Debates of May 3rd, 1995

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

The House resumed from May 1, 1995, 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

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-43 which concerns the registration of lobbyists.

The recent publication of the committee report on Bill C-43 has shown once again that the Liberal Government and the Bloc Quebecois have widely differing views of the work of lobbyists and the framework that should regulate their activities.

My first comment, and I realize Mr. Speaker, that I cannot show it because it is against the rules of this House, but I would nevertheless like to say that the colour of the document does not necessarily reflect the title, which is about restoring confidence, since the document in question is red. I would even call it a Liberal red.

My second comment is that although this red document comes after a Liberal red book we saw during the election campaign, it is pretty obvious that this version is quite different from what we read in the initial red book.

Lately this government has shown, by its conduct, that it has decided to govern under pressure from lobbies hired by large corporations and financial interests instead of governing in the best interests of the people of this country. Recent excesses in this respect by the Liberal government occurred in the matter involving the CRTC and Power DirecTv, a subsidiary of Power Corporation headed by none other than the Prime Minister's son-in-law.

Let us see how the government managed to discredit itself in this affair. Everything started in the spring of 1993, when the CRTC indicated that it wanted to encourage the development of a Canadian industry involved in direct-to-home services by satellite, the so-called DTH. Last August, the Expressvu consortium, a competitor of Power DirecTv, obtained an exemption from licensing, allowing it to offer DTH to future subscribers.

The CRTC granted this exemption because Expressvu intended to use one or more Canadian satellites. Power Corporation planned to use the satellites and programming used by its American associate, DirecTv Inc. That is why Power's subsidiary did not qualify for an exemption from licensing by the CRTC.

Unfortunately for Expressvu, Power DirecTv had a direct line to the Prime Minister. Recently, the Liberal government tabled two orders obliging all DTH companies to obtain a licence-orders that were tailored to meet the demands of Power DirecTv. These orders had the effect of taking the advantage away from Expressvu, a consortium that, unlike Power, had decided to offer its subscribers Canadian content.

I may recall that Expressvu planned to begin operations on September 1 this year. By taking this unprecedented action, the Liberal government blithely ignored the independence of a regulatory agency that also has quasi-judicial powers to enforce legislation and regulations pertaining to telecommunications.

This was a serious decision. In the process the Government of Canada adopted a measure that will take effect retroactively and thus have a negative impact on a Canadian corporation-a procedure that flies in the face of all the traditions of democratic countries. Furthermore, the government is sending a message to the entire DTH industry that it no longer intends to support the development of a Canadian industry.

If the legislation applied by the CRTC no longer serves to ensure the development of the Canadian communications industry, what purpose does it serve? The government must stop hiding and must make public its intentions-if indeed the legislation serves no purpose.

The worst part of all this is that it occurred because the president of Power Corporation had the good fortune-and there is no mistake there-to marry the daughter of the Prime Minister. The ties between Power Corporation and the Liberals do not stop there, as I will demonstrate.

Here are a few examples. The current president of Power DirecTv, Joel Bell, was Pierre Trudeau's economic adviser and was designated by him to launch Investment Canada. The president of Power Corporation, as the head of the China-Canada business council, organized the economic part of last November's trip by the Prime Minister and Team Canada to Asia. Former Prime Minister Trudeau continues to sit on the international board of Power Corporation.

In addition to being the Prime Minister's son-in-law, André Desmarais was his assistant in the early 1980s when he was Minister of Justice. John Rae, vice-president of Power Corporation, directed two leadership campaigns for the current Prime Minister and the 1993 federal election campaign for the Liberals, and so on and so forth.

The government's shady dealings do not, however, stop at this. While some are well married, others, like the Minister of Canadian Heritage, have, it would seem, the incredible good fortune to find themselves at the site of one of the most spectacular financial deals of the century, claiming all the while that they were not involved. This story does not lack for interest either. It could even be made into an excellent sitcom with the film and television talents of our neighbours, the Americans.

A journalist with the Journal de Montréal even wrote last week that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, like the hero of the film Forrest Gump , has the ability to be involved almost incognito in the major events of his time.

Here are the facts. Three weeks ago, Edgar Bronfman Junior, an American citizen, and Seagram announced the acquisition of the American cinematographic giant MCA-a multi-billion dollar deal. This announcement was made in a hotel in Los Angeles. Well, surprise, surprise, the Minister of Canadian Heritage just happened to be in the room next door.

No problem up to this point, at least no apparent one. It must be said, however, that MCA owns 20 per cent of the shares of Cineplex, a Canadian company controlled by another branch of the Bronfman family. And it must be said that MCA wants to make off with Cineplex by amalgamating with Dallas-based Cinemark USA Inc.

Yet, the presence of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in Los Angeles got me thinking. In fact, it appears that Edgar Bronfman Junior's attempt to convince the federal government that MCA is a Canadian company is working. He hopes that this will permit him to escape Investment Canada's scrutiny.

Need I remind you that the government's official policy is that companies dealing in cultural goods must be controlled by Canadian interests, which explains why Mr. Bronfman is trying to put on a Canadian identity.

After the astonishing performance of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in California, Mr. Bronfman will certainly gain what he set out to gain by bringing the minister to Los Angeles in the first place. It should come as no surprise then that the population is becoming increasingly put off, especially young people. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I am the official opposition's youth critic. My meetings and discussions with young people have made it clear to me just how much they have lost trust in the political machine. Hardly surprising, given the topic of discussion over the past few weeks.

Along the same lines, there was the Pearson airport scandal over the previous government's privatization proposal. The Nixon report, a report regarding the privatization contract which was signed when the election campaign was in full swing, was handed to the Liberal government on November 29, 1993.

This report incriminated beyond a doubt the lobbyists, public servants and political assistants involved. There are several questions which remain to be answered regarding the identity of unethical lobbyists and the illegal or illegitimate conduct of public servants and political assistants in this case. Up to now, the government has preferred to turn a blind eye and to be closemouthed about the information contained in the report, even though these grim events compromise the credibility of our democratic institutions. The demands of the Bloc Quebecois to have the government shed some light on this pitiful remnant of the Conservative era have fallen on deaf ears, up to now.

Of course, the government will claim that it appointed an ethics counsellor to navigate the murky waters of its contacts with lobbyists. Unfortunately, when the heritage minister once again tripped up by writing to the CRTC, which comes under his authority, a letter supporting the licence application of one of his constituents, it took the Prime Minister three weeks to consult his ethics counsellor on this most sensitive issue.

By waiting so long, the Prime Minister himself proved how little importance he attached to his own ethics counsellor. Furthermore, he refused to reveal to the House the gist of the ethics counsellor's recommendations. Such lack of transparency can only lead people to believe that the government has something to hide. The Bloc Quebecois reviewed Bill C-43, an act aimed at monitoring the activities of lobbyists, in all good faith. A strong piece of legislation is essential to help our democratic institutions deal with the wave of public scepticism surrounding the affairs of government.

Even if Bill C-43 brings about some improvements in the somewhat incestuous relationship existing between elected officials and lobbyists, they fall short of the Liberals' commitments as stated in their own red book, the first one, the campaign one.

According to the ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister, even if Bill C-43 had been in force at the time, it would not have helped Canadians to learn more about the troubling events surrounding the attempted privatization of Pearson airport.

The Bloc Quebecois presented interesting proposals giving more teeth to the bill in order to make the process more transparent and to restore public confidence in the management of the affairs of government. The issue of monitoring lobbyists should not be the sole responsibility of a political party, a Prime minister, or a government, because it belongs to an essential

democratic institution, the House of Commons, which is made up of representatives duly elected by the people.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing that the ethics counsellor be appointed for seven years by Parliament rather than by the party in power. This ethics counsellor, whose appointment is permanent, should be accountable to Parliament and should also have the authority to conduct public inquiries and report on his activities, findings, conclusions and reasons for his conclusions to the House of Commons.

In short, the ethics counsellor should be more than a toothless watchdog serving his political masters and therefore vulnerable to pressure. The Bloc Quebecois also asked that all classes of lobbyists be merged into a single one. We also asked that all lobbyists be subject to the same information disclosure rules.

This recommendation shows the constructive, non-partisan spirit that guided the Bloc Quebecois in its consideration of Bill C-43. In fact, this recommendation can be found in the June 1993 Holtmann report, which is the basis for the Liberal commitments regarding the use of lobbyists and the disclosure of their activities. That is why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, do not understand the Liberals' refusal to implement this recommendation, which is included in their red book.

The strict disclosure provisions proposed in the Holtmann report would allow the population to find out quickly about a lobbyist's status. Since lobbyists try to influence public policy to further private interests, their activities and identities should be disclosed to the public.

I would now like to address the issue of lobbyists' contracts. This bill exempts in-house corporate lobbyists from reporting information on their contracts, although consultant lobbyists are required to report this information. Again, legislators should learn from the aborted attempt to privatize Pearson airport. If the bill is adopted without changes, businesses may be tempted to hire only in-house corporate lobbyists for megaprojects such as the privatization of Pearson airport.

Greater transparency in that regard would certainly be to their advantage, as it would put an end to biases against them as well as sometimes questionable speculations about their income. I would like to say, however, that the purpose of a lobbyists registration act is not to regulate the profession, although Parliament has the right, and even the duty, to supervise the functioning of the public administration that lobbyists try to influence.

The close ties connecting a large number of lobbyists to public officials, politicians and their political staff in the Pearson airport affair demonstrated the magnitude of the problem. Yet, the press was not allowed to disclose the troubling facts surrounding the Pearson airport deal to the general public until the privatization process was over. This sorry affair, which had repercussions on taxpayers, could have been avoided had legislation been in place to prevent the kind of uncontrolled skids that have sullied this privatization attempt.

It is therefore reasonable that those who seek to influence the actions of an administration should also be subject to public scrutiny. Let us be clear on one thing: in a democracy, it is normal for organizations, businesses and lobbies to solicit support from the elected representatives of the people. This is totally legitimate. What is unacceptable, however, is that individuals and businesses who can afford to do so get tax deductions for their lobbying expenses. This has the effect of disadvantaging even more those organizations which cannot afford to counteract the pressure brought to bear by businesses that can afford to hire lobbyists.

That is why we recommend that tax deductions for lobbying fees be abolished. Also missing in Bill C-43 is a provision forbidding lobbyists from circumventing the act. Here again, that provision was included in the Holtmann report which the Liberals appreciated so much when it was tabled.

The government should, if its commitments are sincere, include a clause to prevent avoidance of the law. Secret rules between lobbyists and public office holders are another problem. They contribute to the mistrust of Canadians toward elected representatives. That is why we ask the government to give the status of statutory instrument to the code of conduct of public office holders.

This debate is an opportunity for the Liberal government to demonstrate to the public that it really wants more openness in the dealings of lobbyists with the federal government. The recommendations of the Bloc are not meant to promote the image of a specific political party. They would be a great service rendered to all politicians in this House and to other public office holders.

This whole issue is too important to be left to partisan debate. It is the price we have to pay to restore public trust in our democratic institutions. Another great means to restore that trust would be to pass legislation on political party fundraising. That would contribute to renewed confidence in the operation of the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for understanding so well the issues involved in this very important legislation, Bill C-43.

During the election campaign, the Liberals came up with their famous red book. We heard a lot about it, since that document

included all the election promises which the Liberals were supposedly going to implement if elected.

The Liberals are now in office. In their red book, they pledged to implement the recommendations of the Holtmann report. That report was drafted by a parliamentary committee which specifically looked at the issue of lobbying. The recommendations made in the Holtmann report went very far as regards different tiers of lobbyists, as well as disclosure.

A number of witnesses appeared before the current committee, the Zed committee, which tabled a report which is another red book. Red books keep coming out, but they are not all the same. This one contradicts the election promises made, since it does not go as far as the Holtmann report recommended.

The government seems to be trying to create some confusion in this regard and I would like the hon. member to tell me one thing. The Liberal government is claiming to go farther than the Holtmann report, for example with the appointment of an ethics counsellor. Is that not terrific, Mr. Speaker? However, if you take a closer look, you realize that the ethics counsellor is really just a puppet controlled by the Prime Minister. Indeed, that person is appointed by the Prime Minister and will first report to the Prime Minister, behind closed doors. We, members of the official opposition, will know little about the counsellor's work, in terms of the analysis, research, inquiry and investigation conducted.

The member referred to two very important issues, namely the whole episode involving the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his secret visit to the United States on behalf of friends of the government, as well as the Pearson saga, which also benefited friends of the government. Whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, the result is invariably the same: the rich benefit at the expense of the poor.

My question is this: If the ethics counsellor were appointed by Parliament and accountable to it, to us elected members, would it help reach the objective of Bill C-43, which is to promote transparency? I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Lévis, I should explain that, generally speaking, the Chair seeks to recognize a member from another party to let him or her ask a question, rather than giving the floor to another member from the same party.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot refer to the absence of hon. members in this House, but you are right to point out that, since there are no Liberal members to ask me questions, a question was put to me by our own critic. This is a little unusual, since we are having a debate today. To have a debate, it usually takes two opposing sides to present the pros and cons of a bill. This is the way it has always been since Greek Antiquity, since the beginning of democracy. True democracy began with debates.

Today, I was able to speak to this bill a little earlier than expected because no member of the Liberal Party wished to speak. And now, after my speech, I have one hon. member from our own side of the House asking me questions. This is a bit surprising.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm for the really remarkable job he has done on this issue.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

He wrote the dissenting opinion himself and his document was very carefully thought out. I think what he did was very important-and I am not saying that just to flatter him-but, thanks to his work, we can condemn the Liberal government for taking too much time, in my opinion, to fulfil a promise it made.

Let me come back to the specific question that was put to me: should the ethics counsellor be accountable to the House? I think it would not set a precedent since, as you and I know, Mr. Speaker, the auditor general reports to the House on financial matters relating to the operation of the government. Why should it be different when we deal with ethics, a more technical aspect of the operation of the machinery of government? If there is one thing that can help us restore trust, as proposed in the document, it is the kind of proposal made by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, which would help to improve government operations and especially restore trust.

You may wonder why a sovereignist who expects to take part in a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty would make recommendations which could apply for the next seven years. This just shows you the non-partisan way the Bloc Quebecois is speaking to this bill. We even said to Canada, our future neighbours-because we do like English Canadians-that we all ought to do a really good job in this instance, so that we can pass on to our future neighbours a House of Commons and a machinery of government that are truly open and honest.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill today.

I listened carefully to the hon. member from the Bloc. When he started talking about the non-partisan way that the Bloc was speaking to the bill, I thought I might have to leave the room for fear that lightning would strike through the ceiling at any time. However we are far enough apart that perhaps it would not have affected me.

I spoke to some amendments to this bill a short time ago and outlined some of the things I felt the bill lacked. The Liberal red book made a promise on which all Liberals ran in the election. That promise basically said that a Liberal government wanted most desperately to return integrity to our political institution and that such integrity had to be restored.

That is a heck of a statement and it played well with many Canadians. Canadians had lost much confidence and trust in the way government did business. Canada was in a very sorry state. I know I felt apathy from the electors in my election campaign. The most common comment I heard was: "Listen, I hear what you are saying, but politicians are all the same. Once you get there it is a different world. The deals are made behind closed doors. Going there with a noble cause like Don Quixote is not going to do any good because there is no integrity left in that place in Ottawa".

At the same time the Liberals were saying: "We are going there and if we form the government, we are going to restore integrity".

When Bill C-43, an act to control the activities of lobbyists and people that are influenced by lobbyists first became available my first reaction was that the Liberals were to do something. They were to put some visibility into how lobbyists operate within the confines of ministerial and government offices with all bureaucrats alike.

When I picked up the bill and started reading I had great expectations. I thought that finally the Liberals would fulfil a promise of the red book. I almost said blue book because we have made that same promise. When we become the government next time and address the subject of lobbyists, we will do something far better than Bill C-43.

I looked for things like the establishment of an ethics counsellor. This was a tremendous step. Then I started reading about how the ethics counsellor was to be established and was very surprised to see that the counsellor who was to look into the activities of all members of Parliament-Liberal, Bloc, Reform Party and Independents-was to be chosen and appointed not by the members of Parliament, as one would expect for an independent person, but by the Prime Minister.

I said to myself: "This really doesn't sound right. My understanding of an ethics counsellor, who looks after the dealings of Parliament, the people that work in government, should be someone who would come before the entire House of Commons, present his or her credentials and have the approval of Parliament as a whole". This is not the case.

We have an ethics counsellor who is appointed by the Prime Minister. I do not know but perhaps he is a Liberal. The Prime Minister said it is hard to find anyone in the country who is not a Liberal any more because so many people voted for the Liberal Party. Therefore one has to assume this independent ethics counsellor could possibly be a Liberal.

I also looked for comfort in the ethics counsellor. Once I found that he would not be independent I looked for some comfort. I thought: "Even though he was chosen by the Prime Minister, perhaps he may have to report to Parliament". I read the bill looking for these key phrases and I found that he does not have to report to Parliament. He reports directly back to the very person who appointed him in the first place. I thought: "This doesn't sound like an independent ethics counsellor". I was really let down from my great expectations of at least restoring some integrity and honesty to the government and to the way things are done in the House.

One of my colleagues put together an amendment that would bring the ethics counsellor into a true position of independence. The amendment said basically that the ethics counsellor would be approved by Parliament as a whole. The ethics counsellor would create a code of ethics under which lobbyists and government people alike would have to operate. The ethics counsellor would also have to report to Parliament. I thought this was a good amendment.

My hon. colleague spent a lot of time working on this amendment. I was very surprised to see it defeated by the Liberal government, the same government that in the red book said it wanted to return some integrity to government. If its promises could be believed why would it reject an amendment that really created a truly independent ethics counsellor?

I read on a little further and I realized that it was almost like when my wife sets out to make bread. If she uses all the other ingredients but forgets to put some yeast in the dough, we do not have much of a loaf of bread by the time it is cooked. It is very flat. That is what has happened to this bill. It has no yeast in it. It does not have the essential ingredients that will send a clear message to the people of Canada and to the members of other parties that the Liberal government is serious about returning integrity and honesty to government.

When I spoke last week I said, and I may have surprised some of my colleagues, that I do not have too much of a problem personally with the job lobbyists do around here. I know what the game is all about. They are basically marketing people who come to Ottawa on behalf of companies or special interest groups to try to sell their client's point of view to government. It is a job. If they do it well they are very successful. I do not have any problem with someone making a living in the marketing business, lobbyist or otherwise.

I really do have a problem with people in government who are in positions of trust, in positions of power, in positions of influence and how they react to lobbyists. In my opinion it is not so much the lobbyists that the ethnics counsellor should be

concerned with. He or she should be concerned with the people in government.

Without the structure in place, without the independence that the ethics counsellor could freely operate under, basically that person's hands are tied. There is no way that person is going to have independence when it is a personal appointment by the Prime Minister, where the position is not approved by the House of Commons as a whole and where the ethics counsellor would not have to report back to Parliament.

Some instances have come up during this Parliament, some most recently where an independent ethics counsellor could answer questions that are on the minds of the Canadian people. I would like to talk about two of the most recent ones which just came to light the other day about the grant to the port of Belledune.

About two weeks ago the Minister of Transport said to the press very plainly that there would be not one red cent of government grant money going to the port of Belledune as long as he was the Minister of Transport. He said: "I wouldn't even give a dime in grant money for the port of Saint John". That was two weeks ago.

A couple of days ago we found that in fact the Minister of Transport from his own department is granting about $4.5 million to this port project and another $1.5 million is apparently coming from some other department. In that two-week period something happened to facilitate this complete turnaround in the mind of the Minister of Transport. What was that? I suggest someone possibly lobbied the Minister of Transport. When a minister of his stature does a complete turn around in two weeks, I am sure there are a lot of people in the maritimes wondering what happened; he said one thing and then two weeks later said another thing, totally opposite.

That question in the minds of Canadians and in the minds of a lot of members could be answered if we had a true ethics counsellor who represented all members of Parliament. He would be independent to look at that.

As a private member I could go to the ethics counsellor and present a written inquiry: "I am concerned about this. Why did the Minister of Transport say two weeks ago he would give no grant money and then two weeks later he said he would, to the tune of $6 million?"

This is a small amount compared with some others. We can talk about the highways project involving the minister of public works. It appears there was some backroom dealing and now the minister of public works is being questioned about possibly influencing the diversion of some funds allotted to one project over another area of the province. These are questions people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have. They are asking: "What happened here? The minister of public works said one thing and now he does another thing".

If we had an independent ethics counsellor then private members from all parties in the House would have the freedom to receive inquiries from everywhere in Canada about what government bureaucracy is doing, what ministers are doing, what any other representative of the government is doing with tax dollars, why they are making these decisions. We do not have that freedom now. If integrity, honesty and visibility are ever to be restored to the House then we must have it.

Some parts of the bill I thought were reasonably positive; the part which increases the disclosure requirements for lobbyists, especially to tier two in-house lobbyist. As I have said before, I do not have as much of a problem with lobbyists as some of my colleagues have. I have more problem with the government, but that is a positive.

The bill talks about lobbyists whose clients are coalitions and will have disclose the membership of the coalition. Finally the Canadian people should have the opportunity to see what special interest groups are lobbying the government for special favours or more money.

The bill will add government funding and the subject matter of lobbying proposal to disclosure requirements. That is a good part of the bill. It extends the statute of limitations for investigations from six months to two years. Those are all good things.

All of the good parts of the bill are negated because there is no independence in any type of inquiry that could result from an incident. I listed the positives and I used a very short part of the page to list the negatives. Surprisingly enough it was quite a bit longer. I am sure my colleagues came up with the same results.

I want to talk about some of the negatives. This bill classifies lobbyists not on what they do but whom they work for. Lobbyists should be defined by their activities, not their employers. Who employs them is really of no consequence. The focus should be on what they are doing on the Hill.

In our opinion all professional lobbyists should be treated the same. The red book promises recommendations from the 1992 unanimous Holtmann report would be implemented by the Liberal government. Removal of the tiers was an explicit Holtmann report recommendation. This has not been done.

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 the case that this is not a significant part of his duties, but what he does may have a significant

impact on government. He may be able to have a significant impact on decision making.

We have many cases in which questions have arisen in the House about the activities of government which simply cannot be answered because we do not have a mechanism by which to have an independent inquiry into those questions. Recently we have talked about the direct to home satellite episode. We have talked, as we did today in the House, about the Seagram episode. We have talked about the Pearson episode and now we are having a public inquiry into it. That is good, but a public inquiry may have been averted if we had a position in the House where an independent inquiry could have been made by someone designated by all members of the House.

Probably one of the more questionable policies the government has undertaken is the infamous credit card infrastructure program. We spent day after day as Reformers telling the Canadian people about some of the incredible projects in the infrastructure program. My colleague from Calgary talked about the expensive box seats at the Calgary Saddledome. Could one suspect there was some lobbying done in that instance? What kind of conversations went on behind closed doors? We could even talk about the situation in the Prime Minister's riding of the now infamous canoe hall of fame.

The list goes on and on. One could stand here for a full 20 minutes to bring up circumstances or happenings which have raised questions in the minds of the Canadian people as to how the government does business, why these decisions were made, exactly who were the lobbyists who did the influencing and how much influence they had on government officials who were placed in a position of trust.

There are three words which sum up what Canadian people are looking for in the House not being addressed by this bill: accountability, legitimacy and autonomy: accountability of MPs, ministers and people in positions of trust in government, accountability for their decisions and how they use taxpayers' money, and how they make decisions which influence the society in which we live and the morality of the country; legitimacy in the operation of Parliament. People want to see their members representing them in a responsible and legitimate fashion. With respect to autonomy, I speak of the autonomy of an ethics counsellor. It is imperative to the position. Unfortunately in Bill C-43 these three words and what they mean are missing.

Government members stood on many soapboxes during the campaign and promised the people they were speaking to that a Liberal government would bring honesty, integrity and accountability back to Parliament. If they truly believe Bill C-43 is a step in that direction, they have sadly missed the mark.

I am very disappointed our very commonsensical amendments to the bill were not accepted by the Liberal Party. They were defeated. We will continue to speak about accountability, honesty and integrity in the House until the government gets the message. I hope it does some day.

Reformers like to believe we have brought honesty to Parliament. I cannot support Bill C-43 because the essential ingredients to make it a good bill are simply not there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the view expressed by the member of the third party in this House that, to restore the integrity of our democratic institutions, the government has to stop making empty promises that mislead the public. I think that, as the member mentioned, the commitments made by the Liberal Party in its red book and what it is doing now as a government indicate clearly that, once again, we have a government that is constantly misleading the public with regard to certain commitments it made in the past and to the legislation it is introducing to supposedly honour these commitments.

It is not often that I have a chance to say this, but I agree with some of the things that the member said concerning the legislation itself. I understand that he was surprised to see some things in this bill that appeared to be good at first glance. If there is one thing that this government is to be given credit for, it is its ability to hide almost everything it does behind a smoke screen. It gives the impression that it is doing something, which is fairly important for a government. We have to recognize that it is one of this government's strengths. However, once we get through the smoke screen, we realize immediately that there is absolutely nothing behind it, and that is just awful.

The member mentioned this a few moments ago when he said that he was surprised to find in this bill some elements which seemed good at first glance but which, after a closer look, turned out to be just terrible. One example he gave, and rightly so, is the ethics counsellor. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing to have an ethics counsellor. Yes, it is important. Yes, it is important to have investigations. That is what we see in Bill C-43. Yes, it is important to have some kind of report on these investigations. That is what the government is saying. But when we look closely at what is in the bill, we can see that the ethics counsellor is appointed by the Prime Minister, that his investigations are secret and that he will be only required to prepare a report including his findings, his conclusions and the reasons for his conclusions. That is all the proof we are going to have that he has done his job.

If that is not a smoke screen, then I do not know what it is. The Liberals say one thing and do the opposite. They want to be transparent, but there is no transparency in Bill C-43. They want to give credibility to their government, but Bill C-43 will certainly not do the trick. When will they listen to the opposition's demands? This is serious. The official opposition and the

third party moved more than 60 amendments to achieve the desired transparency. Sixty times, the government said no to transparency and no to integrity when we were just trying to help it stick to the promises it made during the election campaign.

I will conclude by asking a question of the hon. member, because I think that he has a very good understanding of the problems with Bill C-43. I now want to get back to the ethics counsellor. Let us suppose that that counsellor is appointed by Parliament and that his or her inquiry report on a specific case, for example the Pearson contract, if it were still an issue, contained not only conclusions, but also the rationale leading to these conclusions. Does the hon. member think that that would give us the transparency that Bill C-43 is supposed to bring to the system?

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concurrence with my remarks.

In order to obtain the integrity of this House and the transparency and the visibility the Canadian people are looking for one has to have a truly independent ethics counsellor.

Perhaps I can give this example. It is almost like two baseball teams playing a game of baseball. If the umpire is chosen by both teams to be independent then it is a fine game. However, if the umpire is chosen by only one team then how can the other team have any confidence that it will be a fair game?

That is what the Canadian people are saying. How do they have any confidence in what is happening in government when all the rules are determined by the Liberal government and the opposition party and the Reform Party do not have input into some very fundamental elements of fairness and integrity in the House?

The Liberals may say they are the government, they have a majority, a majority of the people voted for them. That is fine, but I would like to remind the Liberal Party that there were several million other people in Canada who did not vote for them, and they are looking very closely at what this government is doing. If the Liberal government wants to try to swing their vote the next time, they are looking for the government to give them some message and some reason to vote for them again.

If the Liberal government carries on the way it has been, not fulfilling its promises, even a good majority of its supporters, those who voted for it the last time, will become disillusioned with the fact that the Liberal government has no more intention of delivering visibility in the way it operates than the previous Tory government had.

I hope to remind the Liberal government of what happened to the previous Tory government when it did all its business behind closed doors. That should be a good lesson for this government.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my turn has come to speak to Bill C-43. For those who just arrived and those who, maybe, have just tuned in, I would like to say that Bill C-43 is a bill which the government has tabled to regulate lobbyists on Parliament Hill.

Lobbyists are individuals or associations who represent private interests. There are all kinds of lobbyists. Some represent legitimate associations, such as the Canadian Association of Firefighters, farmers, etc. But there are also more worrisome lobbyists who try to influence the government for the benefit of private interests. Sometimes, these interests do not serve the general public interest, and often represent unjust causes.

This is what the Canadian public is concerned about. We have known for a very long time, maybe a decade or more, that the general public wants lobbying activities to be regulated to make them more transparent, to bring out in the open what exactly it is that lobbyists do. The public is concerned because it knows that the work of lobbyists often leads to abuses of authority. We saw this very recently in a series of troubling cases.

For example, there is the case of the Pearson airport contract. It was mentioned during debate. This was a contract prepared by Conservative and Liberal lobbyists which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. We still do not have all the facts on this matter. However, the Conservative Senate decided, today, to appoint a commission of inquiry into this use of lobbying.

There was also a second case, one which clearly shows how lobbying can vary considerably, the case of bovine somatotropin or BST. This substance is a hormone produced by Monsanto, a pharmaceutical company which wants to introduce BST in Canada to increase milk production. Well, the Monsanto lobbyists managed to influence Health Canada, they even bribed Health Canada officials, so much so that, even though the industry disagrees and the population disagrees, Canada will soon have milk produced through the use of BST. This is the result of a disturbing kind of lobbying.

There was also the case of the Minister of Canadian Heritage who tried to exert influence on an agency under his responsibility. He interceded directly on behalf of one of his constituents.

Really, Bill C-43 on lobbying raises questions of fairness, justice and transparency. It has been said over and over again, we want a bill that would really regulate lobbying because we know there were cases of abuse of power and that colossal sums of money can be taken out of the system for the benefit of some special interests.

This is what Canadians are concerned about. As you know, we have a weakened bill here. At first, what was proposed with Bill C-43 was legislation that had teeth, that members of the opposition could have approved.

The government could have presented a bill offering more transparency in such cases. What happened is that lobbyists themselves intervened in the development of this bill to water it down and weaken it to the point that the bill we are dealing with today is no better than the previous act. It is indeed all smoke and mirrors. As far as control and openness with regard to lobbyists is concerned the situation has not really changed, as evidenced by the government's refusal to put into Bill C-43 the provisions we recommended with regard to the ethics counsellor.

Currently, there is an ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister and that he can consult if he wants. But as we know very well, in the instances I just mentioned, despite abuse of power and disturbing cases of lobbying, the Prime Minister did not consult his ethics counsellor. We know it because he admitted it himself.

So, we now have an ethics counsellor, but the House of Commons cannot turn to him, because the Prime Minister has him in his pocket, so to speak.

We would like to see in the bill a clause providing that the ethics counsellor be appointed by the House and report directly to the House. In that way, the ethics counsellor would be independent enough to intervene in the issues and settle them and would be empowered to investigate even if it means bringing proceedings against lobbyists or people abusing their power.

I think that in this case, the essential condition for a strong piece of legislation that has teeth and that will be respected, is to have an ethics counsellor appointed by the House and reporting directly to the House, and operating sufficiently at arm's length, like the auditor general, to settle issues.

We make that request because there are issues we would like the ethics counsellor to be able to decide. An example would be the whole question of conflicts of interest which has been under discussion for several weeks concerning direct-to-home television broadcasting. This is a case of lobbying that is particularly interesting and even quite disturbing.

You are familiar with that case, but, for the sake of those who are not, let me outline the particulars of the incident we have been dealing with for a couple of weeks. A wholly Canadian company called Expressvu Inc. managed to get the direct television broadcasting contract. Direct broadcasting means programs are transmitted directly by satellite and not through cable companies. Expressvu complied with the rules of the CRTC and its bid got CRTC approval. The whole process had begun several months earlier.

Just when the decision was about to be made in favour of Expressvu, a new company called Power DirecTv came into the picture at the last minute and managed to have the CRTC decision overturned so as to get at least part of that market. We all know that Power DirecTv belongs to the son-in-law of the Prime Minister of Canada.

That is what I call patronage. It is hard to imagine that, in such a case, a private company could act so quickly to set up a network of influences in order to have a CRTC decision overturned by the federal cabinet. That takes some doing. It takes some clout to get the consensus needed in the federal cabinet to overturn a proper decision by the CRTC. This is the first and only time in the history of the CRTC that such a thing has happened. It is really incredible. All this just to further the interests of a fully private corporation chaired by the Prime Minister's son-in-law.

It is really incredible. It takes some clout to do that. That is some kind of lobbying. One might even say that the Liberal government is lobbying for Power Corporation. It is a known fact that Power Corporation has certain ties in Canada. Its network of influences was active throughout the federal government and even put pressure on the very top, the cabinet, in order to have the CRTC decision overturned, a first in the history of the CRTC, all in the interest of a private company which wields a great deal of clout.

In fact, as I said before, one wonders whether the Liberal government was perhaps lobbying for Power Corporation, because the process to promote Power DirecTv included appointing a panel of three former deputy ministers, all friends of Power Corporation and of Mr. Goldenberg, an adviser to the Prime Minister. We know that Michael Pitfield, the senator and former Clerk of the Privy Council, is also a vice-president of Power Corporation. Many of those involved are very, very close to the Prime Minister. They are almost part of a family. In fact, they are family.

So all this raises a number of questions. How did they manage to reverse a decision so quickly, to influence cabinet? Meanwhile, and this is what I find so amazing, they managed to give the impression that the Prime Minister himself was not involved in this decision. That takes some doing.

They managed to give that impression, despite the fact that he was surrounded by friends, neighbours, a son-in-law, former colleagues, and so forth, and they managed to reverse the CRTC's decision. They brazenly claimed that the Prime Minister himself was not involved in this decision, but that is inconceivable. We understand how this could happen when we

realize that Mr. Desmarais, the head of Power Corporation, is a very powerful man in this country. So powerful that he is able to use cabinet to further his own interests and, on top of that, he manages to control the media. That is what he did. He controlled the media. He controlled public opinion in Canada. That is quite a feat.

Normally, if Mr. Desmarais had not been the kind of man he is, if this had been a normal case, once this conspiracy, this massive lobbying on the part of the government in favour of Power Corporation was revealed, the headlines of newspapers across the country would have screamed "Nepotism, Nepotism". The Prime Minister is giving preferential treatment to his son-in-law's company. That is obvious.

The long and the short of it is that, Mr. Desmarais owns the newspaper La Presse in Montreal. He is very close to Conrad Black, who controls nearly all newspapers in Quebec. They both have a major interest in Southam News across Canada, which controls L'Actualité and Maclean's . Now that is power.

This man and his organization, Power Corporation, this is more than a lobby, this goes beyond lobbying. It is a superlobby. Not only did it reverse a CRTC decision, but it also swayed Cabinet in favour of one of Power Corporation's subsidiaries and used the press to influence public opinion.

Why has this case been dropped? After, all it is extremely disquieting. In my opinion, this is reminiscent of the family compact era, which in the 19th century was so damaging for the interests of the state. A few families who controlled money, power and trade were intimately linked with the politicians in power. It caused, as we know, rebellions in both Upper and Lower Canada.

I do not mean to say by this that the issue will spark a rebellion because, obviously, we have come a long way since then. We are a very democratic country, but in essence, we have remained a family compact. It is the family compact revisited. This incident with Power DirecTv is a case in point that the family compact is coming back.

And now, I come back to this doubt, to this suspicion that Power Corporation manipulated public opinion in order to distance the Prime Minister from a decision which has turned out so favourably for a company held by his son-in-law. Who in this country could doubt that the Prime Minister was unaware of this ploy? Legitimately and reasonably we have to assume he was involved even though in the House he has said he did not comment in Cabinet on this matter.

However, that Saturday night, at the home of Paul Desmarais, his daughter's father-in-law, he could have easily discussed it. Do you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker? He could easily have talked it over with his senior adviser, Mr. Goldenberg. Just as he could have spoken to Michael Pitfield or his buddies, there are so many of them. Can we for a moment think that the Prime Minister was not familiar with this matter? Impossible.

I contend that it is definitely a question of honour for the Prime Minister to obtain a decision in favour of Power DirecTv. It is a question of honour, of power and of fine politicking. This is politics at its highest and finest level. We know that all politicians want power. Supreme power is having the ability to do whatever one wants and to be totally above suspicion.

It is a matter of degree of corruption, in fact, because this is a case of corruption. We must not fool ourselves. It is a sign of extraordinary power when you can reach such a level of corruption and be totally above suspicion. For the Prime Minister it is a question of honour. The Prime Minister cannot not know about this matter. He was surely aware of everything that was happening.

He used all his power so that it would pass, because he could not say to his daughter: "My dear, your husband cannot have a favourable decision. We cannot overturn the decision of the CRTC". He could not say such a thing to his daughter or to his son-in-law. The honourable thing would have been for him to say: "My son-in-law, you will have it. Not only will you have it, but no one will suspect that I tipped the balance in your favour". And this is what he did.

How could he live with himself as Prime Minister, honourable and powerful as he is, if he had failed to grant this favour to his son-in-law? I close by saying that this is lobbying at its finest. This one more reason, one of many, why we need clear and very strong legislation and why we should certainly improve Bill C-43.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the presentation of my colleague from the Bloc. I was particularly intrigued with the examples he used of actual blatant lobbying or presumed lobbying, but we do not for sure.

I have to underline what he said in the sense that the process being produced as a result of Bill C-43 falls completely short of having the ability to assure Canadians there is nothing wrong when nothing is wrong. In other words, if there is something wrong here we should have an ethics counsellor who would have total freedom to investigate and so declare it. If there is nothing wrong he should have total freedom and independence so he would be believable. Both these elements are missing in the bill.

It is so important when we talk about Bill C-43 that we also talk about the openness and accountability provided in it and the potential missed by the things not disclosed.

One of the elements that is a source of great annoyance and suspicion to Canadians is lobbyists very often are trading on previous attachments and previous connections.

I would like the member to comment on that aspect of it, whether lobbyists if they are to be required to register should also be required to indicate their previous political work, their political connections, and whether they should be required to indicate things like substantial donations to political parties. That would increase the openness and I suppose it would do a great deal to introduce a self-policing effect to the whole process.

[Translation]

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. The answer is obvious. Of course, we would like to introduce every possible amendment to give more teeth to Bill C-43, which has lost quite a few since it was introduced. We want this bill to be stronger, and every bit of information regarding lobbyists should be disclosed, including their donations to political parties and their political affiliation. All the information should be provided to ensure greater transparency. I justify this disclosure requirement simply because when lobbyists are subject to no controls, no restrictions, obviously this leads to all sorts of abuses.

It is sure, for instance, that if we cannot have an independent ethics counsellor, a counsellor appointed by the House rather than by the Prime Minister, this really puts the value of this bill and the lobbying on Parliament Hill into question. It proves that the general public is right to be seriously concerned about lobbying. Again, the worst of it all is that it affects us personally as politicians because it casts doubt on us. Introducing a bill like Bill C-43 regarding lobbyists brings our political integrity into question because, as politicians, we know that there is corruption and abuse of power in those circles. The fact is that we are in a position to act and pass a bill that would have teeth, but we are not taking advantage of this possibility.

This brings us into disrepute. The public is perfectly justified in questioning the integrity of politicians because, no matter what people say about politicians, I know that there are certain things that we cannot do, like perform miracles. But in this House we have the possibility and power to make a good bill out of a bill like this one. We could make sure that the ethics counsellor is appointed by the House of Commons, thereby ensuring greater transparency in a matter of great concern to the general public.

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

What I find appalling in this is that we have been discussing this matter for two days, accusing the government of all sorts of things, including a lack of openness, and saying that this bill does not achieve the objective set by the government. We have said that government members are reneging on their own election promises. We have said all kinds of things in this House but the Liberals listening to us are not saying anything. Silence means consent. They are not saying anything because we are right. This bill is an empty shell and does not do anything to ensure openness.

I will read some of the clauses so that you can understand why the average citizen thinks this bill is a crock.

With respect to the code of conduct, the bill provides that: "The Governor in Council may designate any person as the Ethics Counsellor for the purposes of this Act". The term "governor in council" means the Prime Minister and his team. This piece of legislation will therefore be administered by a friend of the Prime Minister.

According to another clause, the code of conduct-to be developed by a friend of the Prime Minister who will be appointed to the post of ethics counsellor by the Prime Minister-is not a statutory instrument. The government goes to the trouble of indicating in the bill that the code is not a statutory instrument and should not be implemented as such.

Another clause states that: "The investigation shall be conducted in private". This confirms, once again, that we are right in saying that they were not honest in drafting this bill.

According to another clause, "After conducting an investigation, the Ethics Counsellor shall prepare a report of the investigation, including the findings, conclusions and reasons for his conclusions, and submit it to the Registrar General of Canada". Again, this investigation will be conducted secretly and the Prime Minister will receive a nice report, while we will have to make do with the reasons for the conclusions they will condescend to share with us.

I understand why they feel uncomfortable and do not wish to rise in this House to defend this bill. I will use parliamentary language to avoid being censured. I understand why they do not wish to rise. What I do not understand is why, before this bill was tabled in this House, they did not warn their caucus that they were reneging on their election promises, that the bill did not go far enough. They could have argued that we need transparency because nobody wants to be a member of Parliament anymore. Nobody trusts us any more.

I was a lawyer before I became a member of Parliament. People used to tell me that lawyers had a bad reputation but when I informed them that I wanted to go into politics, they told me, "Are you crazy? It is even worse than being a lawyer".

This bill gives us an opportunity to increase openness, to improve the reputation of members of Parliament. What did they come up with? A mess. Instead of restoring confidence, they are abusing the trust of Canadian taxpayers, and that is unacceptable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Your time has expired. I imagine that the hon. member does not wish to comment.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kamloops-Taxation; the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan-International Trade.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-43. I thank my colleagues for the intercession. It was amazing and perhaps amusing. I can see that the bill generates a little emotion.

Before addressing the specifics of the bill and more specifically the issue of ethics counsellor, I would like to do a little lobbying of my own. This is completely off topic but I know members will understand.

In the years I have sat here there has been nothing more glorious than the stained glass windows of the Chamber in the afternoon sun. I am lobbying on behalf of whoever wants to look at the windows or whoever created them. They are absolutely marvellous, gorgeous. They do not have a whole lot to do with the bill, but they give us a sense of awe.

Those of us elected by the Canadian people have been given a terrific amount of trust. People have entrusted us with virtually everything in terms of laws and legislation that have to do with federal lawmaking. We should be humble and full of awe that somebody chose us. We were the winners of the 1993 election. Those of us on the government benches and those of us on the opposition benches have an incredible responsibility to the people who elected us to try to do the best job we could.

Someone just before me got very emotional about this matter. For the reasons I will continue to lay out, it is important that whatever we do in this place be seen as important, as fair and as upfront to those in the Canadian public who pay the bills for this place such as the bill for the stained glass windows.

As I look at Bill C-43 I wonder from time to time about things I have heard from the government benches and about things I have seen in the red book about honesty and integrity in government. Canadians are seeking real political change. It is not just a matter of for whom to vote in an election, what they should do or who should be put on the government benches. They have sent some loud and clear signals. Certainly in the Charlottetown accord debate in 1992 they asked loudly: "What part of no don't you understand? " They said the accord was dead, deader than dead. They wanted politicians to pay attention and listen to what they had to say.

In 1993 they sent some pretty clear signals as well. The governing party was obliterated because people wanted to be able to trust their politicians. They wanted to make them more responsive and more accountable in the entire political system. We cannot continue to sit in Parliament and say it does not matter, that some folk on the outside watch the parliamentary channel but basically do not know what goes on here.

A former Tory colleague said at a public meeting on the Charlottetown accord in Grand Centre, Alberta: "You people just do not understand". As soon as political people, government members or opposition members, say that the people do not understand, we see a father knows best attitude in the country. That is the first sign to beware.

If we think we have all the answers, we think we are giving the people what they want. However it is not what they want if we are not responsive or accountable. Surely the same fate awaits anyone in the House who makes the assumptions the last government did. In fact they are toast. It is a simple as that.

In all probability most of us, as well as all other Canadians, talked about all the things we were to do. As campaigners and as people running for office we said: "We are going to clean up the system. We are going to do politics differently and we are going to do politics better". That is a quote of someone who is no longer here. She promised to do politics in a different way. She did and will be forever remembered.

We in the 35th Parliament have an opportunity to make some changes to the system. We want to make it more open, responsive and accountable. We have put forward several motions and private members' bills designed to improve the political process and to open up democracy to which we should be paying attention.

Recently we have seen government members being thrown out on their ear from all responsibilities they have. This is not the kind of thing the Canadian public is working toward.

As we look at the bill under lobbying we see more of the same attitude. It is frustrating for me as someone on the opposition side. Many government backbenchers who sat in the last Parliament told the Tories what they were supposed to do, that the system was supposed to be transparent, totally visible. Yet the government is bringing in a bill which seems to be similar to the one of the previous government under Felix Holtmann who chaired a committee and came up with a report.

Let me tell members what it is stated in the red book: "The integrity of government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public view". That is absolutely true. I have to agree with that paragraph of the red book. Lobbyists are seen to be the people who are scurrying around Parliament Hill in people's offices wheeling and dealing and making special deals for themselves or the people whom they represent.

Is the public perception about undue influence, cosy relationships, conflict of interest and influence peddling part of the traditional political process? Is it justified? Unfortunately it is because that is the way it has been.

We have seen an incredible population explosion not just with my generation, the baby boomers, but with the lobbyists. They have mushroomed on Parliament Hill. All of us can look at our daybooks to see that a lot of time is filled up by lobbyists coming to visit. I am sure I do not have quite as many coming to see me in my office as perhaps the minister of heritage. Who knows whether they come to his office or whether he goes to theirs? That is immaterial at this point.

Those who recall the pork barrelling and fervent patronage appointments in the final year of Mr. Trudeau's government remember the words of a certain fellow, Mr. Turner, who said: "I had no option". There are all kinds of options open.

What about folks who have read On the Take ? That is a book I spent some time reading while I was on sick leave. I am not sure if it helped me recuperate or if it made me feel worse. However people will be persuaded when they read these kinds of books. They will wonder how in the world they trusted a person. They put an x beside a name and pay his or her wages. We read of this kind of stuff all the time about somebody receiving so many million dollars and somebody else receiving more.

Those people who study and pay attention to the political process with respect to various government pressures on the decision of the CRTC that we have been witnessing are suspicious and will likely be persuaded as further information becomes available.

Public perceptions are justified. These perceptions are true. Something needs to be done, not just to tinker with something to come up with a new bill but really make some serious changes. Can we do anything to remedy the situation, to foster new and more positive perceptions about the integrity of those who govern, about the political process, and about the lobbying industry? Of course there is something we can do.

A thorough and sensible rewrite of the Lobbyists Registration Act could be part of the remedy. Will Bill C-43 do the job? I do not think it will because there are some gaping holes in it. I would like to refer to a couple of them.

The first hole concerns the ethics counsellor and the lobbyists' code of conduct. The most important component in the process to regulate and control the lobbying industry will be the ethics counsellor. The individual appointed must be highly respected. He or she must carry the confidence of the public that watches all that goes on and pays the bills, as well as the confidence of the House. The ethics counsellor must be powerful with respect to investigative and reporting powers. Most important, the ethics counsellor must have a high degree of independence or autonomy.

In theory that is the way it ought to be. I suspect everyone in the House would agree and everyone watching or reading about it in the newspapers would agree. I am sure they would say that makes sense. In reality that is not the freedom or the autonomy the person will actually receive.

During the last election the Liberals clearly recognized the need to reform the practice of lobbying in Canada. We have heard about it for a long time. Chapter 6 of the red book is the most sensible chapter in the book. We need to see the government act on it. Nothing in the chapter calls for more money, which is refreshing. It was a pleasure to read it because it did not call for a lot of extra cash. Liberals and more cash seem to be synonymous terms. All they are really asking for and all we are asking them to act on is responsive responsible government.

Moreover they recognized the significance of the ethics counsellor to the reform of the practice of lobbying. Let me quote a couple of phrases in chapter 6: "A Liberal government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists". This is a great idea. It looks terrific. I am sure the Bloc would agree that it is a great idea. I am sure Liberal members, both cabinet and backbenchers, would say: "What a terrific idea. It is in the red book. We agree with it, yes, but what happened? There is just that one little word in there, independent".

Mr. Speaker, you and I have seen what has gone on in the last months on TV or in the scrum outside the House. The ethics counsellor was brought in on a couple of things and was virtually muted. That is really unfortunate. It gives him kind of a bad name, poor soul.

I remember when he said: "I cannot really remember the Prime Minister asking me about that," and " I am not really sure I was given the absolute independence to make comments on that". If you are going to make someone independent, then do it. If you are going to give a teenager the right to be independent or to use your car or whatever, then you have to hand over the reins and let him run with it.

Someone gave me a poster which reads: There are two gifts we can give our children; one is roots and the other is wings. If we are going to tell our own children that we have given them the grounding, the roots, that we have established them and it may

be scary but they are on their own when they head off to university, then that is what we have to do for them.

It is also what we have to do for the ethics counsellor. If we have committed to him that he is going to be an independent ethics counsellor, then we have to tell him that we are not tying him to a chain demanding that if he says something we do not like that we are going to yank the chain and bring him back. He must be given that independent authority.

Further on in the red book it says that the ethics counsellor will report directly to Parliament. That would be wonderful and is something that is long overdue. I suspect many Liberal backbenchers and the rat pack particularly were demanding for years that the ethics counsellor report to Parliament so that there would be some teeth to this autonomy.

What do they say now? The report will be to the Prime Minister, cabinet, whomever as long as it is a very small group and it does not come to all of Parliament or is not broadcast on the national news.

There are two essential factors in developing the position of the ethics counsellor. That person would be independent and would report directly to Parliament. Unfortunately this bill does not address those or make sure that those criteria are followed.

It leads me to the question: Why did the Liberals change their minds when they became government? Frankly, what was said in the red book was pretty good. What they did does not add up to what they said in the red book. Do we call this another broken promise? I guess so. There are probably no other options but to call it that.

If I am campaigning and I make a promise, I had better keep it otherwise it is called only one thing and that is a broken promise. Nobody in this country needs any more broken promises from politicians. That is the way it has to be. The only option left to us is that we give people the option of saying: "Yes, I trust you. Yes, I voted for you and yes, you are somebody who said what you were going to do and then did it". We would go a long way in making sure that this bill was going to have some teeth in it if we made those changes.

Why does the government not wish the ethics counsellor to report directly to Parliament? Are we that scary? I hardly think so. We have been given a mandate from the people to be able to scrutinize some of these things. Our being allowed to say that we want to look at something and the ethics counsellor is going to report directly to Parliament is what needs to happen. These things need to be given a full and free airing here on the floor of the House of Commons, not in the cabinet room.

What kind of backsliding is this for a party that talked about governing with integrity? What degree of independence will this ethics counsellor have when required to report to a cabinet minister and held accountable to the Prime Minister? Is this scary? I hardly think so, when he is appointed by the Prime Minister and then has to report to the Prime Minister.

Nothing could be better and nothing could be healthier than reporting to Parliament. If there is something the government needs to be attacked on-I do not like to use that word-but held accountable for, then do it. If there is a problem in a relationship, nothing is healthier than to sit down and talk about it. That is the best thing to do.

If the ethics counsellor were to report to all of Parliament and held accountable to it, then government members may say: "Whoa, we made a mistake". There is nothing wrong with saying: "We have made a mistake". Absolutely nothing. There is no shame in anyone standing up to say: "Hey, I screwed up here. I made a mistake. Please understand. Please forgive me".

My testing ground was in front of a grade 8 classroom. It was the best thing that could have ever prepared me for Parliament. I learned that you better not say: "Here is the answer," and then just launch off on some course you know nothing about and cannot defend but will pretend that you know all about it to those kids. It simply does not work. All of us here should know that by now. If you do not know the answer, say so.

At town hall meetings I get asked all kinds of questions and frankly sometimes I do not have a clue about the answer. I say: "I am really sorry. I cannot tell you the answer but I can probably find it for you. Give me your name, address and phone number and I will get back to you with that information". It is better to do that rather than to look like the quintessential politician who just ravels on for 20 minutes not knowing what you are saying, what you mean and having a whole crowd know that you are simply filling in time. Frankly, you look like an idiot.

It would be best if we said: "Let the person have independence. Let the person report back to Parliament and let us not just fool our way through these kinds of things".

There is no shame in saying: "I made a mistake". If we do something wrong, people will respect us so much more if we just say: "Look, I messed up here. Please understand. Tell me the right answer or give me suggestions".

The government has said from time to time: "Please, you on the opposition benches, give us your suggestions". We do give suggestions but we are just mocked and scorned and madefun of.

I think of my friend, the finance minister. I have a lot of respect for the finance minister. Maybe we do not agree on policy certainly. Surely to heaven if we have some of the best economic minds in the country, like the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound who is internationally renowned, why then can we not put forward a couple of proposals? We go into question period and somebody makes fun of them. It does not accomplish anything. People say: "Here they go again. It is just the political hoop-la of question period".

Let us work together. Surely it does not need to be this partisan. Let us make sure that we can serve the ethics counsellor and he can serve us. There are all kinds of things he could be requested to look into on our behalf that would make things better for us and for the Canadian public. They would feel like they were getting their money's worth in that kind of situation. Surely we can do better.

Let me summarize because I have gone on and on. This bill could have done much to improve the political process in this country to make it more open, responsive and accountable as I talked about earlier.

Unfortunately, perhaps there is some pious intention here as decreed in chapter 6 of the red book which the government simply could not live up to. There is no shame in that. Just say: "Hey, we said a lot in chapter 6. If we cannot live up to it, then that is the way it is. It is a broken promise but at least we admit it is a broken promise. We have not gone far enough to make sure that this ethics counsellor is really accountable, that he is independent and that he will report to Parliament".

Let us make sure that there is no shame lost in a government that would admit that. We know that would refresh the Canadian public beyond the telling of it. I am sure they would applaud as they watched this debate if some substantive changes were made to this bill to make sure that we are not just going along with the political process in the old style.

We are moving toward the next century. Surely we could move our whole political process and the politicians involved in it into a new style of politics as well. Some of us on both sides of the House desperately want to be part of that new political style.

We are encouraging the government to say on this bill: "Come on board. Let us get toward the 21st century. Let us make substantive changes here so that we will be new style politicians".

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, at first I thought the member would stand to congratulate the government on its initiative after waiting a number of years for legislation that deals with the whole question of lobbyists. I was somewhat disappointed to see her turning in circles, repeating herself about 365 times to come back to the beginning and say that she is not happy. I do not know what will make the hon. member happy.

I will share this with the member in case she is not aware of what the committee has done so far. There were a number of amendments, a number of good suggestions that were brought forward by members of the committee and they were adopted by the committee.

The bill, along with all of the other good things in it, will now capture grassroots lobbying. In other words, any registered lobbyist who is involved in grassroots lobbying such as letter writing campaigns must disclose this as a communication technique.

Also, the committee felt very strongly that lobbyists should disclose when they are working on a contingency fee basis. This is not in fact prohibited by contracting policy. As well, from now on informational lobbying will be made easily available to Canadians. Industry Canada will put a registry online across Canada through a 1-800 number and on Internet.

I want also to bring to the attention of my colleague that the committee recognized that organization lobbyists and their goals are different. Most, if not all of them, will be subject to semi-annual update. Also, any organization that lobbies government will have to reveal the sources and the amount of any government funding it receives.

I do not know what the beef is in the hon. member's whole question. Since the government came into power the Prime Minister has appointed an ethics counsellor.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Has appointed.