Mr. Speaker, the issue that was raised is a very serious one, but I will expand on it later on. However, the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs mentioned a number of things the government is supposed to have done.
I think you really have to be as bold as brass to make certain statements. I will not consider each and everyone because I would not have enough time, but I must say I was struck by a reference to the so-called new procedure for expanding the role played by members in this House and in committee, and my comments will be based on my own experience.
You referred to Bill C-43, to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. I was a diligent representative of the Bloc on this committee, so I think I can speak from experience.
It is all very well to introduce new procedures in the House, give the impression that the government is more open and refer the bill, after first reading, to committee so that it can be amended on the basis of information obtained by members in committee, but in practice it does not work out that way. In practice, the minister responsible for this question or the bill comes and tell the committee what to do. In this committee on Bill C-43, the opposition presented 20 amendments to provide more transparency. All 20 were rejected. So what is the difference? The difference is that the minister told us what to do before the hearings began.
Is that the new procedure? Is that what the Liberals are bragging about? I think it takes a lot of nerve to come and say that this morning, and what is worse, say it with a straight face.
I think that if the hon. member bothered to look at what is really happening he would realize that basically nothing has changed. And that is why people are so upset. He said
something very significant to the Reform Party. He said that you cannot change people's impressions with window dressing. And as member of the Bloc Quebecois, I am certainly not the one to tell the hon. member for Saint-Léonard and Secretary of State how to do this. They are past masters at the art of giving the impression they are doing something.
That was only about this particular question, but I could repeat all the examples he gave and prove that he was not talking about the real situation. I wish that in other cases he would reconcile what was done with what they promised in the red book, which said that as part of parliamentary reform, they would expand the role of members in developing legislation, through-
Yes, that is what they did, that is what they gave the impression of doing, but basically, nothing has changed. The minister controls government members in committee, although the membership keeps changing, but in any case, this is an insult to the public's intelligence. I would appreciate the hon. member's comments.