem and honour. I have no reason to be suspicious of him. However, the man is hampered in his ability to convince the people simply because he lacks the independence of being able to give an independent report. Even if he has done his very best, he is still seen by the people as possibly having been pressured or organized by the Prime Minister, because he is appointed by him and is answerable to him.

We have had a number of cases in which we have asked for the ethics counsellor to investigate. The answer has been no, I am not going to ask him. We have gone on several occasions to the ethnics counsellor directly: "Were you consulted? Have you investigated?" The answer was "No, I have not been asked".

It is true that right now the counsellor is somewhat inhibited because this act has not yet been proclaimed. When it is, I believe that his role will be somewhat strengthened. He will then be empowered to investigate, so that will strengthen his role compared to what it is right now. There is a plus, and once again I applaud the government for that plus.

The negative end of it is that he is still required to table his reports, both the annual report and the reports as a result of an investigation, through the minister, the registrar general. This is ironic. I just point out a possible future flaw, a trap that will catch us. What happens if the registrar general, who is a member of this House, becomes the object of a suspicion and if the ethics counsellor does an investigation of that and then presents his report to the very minister he is investigating? Who will believe him? It does not matter what he says. He could say that everything is okay and no one will believe him. If he says that there is such and such a problem, of course that would be great. Then he would be believed. But it would have greater authenticity if he could have the freedom to answer both ways.

When I plead for the defeat of this bill based largely on the fact that the ethnics counsellor lacks independence, it is because I am looking forward to the day when I want him to have total freedom to convince the Canadian people that the allegations of wrongdoing are false. That is the motivation. There is nothing that is more important than that.

We need to do everything possible to strengthen the legitimacy of the role of the ethics counsellor. I would like to add that the annual reports also should be given directly to this House.

I think of a perfect analogy. When I go across the country-and I have not done too much of that, I have done most of my work in my Elk Island constituency-I visit other people in Saskatchewan and also in Manitoba. When I talk to them, one government official who has almost universal recognition and respect is the auditor general. The auditor general, because of the way he is appointed and the way he reports, is believed. There is no doubt that the flaw in this bill is that the ethnics counsellor will be hampered in his ability to provide believable reports simply because he lacks that independence.

I would like to conclude my statements, Mr. Speaker, by saying simply that this to me is a broken promise. It is an opportunity missed. It is regrettable because, among other things, the red book stated it explicitly. On page 95 it states the ethics counsellor will report directly to Parliament. Had the government fulfilled its red book promise in this legislation it would have been a good response.

I know I cannot comment on votes. Therefore I will not say I regret my amendment was not passed. However, I really commend the positive parts of this bill but I regret we will not be able to support it because of these tremendously important flaws in it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to everything that has been said until now during the debate on the lobbyists registration system and I caught myself thinking that it is quite a paradox that, on this day, Friday, April 28, the House is at third reading of a bill which is at the very heart of our democracy while the government is linked to numerous nepotism and patronage scandals.

This is really something else. I see that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wants to take part in this debate. It is also a paradox that he is allowed to speak without ever rising

from his seat. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is only through your kindness that we can hear what he is saying.

I would like to remind the House of the importance of the lobbying issue. We are not saying that this is an easy question. We are not saying that this is a trivial issue. We are not saying that this is a futile issue, because it deals with the degree of openness the government is ready to allow.

We must remember the words of the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm whose contribution to this debate was so enlightening.

[An hon. member]

Enlightening?

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

Yes, enlightening, and I am weighing my words. I want everyone to know that, were it not for the painstaking, relentless and honest work of the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, this debate would never have reached the level of honesty, integrity and perceptiveness it has reached in this House.

All this to say that the lobbying issue, as we all know, is linked to the willingness of our Parliament to ensure that government decisions, policies and guidelines are developed in the open. No wonder the public is asking for such a piece of legislation, for a tougher law, because the voters generally are much more interested nowadays in public affairs.

Not only are people more interested in public affairs, but this reflex of our fellow citizens to want to know who makes the decisions, on whose behalf they are made and, of course, lastly, who tries to influence them is a very positive sign, a sign which we should welcome with great joy. In short, this bill ensures that all political decisions are taken openly and publicly.

I had a friendly talk a little while ago with the government whip who is, it must be said, a seasoned parliamentarian, an experienced parliamentarian. This man, the governement whip, who is my friend notwithstanding, reminded me that he had spent 12 years in the opposition, a claim that not all parliamentarians can make. Remember the fight he waged when he was in the opposition.

I remember seeing him, of course, I was very young then, but being young is not a life long condition. I remember seeing him intervene virulently in this House and ask the government, which of course was Conservative at the time, as we know, to give Canadian democracy a tougher lobbyists registration act.

What happened in the meantime, since we know that the government whip and his colleagues have not changed? How did these people who, when they were in the opposition, fought so hard for such a bill, come to present such a watered down version now that they form the government? This is a bill that could even be called insignificant.

What happened? Of course, the Liberal Party, which is a continental party, formed the government. As we know, it is taboo for the Liberals to talk about adopting legislation on popular financing of political parties even though, for the sake of fairness, we would have been entitled to expect them to be logical with themselves. Considering the dynamics of politics, we can accept that the government would not bow to the wishes of the opposition, but it is beyond understanding that the Liberals would go so far as to disown their own past.

It is beyond understanding and saddens us. Of course, we could argue that the role of the opposition is to criticize, but you know how the opposition has been responsible, enlightened and forward looking since October 1993. Finally, we turn to independent sources to see what is being said of the bill.

I would like to quote someone who is very influential in Quebec, a journalist-and journalists, like lawyers, command some respect in our society-an intellectual and a graduate of ENAP who began to take an interest in questions of accountability.

Let me quote Gilles Lesage, journalist at Le Devoir. He is a reporter for Le Devoir , a newspaper that the member for Kingston and the Islands should read more often. You will understand that a reporter for Le Devoir has no political ambitions. His criticism is essential to our democracy. I would like to read the first five lines, or so, from his article.

Here is what Gilles Lesage, a moderate and respected figure, had to say. Allow me to quote him particularly for the benefit of the member for Kingston and the Islands. He said: "As well-inspired as it may be, the bill does not even come close to fulfilling the promises made by the Liberals, even though the Liberal action plan for Canada was clear on the need to restore integrity in our parliamentary institutions".

Mr. Lesage was no doubt referring to the red book and to all the speeches made by the Liberal Party's big guns during the election campaign. They talked freely and openly about democracy, parliamentary integrity and transparency.

But let us go back to what Gilles Lesage had to say. He said, and I quote: "The action plan-still talking about the red book-suggested that Canadians should have the right to meet with ministers and senior officials or to be represented in their dealings with the government without having to pay lobbyist fees. It also promised a code of ethics, the appointment of an ethics counsellor reporting to Parliament and the implementation of the Holtmann parliamentary report from June 1993".

None of this is in this bill, except of course for the code of ethics. That is why Canadians are disappointed and that is why our institution is losing its credibility.

The Liberals have always talked from both sides of their mouth, saying one thing when they are on the opposition side and something else when they are on the government side. This runs through the party's history. I could give other examples, but that is the kind of thing that has done the most damage to our democracy.

The Bloc Quebecois, being responsible in its role as the official opposition, has studied this issue with an open mind and with great interest. I think it is worth reminding my colleague, a newly elected member who will surely gain a lot of experience in this House, of the five points proposed by the member for Berthier-Montcalm who, as we know, did a superlative job on this issue. He was even quoted by journalist Gilles Lesage, who wrote: "Mr. Michel Bellehumeur is suggesting five main amendments"-I hope the members of government are listening, especially their whip-"that is: the ethics code should be recognized as a statutory instrument; the ethics counsellor should be appointed by the House of Commons, not by the prime minister; lobbying fees and meetings with ministers and officials should be divulged; tax deductions for lobbying fees should be eliminated; and-last but not least-the distinction between categories of lobbyists should also be eliminated".

This is an outline of the legitimate claims put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. For the main part, these claims also appeared in the red book, which fast became the black book to Canadians. Yet, all these undertakings did not last beyond the official opposition's coming to power.

Let us examine each of these points more closely. As regards the ethics counsellor of course we should remember that the opposition had acquiesced to the suggestion made by the prime minister concerning the incumbent. We contributed and supported that appointment. The problem with the ethics counsellor is that we would have wanted him, considering the importance of his position, to be directly accountable to Parliament. That is neither unreasonable nor unrealistic and it would not require the government to go against its principles. Things are done that way in many situations where you want to give added importance to a certain position and elevate the debate.

Take for example the Chief Electoral Officer who has to be appointed by the House on the basis of a large consensus. We should also recall that in most true parliaments ombudsmen are appointed by the very parliament to which they are accountable. Why does the government insist on making the ethics counsellor work in isolation? Why has the government not taken advantage of what could have been a genuinely democratic measure and could have reconciled us immediately with the government, although momentarily? Why did the government fail to take advantage of such an auspicious situation by making a true democratic gesture? We know the answer. In fact, Liberals are not prepared to do that much in matters of lobbyist registration. They are certainly not prepared to submit a firm policy concerning their influence.

We would have liked the ethics counsellor to be accountable to Parliament appointed for a seven-year term, with the possibility of being reappointed one more time. We would have liked-which is certainly not trivial nor asking too much-the ethics counsellor to have much broader enforcement powers than he now has. As a matter of fact, what is it that is posing a threat?

Let us take very recent examples of government activities, for example what happened to the minister of heritage. Despite being indisputably a noble-hearted man, we must recognize that he is certainly not the most clever minister in this government. Between the moment the Prime Minister suggested that his ethics counsellor be consulted and the moment he advised the House of this decision, three weeks had gone by.

Let us now consider, Mr. Speaker, what is presently happening in the Prime Minister's own circle. Of course, in the last two days, I have come to understand a lot better why the government is standing up for the family. Recently, I had the pleasure of tabling a motion, and I had a hard time understanding why the government was so stubborn. Now I understand that, when the Liberals talk about defending family values, they also mean the importance of defending the close ties between the Prime Minister and his family and friends.

On the whole, the member for Ottawa-Vanier will agree that this bill has no teeth and would have gained from being strengthened. In matters of disclosure for instance, the bill provides for a number of things. A lobbyist must state the role played in the development of legislative proposals, the influence used in the tabling of bills, the making or amending of regulations, the development or amendment of any federal program, the awarding of grants, etc. There are about seven such duties.

Why are lobbyists not required to reveal the special ties they may have with public servants, senior officials and ministers? The government has trivialized things to such a point that lobbyists have to declare the department they had dealings with. As if even the dullest of minds could not guess from the lobbyists' area of activity with which department they had dealings.

The government whip, who waged a hard battle in the past, is now, as the father of psychoanalysis would say, a polymorphous pervert, which means that he changes form with the debate. How is it that no minister, no member stood in the House to demand that lobbyists be required to disclose the names of public servants, senior officials and ministers that they meet?

Mr. Speaker, in political life, as you know very well since you are a wise man, there are some tests of truth. The Lobbyists Registration Act is such a test of truth and we would have wanted the government to be strong. We would have wanted the government, for once in this mandate, to not only be strong, but

to work hand in hand with the opposition parties, since this is not just anything. As a Parliament, as parliamentarians, we could have built a wonderful consensus which would have allowed us to send a clear message to the population, saying: "We, as parliamentarians, agree that public policies which are our prime concern may be developed openly and publicly".

In closing, I would like to say how I am disappointed in the emasculated bill that the government is proposing and how much better it would have been had the government been stronger.

It is still time for the government to rally to the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois.

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

Mr. Speaker, you will certainly agree with me that the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve really understands the problem. This man has exceptional assessment skills. He made extremely fair comments on this debate and on certain qualities of the men and women in this House.

That said, what struck me in the hon. member's speech-and I think his speech is justified-is that he highlighted the differences between what government members said when they were in opposition and what is in Bill C-43 on lobbyists currently being considered at third reading. Moreover, the Liberals even tabled in this House the so-called Zed report, entitled "Rebuilding Trust".

Given what I hear from the Liberals, I think the title should be "Imposing Trust", because that is what the government is doing, forcing Canadians and Quebecers to trust this document. What they have said since taking office 18 months ago is quite different from what they used to say in opposition.

In closing, I would like to ask the hon. member a question, which he will surely be happy to answer. How can he explain, as seriously as possible, the Liberals' shift in policy? What is the most obvious explanation for this change of heart by, among others, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who, when he sat on the opposition side, used to tear his shirt over this, when there is no trace of these elements in Bill C-43? How can the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve explain this extraordinary about-face, because the whole issue of government integrity is an extremely important and serious matter? How can the hon. member explain this?

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

This is a difficult question, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to answer it to the best of my ability.

It should be pointed out first of all that the chief government whip is not easy to pin down. It is therefore difficult to explain his about-faces in any great detail. It seems to me, though, that the answer may lie halfway between human nature and what I would call corporate pressure.

Perhaps you have already given some thought to the fact that Quebec is a step ahead in this respect. It certainly is no small thing that, in a democracy like Quebec, legislation and standards governing public administration were quickly established to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, conflicts of interests are avoided.

I keep saying that I am the son of a labourer. My father made a decent living but not a fortune. You do not have to come from a wealthy family to get into politics, as long as you have an idea to put across. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, for example, decided we would rather be funded through personal contributions.

For my part, when I ran and was elected to represent the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I ran on a $30,000 budget. This amount was made up of modest contributions by individuals who wanted me to become their member of Parliament. The difference between Bloc members and government members, who are under pressure from various sources, is that, when I rise in my place, I know that I do not have to account to a corporate constituency. I know that, whether I speak on drug patents, the recognition of same sex partners or the national AIDS strategy, I do so freely, without any constraints.

But to be able to speak absolutely freely, our election funds have to be clean and the system must ensure that the ties between corporate constituents and elected representatives are clear. The government party, which is made up of honest people for the most part, exposes itself to criticism because it relies on corporate financial backers who have interests and attempt to influence government decisions. That is why it is so difficult to remain honest and keep one's hands clean in politics without clear funding arrangements.

I think that party funding and lobbyists registration are issues that reflect our willingness as parliamentarians to maintain our independence of mind and action.

Let us face it, with respect to the party financing policy and the lobbyists registration system, the Liberals are a traditional party, that is to say a party subject to pressure from the corporate constituency of this country. Again, it is a shame that the Liberal Party did not continue to act the way it did in opposition.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve on his out-of-the-ordinary performance.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I expected the Liberal members to rise in recognition of the hon. member's incredible talent, and particularly because of the appropriateness of his comments. Our colleague provided a very eloquent answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm as to why the Liberal Party, which makes up this government, is now proposing a bill which is not only meaningless, but which also contradicts the views expressed by the Liberals when they were in opposition.

The best possible example is that of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who, when in opposition, constantly denounced the Conservative government and fought tooth and nail to promote integrity. Now, he reminds us of St. Paul, who was struck and fell off his horse. Indeed, the member is now supporting a meaningless and toothless legislation, but one which will allow business to go on as usual. What took place in this House during the past week is very telling.

Every day this week, during oral question period, the official opposition and the Reform Party gave examples of shameless patronage which are in contradiction with the good intentions of the legislation before us.

I would like the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to comment on the two timing displayed by the Liberals, given what they were saying when they sat in opposition and what they are now doing.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member has one minute only to comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, you know I always respect my time limit. I wanted first to point out that the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead looks as tanned as the Minister of Heritage, so he too might have been to Los Angeles.

Finally, this issue might say something about the Minister of Industry's importance in the cabinet. I think it also shows the real influence that minister has. If we were dealing with a minister with real power within the cabinet, surely the legislative results would have been different. But it is really not too late for the Liberals to pull themselves together, and let us hope that, in the coming hours and days, we will see one last instance of the confidence that can still drive this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see my remarks will get a warm welcome on the other side. Earlier today, I listened to comments by members opposite. I listened intently like I always do. I really wonder if they are familiar with the bill before us or just with the person who prepared the notes they read, like good Bloc members who read the propaganda that is prepared either here, by their local branch, or by their jead office or even by somebody else.

I also hear some heckling, not to use another word, on the part of a Reform Party member. He would like to know if I will address all aspects of the bill. I fully intend to.

The hon. member of the Reform Party who is anxiously waiting for me to address particular parts of the bill will need to be reminded of the document of the Liberal Party known as "Creating Opportunity".

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

The red book.