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".