House of Commons Hansard #191 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was lobbyists.
The House resumed from April 28 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.
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak today in opposition to the Lobbyists Registration Act.
When American President Calvin Coolidge was governor of Massachusetts prior to becoming president, the local Polish community wanted him to appoint one of theirs as a judge. There was one lady in particular, a lobbyist, who came to see the president on a regular basis. She pestered him again and again but she could not get him to make the appointment. She showed up at his office on a regular basis and could not get him to make this appointment. Finally an entire delegation of notables descended on him in his office. They came to see him to try to persuade Mr. Coolidge to make this appointment.
When they arrived at his office, Mr. Coolidge sat and stared at the floor. After an uncomfortable silence he said "New carpet". The whole delegation hastily agreed it was a wonderfully new carpet and that he had gotten his money's worth. After a while he said "It cost a lot of money". The delegation again assured him that it was a very beautiful carpet and that indeed he had gotten his money's worth. Finally he looked up at them and said "She wore out the old one trying to get you that judge". They left.
The same Calvin Coolidge wrote in his memoirs that when one is in politics, nine out of ten people who come to lobby you want something they ought not to have. "If you just ignore them", he said, "after three or four minutes they will run out of things to say and they will leave".
If Mr. Coolidge were still in office, we might not need to register lobbyists. We might not need this act. If Mr. Coolidge were still in office, we might not need an ethics counsellor. Old Silent Cal was his own ethics counsellor, and he sure knew how to deal with lobbyists.
Calvin Coolidge did not think that it was the business of government to seize property from the average citizen and redistribute it to the shrill. Unfortunately-I say that judiciously-we have made much progress since then. Now our governments dispose of huge sums of money. Our federal government spends $160 billion a year, and that means that anyone can get very rich on even a small amount of it if they manage to persuade government to dole out the favours.
There are a lot more plums to be shaken from the tree of government. Our governments now relentlessly regulate the economy. If you can get a regulation changed in your favour it means more to you than making a better mouse trap, hiring a better employee, or finding a new and better way of doing an old task. We have seen that with the recent changes to TV regulations. Even when the policy change is a good one, we have to worry about how it was done. Government simply has too many favours at its disposal.
When people lobby government, they almost invariably want something they can get by going to Canadians and asking them for it. They can come to my house and ask me for donations for the various enterprises for which they are looking for funding. They can go to other Canadians, but most Canadians probably would tell them to go play in traffic. What do they do? They come to Ottawa to lobby government for the funds they are looking for.
If we substitute the word "force" for the word "government", we can see how government can achieve what these people are looking for, because government has the means and the power to force people to give up part of their incomes through taxation and take that money and redistribute it to these people who come lobbying in Ottawa.
We have swarms of lobbyists trying to influence government. That means we need laws to regulate them. Unfortunately, this bill does not do the job. This bill does not define lobbying strictly enough and enables people to lobby in everything but name.
It is even worse when we come to ethics counsellors. It is a shame that we need them. I would much rather have politicians who know right from wrong. I lament the day that we went from morals to ethics. It has all been downhill ever since.
If we are to have an ethics counsellor, let us have one with some independence. Let us have the ethics counsellor who is described in the red book, who reports directly to Parliament. Let us have an ethics counsellor who can tell the Prime Minister "No, you are wrong", without fear of getting fired from his job. Let us try to swat the swarm of flies buzzing around Parliament Hill picking up scraps off a bloated budget and carrying them off.
Let us not forget that the reason we have people seeking unseemly favours from government in unseemly ways is that government has become too big. Let us not forget that government has the power to reward friends and supplicants in a way it simply should not. Let us work on putting government back in its box.
Let us remember that if men were devils government would not be possible, but if they were angels it would not be necessary. Let us remember that political philosophy should be occupied not with the question "Who gets to the front of the trough?", but with the question "How can government be strong enough to protect the lives, liberties, and property of its citizens without being strong enough to menace them?" Then we would not have to worry about who the cabinet is meeting with today, who the Prime Minister is related to, or any other questions. That would be real lobbying and ethics reform.
Let us defeat Bill C-43 and get on with that.
Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of Bill C-43, as amended.
The Lobbyists Registration Act is one more initiative of the government to help ensure honesty and integrity in the politics of governance, a key plank in the Liberal platform as laid out in our red book. I am glad to note that members opposite have also found this book to be a valuable reference.
At this juncture allow me to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on Industry, under the able leadership of its chairman, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, for its excellent and timely report, appropriately entitled "Rebuilding Trust".
It was my privilege to have contributed in some small measure to the deliberations of this committee. It was evident then, and my initial impression has since been reinforced by the report, that the committee, composed of members from all political parties, would leave no stone unturned in its effort to report a bill that would ensure that present and future governments will remain honest, open, and accountable. Citizens expect no less.
I indicated earlier that the report's title, "Rebuilding Trust", is most appropriate and timely. Until the last federal election there was an unprecedented level of public cynicism about our national institutions and the political process, about Parliament itself. Citizens saw their system eroded, serving the servants and not the public. That is why integrity in government was a major Liberal platform in 1993.
Keeping his promise, the Prime Minister restated in leading the debate in this House on Bill C-43 that his highest priority was restoring Canadians' faith in their institutions. He reasoned that cynicism ultimately undermines the proper functioning of Canada, eroding our national resolve to work for a better nation. The Prime Minister with these remarks was acknowledging the central role public trust plays in the success of any government, and we all share in this.
Canadians will recall that early in the mandate of this government the EH helicopter contract was cancelled at once, as promised. A $6 billion national infrastructure works program, in concert with the provinces and municipalities, was immediately put in place, as promised. The preceding and the last budgets are on track to reduce Canada's deficit to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product, as promised. Overfishing by foreign fleets, which threatened our already scarce domestic stocks, has been stopped, as promised.
Last but not least, a new Canada health and social transfer program to govern future provincial-federal transfers has been announced to ensure the preservation and strengthening of medicare, as promised.
We have shown Canadians that integrity cannot be preserved simply by paying it lip service. It must take the form of clear, decisive action. Integrity must become a way of public service, a habit of the heart on the part of any government. The Liberal government since assuming office has sent out a strong and clear message that the integrity of our country's institutions is not for sale.
The government and Parliament will serve all Canadians. Bill C-43 is one more indisputable proof of that resolve on the part of this government.
How will Bill C-43 restore and reaffirm public trust in the integrity of our national institutions? There are several ways. By appointing an ethics counsellor, by empowering the ethics counsellor to develop a code of conduct for lobbyists, and by ensuring that lobbyists will have a legal obligation to comply with the code, we can assure Canadians of integrity in our national institutions and therefore regain their trust.
By insisting that a code of conduct will have to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee before it comes into full effect, we can ensure that all political perspectives will have input into the substance of the code. By requiring that the ethics counsellor must investigate breaches of the code and submit a detailed report of each investigation to Parliament, we can ensure there will not be a whitewash. By ensuring that the ethics counsellor reports to Parliament annually, we can ensure there will be ongoing vigilance.
Some members opposite have argued that the code of conduct as proposed is not a regulatory text and not enforceable in law. There is a far greater document than law. Codes of conduct of various professional societies and trades have proven to be effective tools in ensuring exemplary conduct on the part of their members. I am confident that elected officials will rise to the challenge called for by the new code of conduct.
Some members opposite have also argued that appointment of the ethics counsellor by the governor in council is not too independent a process. I remind the members opposite have far greater faith in the integrity of our citizens, in the integrity of our appointees, in the integrity of our officials who assume office through the appointment process. One classic example is that of our judiciary system. Our Supreme Court is one such shining example.
The process of assuming office is not as critical as the integrity of the people who have assumed office. Let us not prejudge the integrity of our ethics counsellor.
Other colleagues from the government side have already spoken on the many other positive aspects of Bill C-43, includ-
ing the area of disclosure. There will be disclosure of fees and disclosure of government funding for associations.
Allow me to recall once more for my colleagues opposite and for all colleagues in the House that we have gone a long way since 1993 in terms of the rebuilding of public trust. The mood of Canadians has greatly changed, from cynicism in 1993 to optimism today.
The Canadian people have placed their trust in the Liberal government. I am honoured to serve with the government. Not only has it restored economic life, not only has it reduced the federal deficit, not only has it created jobs, not only has it restored public institutions and infrastructures, this government has also restored integrity in governance.
Integrity is once again a way of public service, and we have all benefited from this change. Parliament is the highest court in the land where the voices of Canadians, rich and poor, men and women, young and old, are heard and given equal strength.
It is said that members of Parliament should reflect the fears and hopes of their constituents today and in the future. I agree and we agree. I also say that we must reflect the hopes of our constituents of yesterday whose time honoured values include integrity, which continues to guide decisions we make today.
I am delighted to support Bill C-43 which marks the dawn of a renewed era in Canadian politics, integrity in governance, and thereby restore the nobility of our chosen profession in the House.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be more a comment than a question, although I am sure the member will want to respond to it.
He indicated that we have spoken about the lack of independence of the counsellor. Then he went on to say that he had more faith in these people than that. So do we. That is why I think the process, as defined, is so very unfortunate.
The person in the position right now is an honourable person. It certainly is not a goal of mine to see if I can find where someone has made an error. That is not my goal. I have not found anything on him. I do not think there is anything of a serious nature or anything at all.
He is a man of integrity. He is a man that can be trusted. Unfortunately, because he is appointed by the Prime Minister, because he answers to the Prime Minister and because there is no independence from that particular role, the individual can be as honest and as clean as the day is long but he will not be able authentically to convince Canadian people of it. Try as he might, because of that close relationship there will always be people who have not forgotten the previous government, even on the assumption that there is nothing wrong with the government. I do not buy that, by the way. Everyone has problems from time to time.
When we form the government next time I am sure there will be allegations made about us. That is when I want the ethics counsellor to be independent. When false allegations are made the person who makes an investigation and reports on them must be truly seen to be independent so that he is trusted. Then when he says there is nothing wrong it will be taken as a true statement instead of one that is manipulated. That is why we are saying that the ethics counsellor should be totally independent from cabinet and from the Prime Minister.
The added problem in Bill C-43 is that both the ethics counsellor and the registrar report through the minister. There have been comments on that point: "What is wrong with that? Don't we trust our ministers?" Yes, we do, but if there is a true or false allegation against any minister, particularly the minister who will act as registrar general, the case is totally weakened by the fact that he would bring forward the report on himself. No one would believe it and it might be totally true. That is what is so unfortunate.
Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the conclusion in his comments was that anything via the appointment process is inherently bad and that anything by election is inherently good. Otherwise he would not have made a comment.
Sad as it may be, even some elected members of Parliament have been corrupt in the past so an election is no guarantee. We need citizens who will serve the country with integrity.
The justices of the Supreme Court have been appointed to office but have retained their independence. The independence of an official is not related to the process; it is related to the soul of the individual. If the member were to be appointed by the government to an office in the future, he would think just as independently as anyone would.
The appointment process does not in any way take away from the true independence of the appointed Canadian citizen. I have faith in our citizenry.
Also in the bill is the area of public scrutiny, scrutiny by the highest court of the land, by the House, when allegations can be substantiated to show the disappearance of independence on the part of the appointee. Then members of Parliament have an obligation to point it out to the Canadian public.
I am not afraid of the appointment process. I would like my colleagues to have more faith in our officials. Appointment as a
process is not the only answer. We need officials with the highest level of integrity. I am convinced the government with its bill and commitment to keep its promises has already shown the Canadian public it is serious about integrity. I would like my colleague to have faith in us.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way missed the point. It is not that I do not have faith. Those of us within these walls have a high level of faith in one another across party lines. I do. I look at Liberal members and I do not see any reason to accuse them wholesale of wanting somehow to deceive the public. I do not observe that. From time to time allegations are made. I am not the one who has to have faith; it is the Canadian people.
Why was this section included in the red book if it was not as a response to the lack of faith Canadians have developed over the last number of years? I am sure they would be happiest if we said over the previous nine years before the last election. There is no doubt that Canadians in general have lost a lot of faith in government officials because of things that have gone on, things that have been exposed and things that have been wrong.
We need an ethics counsellor who is independent and is seen to be independent by the public so that he has real credibility when he makes the pronouncement that it is an innocent case. He should have total freedom and not in any way be perceived to be under any pressure from the Prime Minister or any cabinet minister when he is conducting an investigation so that he will be believed regardless of how he calls the investigation.
Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, how can the member say he has faith in the ethics counsellor at the same time as he says the person could be manipulated and his report may not be believed because he has been appointed to that office? How can we believe the member has complete faith in the person when at the same time he would say that the person can be manipulated?
Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC
Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-43, the Liberal government has as usual ignored the real problems.
With this bill to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other acts, the government has not resolved anything. What this Parliament needs is not another bill but above all a code of conduct for lobby groups, which wield excessive powers in this country.
To go on and conclude that lobbyists are leading the country seems to be the logical step. True enough. We know that lobbying activities have always been part of the Canadian political scene. Over the years, these activities have become an important component of the political process. Between 1969 and 1985, some 20 private members' bills dealing with this issue were tabled in the House of Commons.
All these bills were motivated by the same reason, the same need, the same desire, that is, to make the government more open and democratic. The fact that we are being asked to address this issue again today means that we have not made as much progress as we hoped.
As I read this bill, it occurred to me that, between the time when election promises were made and the time when they were put into law, lobbyists probably dictated the final version of Bill C-43, which would account for this abrupt turnaround in Liberal policy. I would like to caution this government against dissociating itself from these groups, as we all remember that the Government of Canada started being influenced by lobbyists as far back as 1969, under the Trudeau government, of which the current Prime Minister was an active member.
Let us remember the role played by lobbyists in developing the free trade agreement and the goods and services tax. Remember also the role played by the Business Council on National Issues, the most powerful and active lobby in this country. In fact, to join, you have to be president of one Canada's top 150 corporations. Together, members of this select circle manage $975 billion and employ 1.5 million Canadians, or 12 per cent of the country's labour force. It is therefore fair to say that this group has power, or a hold, over the government.
We also know that the members of this organization make generous donations to campaign funds, whether Conservative or Liberal. Must I remind members of the influence this group had on the Mulroney government when the Meech agreements were passed in 1990? As members will recall, the Mulroney government had hired Ronald Watts to act as the brain behind the constitutional strategy. But what everyone here may not know is that Mr. Watts was the expert adviser of the Business Council on National Issues at the time. Just think of how much influence he had and was able to bring to bear on the government.
I would even go further and say that the kind of lobbying practised in Canada is causing this country to become dehumanized.
In his memoirs, a former Quebec Premier, René Lévesque, refers to a meeting which took place in 1982 with a Bank of Canada official who was obsessed with the fight against inflation, but showed very little concern about unemployment.
As you can see, central bank officials change, but their obsession remains the same. Why? Simply because of the lobbyists, whose companies prefer to maintain unemployment high, so as to have access to cheap manpower.
When the party in office claims to want to put people back to work, we have to wonder, since its cannot do anything against powerful lobbies.
This is why members opposite are not so irked by a referendum campaign, since it provides them with an opportunity to avoid the real problems which they cannot solve, such as job creation.
I am only asking the government to fulfil a commitment made last June, when the Prime Minister said that initiatives relating to transparency, including Bill C-43, would give unprecedented transparency to the federal administration. The events of the last 15 days give you an idea of this transparency.
There can be no doubt about the power of lobbyists. According to an article published in a London newspaper in December 1992, there were 149 rich men and women in Canada. These are the people who run the country. These rich men and women are of course the members of the Business Council on National Issues. This is a group which, I say again, makes financial contributions to the Conservative and Liberal parties.
The credibility of the Parliament of Canada is undermined by such headlines. The time has come to act and this is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking that all lobbyists be subjected to the same disclosure rules.
Nobody in this House would be surprised to hear that, as usual, the government, contrary to its red book commitments, even refuses to subject all professional lobbyists, that is those who influence the government for essentially economic reasons, to the same disclosure rules. Why? What is the government's interest? Who is it trying to protect? Who is it trying to please? We hope those questions will be answered.
Obviously, clauses concerning the ethics counsellor need to be closely scrutinized. One of the main functions of the counsellor should be to prepare a code of conduct for lobbyists. Properly designed, that code could increase public awareness of lobbying and reduce improper conduct on the part of lobbyists. I hope that code would have a greater impact than the Lobbyists Registration Act itself.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the member opposite had to say. Towards the end of his speech, he indicated that he would like all lobbyists to be subject to the same rules.
That would mean for example that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the UPA and the Red Cross would be subject to the same onerous rules as the large lobbying firms set up here, in Ottawa.
I do not know if the member was there when the parliamentary committee considered the bill, but the groups I just mentioned, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, for example, told the committee that the rules should not be the same for them and for the large Canadian lobbying firms.
Can the hon. member tell us why he disagrees with the proposal which was made by the Dairy Farmers of Canada to the parliamentary committee and which the government has implemented?
Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to answer this question. First of all, lobbying can be divided into two categories. The first category is the kind of lobbying where fundamental problems concerning basic principles are discussed, whether they be moral principles, work principles, or whatever. The other category is the economic lobbying category. These lobbyists are the ones that I am talking about. Just take as an example the events which took place over the last few weeks. Think about Power Corporation and Power DirecTv. These two examples are enough to give the members opposite pause.
I want to add that when we talk about integrity and transparency in this area, we are talking precisely about fiscal integrity and transparency. You organize dinners at $1,000 a plate. What ordinary citizen can afford a dinner at that price? It is Power Corporation who will buy 10, 15, 20 or 25 tickets at $1,000 each and give them to their friends. Is that your idea of transparency?
The Bloc Quebecois is simply saying no to that. All we want is to improve the integrity of parliamentarians.
Lobbyists Registration ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Before returning the floor to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for a supplementary question, I would remind you, dear colleagues, that all remarks must be addressed to the Chair.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, judging by his response, I think the hon. member misunderstood my question. He said in his remarks that all lobbyists-I wrote it down as he went along-that all lobbyists should be subject to the same rules.
In the answer he tried to give us, he acknowledged himself that lobbyists were not all on an equal footing. He said that some people dealing with certain types of matters should, by dint of circumstance, come under stricter rules, if I understood correctly.
I therefore repeat my earlier request. In the bill, the rules governing organizations such as farm federations or similar groups will be less strict. Why does the hon. member want the rules to be just as strict in the case of farm federations and of the
Canadian association of dairy producers, which testified before the committee requesting more relaxed rules for its members? Why does he oppose the position of these organizations? I am trying to be clearer than I was the last time.
Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member opposite understood perfectly the answer I gave earlier. He understood every word, but he chose to interpret it in his own way. However, I do not agree with his interpretation. I do not agree, because once again, the rules must be the same for lobbyists involved in the financial sector.
I understand what he is getting at. He would like to stifle the activities of pressure groups as well, but that is not the point. We will not prevent lobbying on issues pertaining to unemployment insurance, student loans and post-secondary education. We will not prevent lobbying in those areas, except in the case of financial lobbyists, when the time comes to pass strict laws that will help the old-time parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, show a little more integrity and more transparency in their operations.
Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's opinion on lobbying and I realize that lobbying is a legitimate activity. Parties with interests at stake have the right to heighten the awareness of others to them. What is not right is carrying on these representations secretly, furtively, which can in no way serve the public interest.
My colleague mentioned in his speech that the legislative branch, the House of Commons, has a role to play. And I, as an MP-this needs to be said-often get the feeling that outside influences, especially from high finance, force a decision to go a certain way, and they leave no trace leading to the truth or even to information which would shed some light on what is being hidden behind the masks and the empty gestures.
For two weeks, several questions have been asked in this House regarding who is responsible for the satellite broadcasting issue, and, overall, the issue is extremely clouded.
Therefore, we do not want to prohibit lobbying but to make it transparent so that the House can really protect the public's interests.
I would like my honourable colleague to respond to the comments I have just made.
Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to point out that his comments show that he did not really listen to my speech, but only grasped two or three words from it, on which he based his incomprehensible gibberish that he probably does not even understand himself.
I will quote exactly what I said in my speech: "Nobody in this House would be surprised to hear that, as usual, the government-your Liberal government-contrary to its red book commitments-".
Lobbyists Registration ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Order please. I already took a few moments earlier and I will do it again. I must remind you that, to the greatest extent possible, all statements must be made through the Chair.
Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will continue quoting from my speech: "-the government, contrary to the red book commitments"-I know it is shocking-"refuses that all professional lobbyists, that is to say those who influence the government for purely economic reasons, be made to abide by the same disclosure rules". This is what I said. I was referring to lobbyists whose goals are essentially economic. I differentiate between the two categories. So, when it comes to lobbyists whose goals are essentially economic, their name, interests and rules should be disclosed, just as we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are not afraid to publish the list of taxpayers who contribute to our election fund, since we do not accept gifts from companies.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-43, the Lobbyists Registration Act, and to express some of my concerns and frustrations with the continuing saga of the sophistry of the Liberal Party, which is using clever but misleading arguments to encourage and to instil confidence in the Canadian public that what it is doing is in their best interests.
In the long run, at the end of the day and at the end of the term, when we see the results of that party's futile efforts, finally we will see that all the things the Reform Party and a lot of the things the Bloc Québécois are saying about this government will come true. We will see the facts and know that all the sophistry has done nothing but keep the Prime Minister high in the polls.
During the next election I know there will be Liberal members taking pride in initiatives such as this bill and the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate to establish a code of ethics. They will say the government has restored integrity to the Canadian parliamentary system. They will talk about how they kept all their promises in the Liberal red book, despite the fact that the Reform Party has already pointed out about 20 broken promises.
The Liberals are against recall. They do not want recall. They do not want to have a certain member in their party who has been expelled from caucus; that member is representing over 100,000 people, was elected as a Liberal, and sits in the House as an independent. That should be an embarrassment to Liberals, but they say the best form of recall-and this will come back to haunt them-is at election time. The Prime Minister has said "That is the time when they can vote me out. That is the time
when we will be held accountable." I am here to remind Liberal members that they will be held accountable. The people of Ontario, who voted with their feet the last time, just might vote with their feet again in 1997.
They talk about pension reform, the relaxation of party discipline, open and honest government. Restoring integrity to politicians is what is in the red book. We know politicians have a poor name, probably because of the most immediate past government. Nevertheless, this government is starting to develop that same arrogance, that same defiant way, where its members feel they can do anything they want to do, when they want to do it, how they want to do it, behind closed doors.
For instance, let us look at the incident that is being debated in the House now, with the direct to home satellite service, and the performance of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to date. As we all know, we questioned his judgment and we questioned his competence when he wrote a letter to the CRTC, an agency that is supposed to report to him on an arm's length basis, suggesting that a certain constituent of his receive a radio application. That was a breach of his cabinet oath, yet nothing happened. This was run by the ethics counsellor, who also in the red book, the Prime Minister promised, would answer to Parliament.
I will come back to that issue in a second, because the Reform critic has done an excellent job of pointing out things that he feels should be repeated at this point in time.
This bill talks about elements like integrity and ethics. When we talk about integrity and ethics we have to show transparency, we have to show consistency, and we have to keep our promises.
An order in council came forth this past week saying that we believe in fair and open competition, we believe that Canadians want competition, and we are working in the best interests of Canadians; therefore, Power Corp. should have the right to compete for direct to home satellite services. So be it. If the government was really consistent in its philosophy and if it really had any integrity at all, it would have to be consistent. To be consistent, the government must also revisit the decision of the CRTC, which at this point was consistent in both of its decisions, because it wanted to protect Canadian culture. Both of those decisions were rendered in the name of Canadian culture. One is overturned by an order in council, which is an unprecedented use of power. It is using a sledgehammer when a little hammer would do.
What did the government do with the other decision, about the monopoly granted to Rogers cable system, that only Canadian programming would be on there, and the new stations that were awarded? It excluded the country music cable station from the United States.
If this government really has integrity, if this government has any morals at all, it will be consistent with their order in council on the direct to home television decision and it will have another order in council ordering the CRTC to reverse its decision on Rogers and allow CMT to compete openly with Canadians.
We now have to compete as Canadian football players with Americans in the CFL. We now have free trade. We now have open borders. If we are going to compete, let us compete. Let us not just do it on the basis of keeping it all in the family.
That is what is wrong with this bill, the very thing we are talking about this week, about the transparency of transactions where government gets itself involved with businesses. Power Corporation and those people who are representing the satellite services run a business. They make a profit. They want the government's help. They needed the government's help to come into this picture so that they could compete with Expressvu, which has spent $200 million. They were using Canadian services, Canadian satellites. The CRTC was consistent, but this government orders an order in council.
We have the right to question that. Did Power Corporation lobby? Was there any company hired to lobby on behalf of Power Corporation? Was there any need for a lobby? Somebody said the Liberal Party is a lobby. I like that line.
Joking aside, if there were a need, how would the Lobbyists Registration Act, Bill C-43, aid, benefit, and help this process and keep it transparent so that the Canadian public does not question the integrity and the ethics of the government politicians?
I want to hold up my Prime Minister and that cabinet in esteem. I want to criticize wrong policies. I never want to have to question their ethics, their morals, or their intent. That is not what we should be here for.
In the way it happened, an order in council, why. On the basis of a three person committee? On that three person committee there was a former law partner of the Prime Minister, an individual who runs a company that is owned by Bronfman, and another individual who was appointed deputy minister by Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau. They were all deputy ministers, I heard somebody say today; I believe it was the government whip. They all were working in the bureaucracy. They got solicitations. They got a hundred or so letters, we were told in answer to a question in question period. Let us make those letters public. Let us find out what those people said before they made their recommendation. We cannot get to the bottom of this.
This bill is important. We should have lobbyists register. We should have them register as per what was said in the red book. They are breaking another promise. Where is the ethics and the integrity in breaking another promise?
The positive elements of the bill are that it does increase the disclosure requirements for lobbyists, especially for tier two, in house. Another positive is that any lobbyists whose clients are coalitions will have to disclose the membership for that coalition so that we know exactly the size of the group we are dealing with. It also adds government funding and the subject matter of a lobbying proposal to disclosure requirements. It allows for electronic filing of returns. It increases the statute of limitations for investigations from six months to two years. That is about it for the positives.
On the negatives, the bill classifies lobbyists not on what they do but rather who they work for. They should be defined by their activities, not their employers. All professional lobbyists should be treated the same. Further, the red book promises that the recommendations from the 1992 unanimous Holtmann report will be implemented by the Liberal government. Removal of the tiers was an explicit Holtmann report recommendation.
A lobbyist is defined as someone who lobbies as a significant part of their duties. John Turner, who may only lobby two or three times a year, can make a case that he is not a significant lobbyist and therefore he does not have to register. A better definition is someone who is paid to attempt to influence the government.
There is nothing wrong with having lobbyists, but let us make sure it is open and transparent and above board.
The bill does not address the problem of using past and current political ties to gain access and influence. Past political positions held and political donations should be declared. The fees paid to lobbyists are not included on the list of disclosure requirements even though when in opposition the Liberals insisted on it and the chief government whip wrote a report calling for disclosure.
It would help to show when there has been a massive lobbying campaign on any one side of an issue like the Charlottetown accord. The bill specifies that the individual lobbyist must register but he need not disclose the name of the government official he is lobbying.
For the Pearson deal we would only know that the Department of Transport was lobbied but we would not know who the individuals were. This sends a message that specific lobbyists must be held accountable but not specific public office holders.
Who in the Department of Transport was lobbied? That is what we have to know. The bill has a loophole whereby any meeting initiated by a public office holder need not be disclosed. This is obviously a major flaw because, as Jean Chenier of The Lobby Monitor said, ``Any lobbyist who cannot get an invitation from a public servant is not worth his retainer''.
The bill completely ignores anti-avoidance schemes. Even with the relatively uncomplicated act before the bill there were anti-avoidance schemes developed. Not dealing with them is a problem, another Holtmann report recommendation ignored.
We also suggest the registrar who administers the act be given the power to perform random audits to better ensure lobbyists are complying with the provisions of the act. That is a very solid and concrete recommendation or proposal by the Reform Party.
The bill also touches on the ethics counsellor. The biggest scam perpetrated on the House is in the red book. It is quite clear. It is on page 95: "The ethics counsellor will report directly to Parliament".
The ethics counsellor was hired. We know the gentleman's name. We are not questioning his ability. We are questioning to whom the ethics counsellor reports. It is to the Prime Minister, directly to the Prime Minister.
He is not a watchdog, which is what an ethics counsellor should be, on behalf of Parliament to restore integrity and to restore politicians to the high standards they were held in back in the old days. He is not a watchdog, he is a lapdog.
If the Prime Minister is involved in a situation in which there are close family ties-and there is no accusation of wrongdoing, none whatsoever-we want the process to be transparent and the ethics counsellor to be able to say to the House that it is transparent. The fact that the gentleman is the Prime Minister's son-in-law should have no bearing on the decision rendered in cabinet. The order in council should be above board. They should be in the best interest of all Canadians. There is no more to it.
We want to be able to trust and accept unequivocally the decisions of the ethics counsellor. We cannot do that now because the ethics counsellor answers directly to the Prime Minister. He does not answer to Parliament. It is a direct violation, another promise of the Liberal government in its red book.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
That is not rubbish. It is on page 95. Nod your head if you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that in the red book it says the ethics counsellor is supposed to report to Parliament or to the Prime Minister. I know you cannot nod your head. I withdraw the request.
The ethics counsellor must investigate any time he has reason to believe there has been a breach in the code of conduct for lobbyists and he must report his findings. He must also file an annual report on the operation of his office. That is a good element.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
I will say it again because I hear members opposite saying it is not true. I would not stand here in the House and say that the Liberal promise is not in the red book. I would not do that. The authors of the red book promised an ethics counsellor would report to Parliament. The ethics counsellor does not report to Parliament and all those geniuses jabbering on the other side better get their facts straight. It is a direct violation, a broken promise.
Along with the government we wish to restore integrity to politicians. We have to get there from here because there is a long way to go. The book On the Take has cast a negative light on all politicians.
I am a rookie politician. I am a politician now by profession because I get paid for it, but in my heart and in my mind I am still a businessman. I know what I thought two years ago when I was on the outside looking in here at what these people were doing. I was not too happy about that. I was so frustrated that I decided to run.
Now I am hoping that by being here and being able to express my point of view I can now say I would like to restore integrity to politicians. The government should be listening rather than talking. I know some of its members are very talented and can talk and listen at the same time, but not too many people are able to do that.
When I accuse the government of sophistry, which is no more than using clever but misleading arguments for a false conclusion, sleight of hand is another good way of saying it, my concern is it talks about the great and wonderful things it is doing for the country when it really is not. It is letting Canadians down.
It has bills like the Lobbyists Registration Act and the motion today for a joint committee on a code of ethics, a joint committee with the Senate and the House of Commons to enact a bill that would define the code of ethics. Why is there a need for all this?
Two months ago the Prime Minister said in the House that we have all these things in place. Cabinet ministers must take all sorts of oaths. We have to take oaths as members of Parliament. We have all sorts of rules controlling what we can and cannot do. We are into about six levels of controls to ensure we restore respectability for parliamentarians.
We want to know what is happening in the bureaucracy. We want to know who is in charge. The Lobbyists Registration Act does make a lobbyist register who they are lobbying with within the department. Are they seeing the deputy minister? Are they seeing Mr. Dodge? The Canadian public should know that after a meeting with Mr. Dodge he changed his mind on a certain issue or that his recommendation changed. There is nothing wrong with that. That is a positive. That is not a negative and yet the government will not put that in.
We have about three or four strong recommendations for the bill and we will continue to put them forward in the interest of all parliamentarians and in the best interest of some lobbyists. There may be some former politicians who after a couple of years off could come back and be lobbyists, and they would be darn good lobbyists, to help their reputation, to help them build on the experience they have gained by working in government so they can help other Canadians. Through open disclosure and the rules working both ways, I believe the bill could help a lot of people within government.
The bill is another example of the feel good, talk good, do nothing government that likes to tell us everything it is doing is wonderful and there is no room for improvement. I am sorry to hear that. With my intervention today I hope maybe one or two of these suggestions I have made may stick, although I rather doubt it.
Lobbyists Registration ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Before I go to questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Centre in his intervention used the word "sophistry" and really piqued my curiosity. He did describe the meaning of the word but I had to go through Webster's new dictionary of synonyms and the concise Oxford dictionary to find out exactly the meaning of the word.
On another note, at one point in his intervention he asked the Chair to participate in some way in the debate by nodding. The last time I nodded I was at a friend's farm and ended up buying something I did not want and have never used since.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, that was a very wise ruling on your part. I will try to remember it when I attend the next farm auction as well.
He indicated he favoured the removal of the tiers for the different categories of lobbyists for the purpose of registration. This subject came up some minutes before the member started his speech. I have to repeat a question I asked of another hon. member.
The Dairy Farmers of Canada and a number of other groups testified before our committee. They indicated it was unfair to apply rules to them. I can imagine it would be unfair to apply to the Dairy Farmers of Canada and to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Red Cross the same kind of rules we would apply to Earnscliffe or S.A. Murray Consulting or any one of those consultant lobbyists. The member has advocated we should do this.
Does he not agree that for the kind of groups I have identified the requirements should be different? If he agrees with me, why is he making this criticism?
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the intervention. It was a very good comment. I do not agree with the member because if these groups are asked to come to the standing committee or if they come to the House and go through the offices of members and want to give information, that is okay if it is strictly giving information. However, some are here to influence MPs, to lobby MPs. A lot of people come into my office and try to set up meetings to tell me what their problems are, what the solutions are and to suggest what I should consider, that maybe I should vote a certain way on a bill.
As soon as they start talking about how I should vote or how I should look at a certain situation that basically is influence peddling.
