Debates of May 5th, 1995

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr Speaker, today we will answer Questions Nos. 138, 152, and 153.

Question No. 138-

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

How many crimes have been solved as a result of the current handgun registration system, and more specifically what number of ( a ) found, recovered or seized restricted weapons were traced to their registered owners, ( b ) registered owners of restricted weapons have been charged with a firearms related offence as a result of the restricted weapon being traced to them through the registration system, ( c ) restricted weapon registrations were revoked as a consequence of the registered owner being convicted of a criminal offence involving violence towards another person, ( d ) restricted weapon registrations have been revoked as a consequence of the attempted suicide by the registered owner or by another occupant of the household where the restricted weapon is stored, and ( e ) restricted weapons have been used by the registered owner or other occupant of the household in homicides, suicides, and other firearms related crimes?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

No national data are available for question parts (a) through (e). Although it would be very useful for policy making purposes, police have no standard form for reporting this information. To provide national statistics under the present system would be administratively impractical.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has recommended the government establish a system for the registration of all guns because it will assist criminal investigations.

A universal registration system will also support the production of new national statistics. The architects of the system are addressing the feasibility of collecting data on the extent to which the system will assist law enforcement efforts.

Question No. 152-

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

In regard to the authors' meeting sponsored by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration last January 6 and 7 in Vancouver, ( a ) which officials from the government were present and what were their positions, ( b ) provide names of the authors involved and their province of residence, ( c ) how much was spent on this meeting and ( d ) provide an itemized breakdown of how this money was spent?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

The government officials who attended the meeting in Vancouver on January 6 and 7 are as follows:

Robert Blackburn, assistant deputy minister, policy sector; Cameron Dawson, director, citizenship and integration policy division; Richard Nolan, registrar of Canadian citizenship; Sandra Souchotte, acting director, promotion and corporate identity public affairs branch; Naheed Israeli, senior policy advisor, citizenship and integration policy division.

Their level of knowledge of the dossier and their collective responsibility for the eventual advice to the government meant these were the most appropriate officials to work with the writers and to brief them on the many considerations involved in the development of a draft oath of citizenship and a strategy for a citizenship declaration.

The names of the authors and their province of residence are as follows:

Arlette Cousture, Québec; John Gray, British Columbia; Joy Kogawa, British Columbia; Simon Langlois, Québec; Susan Musgrave, Ontario; Nino Ricci, Ontario; Paul Savoie, Ontario; Alain Stanké, Québec; Wilbur Sutherland, Ontario; Rudy Wiebe, Alberta.

Seventeen thousand dollars was spent on this meeting, excluding the participation of the registrar of Canadian citizenship and the public affairs representatives, the cost for which came out of their respective operating budgets.

The following is an itemized breakdown of expenditures. Category amounts are approximate:

Question No. 153-

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

In the wake of the authors' meeting sponsored by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration last January 6 and 7 in Vancouver, ( a ) have any further meetings of the sort been scheduled by, or discussed within the department, and ( b ) what is the size of the budget allocated by the department for these consultations on revisions to the Citizenship Act?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

No further meetings of the sort held on January 6 and 7 in Vancouver are currently scheduled. Consultations with experts are a regular part of the policy making process. Any additional meetings will be held as needed; (b), $40,000 was allocated for consultative purposes on Citizenship Act amendments, of which $17,000 has been spent.

[English]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by numerous residents, many from Kingston, but others from other parts of Canada, in which they call upon Parliament to support an arms embargo against Indonesia. They call upon the Indonesian government to free all political prisoners and end Canadian government funding for the promotion of trade with Indonesia in light of that country's flagrant human rights abuses against the East Timorese.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that Agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I pointed out that Bill C-43 reassured no one. I said that the Liberals should have a "best before" label, a bit like dairy products. They were better before they came to power, better before the elections, better before they lined up at the trough. The fine principles they defended in opposition have evaporated.

I could explain at length the many shortcomings of Bill C-43. My colleague for Berthier-Montcalm has already done so amply. As we are short of time, I will raise two flagrant examples of this change taking place in the Liberal family.

First, the appointment of the ethics counsellor. With great pomp, as usual, the Liberals across from us announced the appointment of an ethics counsellor to advise ministers and government officials and to examine the need to amend the legislation.

These fine principles will not go far, however, if this counsellor is not given some independence from the Prime Minister and his government. Do not forget that the Prime Minister appoints the ethics counsellor, consults him when he sees fit and allows him to make public statements only when they are to his political advantage.

A true ethics counsellor would be accountable to the representatives of the people. All of the counsellor's decisions should be made public. He should have the power to launch investigations and have enforcement powers. Bill C-43 does none of the above. It merely gives the illusion that someone is ensuring that decisions are made ethically, while in reality, the role amounts to nothing.

We are giving the Prime Minister the right to appoint an ethics counsellor, to consult the latter when he feels like it and to keep the counsellor's advice secret unless he decides otherwise. They will have to think of something else if they want to restore the trust of Canadians and Quebecers in our institutions!

Scandals like the attempted privatization of the Pearson airport hit home the need for a bill on the registration of lobbyists. I will not describe in detail all of the underhanded tricks and schemes that came into play in this tainted deal. What is really important is that we remember it as a sad incident in which the government's reputation was tarnished in the eyes of the public.

As it stands, Bill C-43 could not have prevented this kind of scandal, no more than it could shed more light on the suspicious comings and goings of the current Minister of Canadian Heritage. The ethics counsellor does not have the power to set up an investigating committee to get to the bottom of it for Quebecers and Canadians.

The second shortfall of Bill C-43 on which I would like to comment concerns the categorization of lobbyists. The Bloc Quebecois wants to eliminate distinctions between different types of lobbyists. When the Liberals were in the opposition, when they were "best before", they took exactly the same view as the Bloc Quebecois: lobbyists are lobbyists and should be accountable for their actions. Since then, the Liberals reversed their position, probably under pressure from lobbyist friends and contributors to the party coffers.

And speaking of party coffers, when I look at the latest figures on funds raised by political parties in Canada, I can understand why the Liberals are so anxious to change their position on lobbyists. In 1993, the Liberal Party of Canada raised more than

$20 million in political contributions which was, needless to say, the largest amount ever collected by the Liberal Party of Canada during an election year. Last year, in 1994, the Liberals raised $9 million, the largest amount ever collected by the Liberals outside an election year. This year, the Liberals have set their fundraising objective at $10 million.

During the election campaign, the Liberals claimed, and this is again from the red book: "No one should be required to pay fees in order merely to arrange meetings with ministers or senior officials". However, just to give a few recent examples, last Wednesday in Montreal, the Prime Minister met 1,800 people who had each donated $400 to the Liberal Party.

Last month, the Minister of Finance invited members of the business community to a private reception at $1,500 a head, to talk about his budget, and so forth. Are we to understand that the Liberal government's message is: For access to decision makers, instead of investing in lobbies, contribute to the party coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada for a better return on your investment. It seems to be the message an increasing number of Canadians and Quebecers are hearing.

Bill C-43 does nothing to remove this impression. The Bloc Quebecois tried to give this bill some teeth by proposing at least 60 amendments. The Liberals were adamant and rejected all proposals that would have made this a bill with teeth. The obvious conclusion is that for Quebecers, their only hope for more democratic and more transparent institutions lies in sovereignty. Through its bill on political party financing, Quebec has made an important contribution to the resolution of this important ethical matter.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate at third reading on Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. I say with pleasure but also with a certain weariness, because the first speeches I delivered in this House more than a year ago dealt with the privatization of Pearson airport by the previous government. In that speech, I denounced the dubious transactions involving people close to both Tory and Liberal political circles.

Bloc members who spoke up at the time called for the supervision, clarification and regulation of lobbyists' activities in Canada. Reading the bill now before us, I realize that the main demands made by Bloc speakers, the main conditions we wanted to set in order to shed light, once and for all, on lobbyists' activities in Canada, have not been met.

Although we may deplore the fact that lobbying activities take place in a government such as the Canadian government, it must be recognized that, given the financial implications-for example, the federal government signs close to 90,000 contracts every year-, some people may to try to influence the government and meet lawmakers and senior officials with decision-making powers to ensure that regulations, programs and even bills are in their best interests.

Although we understand this situation, we are surprised that this government does not understand the need to monitor the risks of influence and mismanagement so that citizens are fully aware that things are being done properly. The bill before us nonetheless contains a number of improvements. Certain members of the Liberal government now in power had denounced really unfortunate and unacceptable situations when they were in opposition and promised, notably in their red book, drastic measures to regulate the activities of lobbyists.

Going over this bill, one realizes that, while some improvements have been made, major amendments would have been required at committee stage to increase its efficiency in terms of its purposes and to bring it at least slightly more in line with the goals the Liberal Party had set for itself when in opposition as well as with its promises to sort things out once in power.

Many of my colleagues have already spoken on this bill, therefore I will only list a number of flaws or points that should have been corrected in order to allow us, members of the official opposition, to vote for this bill. Since these flaws were not corrected in the legislative process, it will not come as a surprise to anyone to hear me say that, like all Bloc members I think, I will be voting against this bill.

One of the main flaws of this legislation has to do with the whole ethics counsellor issue. At present, no one seems to have the authority to provide advice or guidance to politicians and government employees on certain procedures or actions which may be confusing.

The bill provides for an ethics counsellor to be appointed by the Prime Minister. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will choose an honest and reputable person who will be able to provide enlightened advice. However, this person will have no power and, being appointed by the Prime Minister, neither will he or she have any credibility. The House of Commons, or Parliament, should appoint the ethics counsellor, so as to give that person the prestige, the authority and the protection necessary for someone who will have to provide opinions on actions, representations or projects which often involve enormous expenses for certain people.

We deplore the fact that, while the ethics counsellor will undoubtedly mean well, this person will be subject to the Prime Minister's will in terms of his appointment, and it is the Prime Minister who will govern to a great extent how the ethics counsellor executes his or her mandate.

When we reviewed the transactions surrounding the privatization of Pearson airport, we also asked that there be only one category of lobbyists. As you know, lobbying activities are conducted by various firms, groups and organizations. If someone wants to influence the government or have his or her views expressed to MPs or to some senior public officials, that person can go to a specialized agency which will do what is necessary to convey his or her views to those concerned.

However, there are also other people who lobby while working for various organizations, such as business associations, unions, and all sorts of other groups which hire permanent staff to do so. Some of these permanent employees may be involved in communications or governmental relations and make representations as lobbyists, even though they are not treated in the same way as those who belong to lobbying groups specifically involved in governmental relations. We suggested, in parliamentary committee, that there should only be one category of lobbyists, so that all those involved in the same kind of representations and have the same responsibilities, would also have the same obligations. However, the legislation provides for two categories of lobbyists.

Several other suggestions were also made. We had asked that the fees paid to companies, agencies or individuals for lobbying services be disclosed. They will not be. Lobbyists objected to that. Lobbying experts have told us that this was not possible, that it was not under federal jurisdiction, that there would be problems related to competition and non-disclosure of activities, and that it was not necessary in any case.

I feel it is important that Parliament and the Canadian public be aware of the amount of money involved. Whether a company hands out $2 million or just $20,000 to a government relations agency does make a difference. When huge sums are involved, people who have to watch over lobbying activities would be on the alert.

We would also have liked some clarification on the political ties of lobbyists. The media have pointed out that many former very influential politicians, political staff members and people close to decision makers easily make the transition to a new career in lobbying.

It would have been important to have some kind of registration scheme for lobbyists so that we could determine who did what, what they did subsequently, and whether they hold positions, paid or unpaid, in political organizations. If the president of a Liberal association is active in lobbying, I think the people should know.

I had more points to make to demonstrate that the bill before us is flawed. But my time is running out, and I can only express my disappointment at the lobbying problem we now have in Canada and the unwillingness of the government to keep the promises it made in the last campaign, as set out in the red book. The only legacy of that red book will be the shame of unkept promises.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, that my colleagues have already commented on extensively. I remind the House of the detailed analysis made by the member for Berthier-Montcalm. He explained the many reasons why the Bloc Quebecois would not support the bill.

Without getting into details, I will sum up the eight major flaws of this bill, as mentioned by my colleague. They concern the types of lobbyists, the requirement to disclose contracts, lobbyists' fees, the contacting of ministers and senior officials, the lobbyists' political ties, coalitions, contingency fees and, finally, the whole issue of the ethics counsellor. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois tabled 60 amendments, as my colleagues have already pointed out. They were all negatived.

The major flaw of this bill, the basic problem, is the fact that the ethics counsellor reports only to the Prime Minister. All those things that could enlighten the public will only enlighten the Prime Minister's office.

Again, as I had mentioned in the case of Pearson airport, it is like having a fox guarding the hen house. We all recall the bill to cancel the privatization of Pearson airport. It contained a clause allowing those claiming to have lost future profits to negotiate arrangements in a private meeting with the minister. That also was like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

This analysis of the bill, which was made by my colleagues much better than I could do it now, shows that the government has chosen to use smoke screen tactics in its bills. It says it will take certain actions, but the resulting bills show no sign of openness and everything will be decided by the Prime Minister's inner circle.

These smoke screen tactics have also been used for events that have occurred over the past 10 or 15 days, in this House, regarding two major problems surrounding Power DirecTv and Seagram.

For the benefit of our viewers, I will briefly outline the case of Power DirecTv. Last August, only two weeks after the CRTC announced its decision exempting Canadian satellite broadcasting companies from licencing requirements, the Liberal govern-

ment announced that it intended to review policies concerning direct broadcasting. A first, Mr. Speaker.

On November 29, 1994, the government decided to create a three member task force to review the CRTC decision, which ran contrary to the interests of Power DirecTv and prevented the company from going ahead with its plans; as we know, it wanted to broadcast from an American satellite, which the CRTC found unacceptable.

The task force received briefs from several groups, including Power DirecTv. On April 6, it submitted a detailed report tailor made for Power DirecTv, which is partly owned, as we know, by Power Corporation and Hughes Aircraft of Canada.

On April 26, the government adopted the report's recommendations, verbatim, and tabled two orders, telling Expressvu, a Canadian company, that it must now apply to the CRTC for a licence, thus delaying its going into operation, which was planned for September 1995. And yet, this company had simply abided by the CRTC decision. After that, the CRTC announced that the government could be liable to prosecution. Expressvu believes it has a vested right and I think that it is legally defendable.

And who is the head of Power DirecTv? André Desmarais, son-in-law of the Prime Minister and son of Paul Desmarais, CEO of Power Corporation.

This happened in the House, right here, and it was raised repeatedly during question period.

There was also the Seagram case which is just as obvious. The Minister of Canadian Heritage went incognito to Los Angeles, with two members of his staff, supposedly to meet major players in the U.S. film industry. He got there on the very day the deal to sell MCA to Seagram was signed. Seagram is a Bronfman company, and it just so happens that Paul Desmarais, the father-in-law of the Prime Minister's daughter, is a member of the board.

They say the minister was in the Bronfman suite while the deal was being signed. He denies he was aware of that transaction, which must be reviewed by the Minister of Industry. This review is necessary, it seems, in order to determine whether Seagram is a Canadian or an American company. If it is Canadian, there is no problem, and the investments are exempt from any further investigation. If it is American, Canada will protect its cultural market and will have to review several aspects of the transaction, particularly the buy-back of Canadian subsidiaries. And at that point, the minister, who just happened to be there, will have something to say on the issue.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage will have to be consulted, and there appears to be a conflict of interests.

Of course, the newspapers played the whole thing up and English Canadian newspapers wrote at length about the events surrounding that problem. I had brought here, to read it in the House, a one page article written in English that traces all the family and political ties, the people the Liberals are working for. And, at the heart of all this, we find Power Corporation in both cases.

And all the Prime Minister could say in response to the many questions, both from the Bloc and the Reform Party, is that he certainly had the right to find a good match for his daughter. We agree. But in fact, what we are finding through all this is that the government of Canada, in its agreement, has now become a branch of Power Corporation. So, it is using smoke screen tactics to explain what is actually going on in the House.

It also uses smoke screen tactics in its statements both in the House and outside of the House. For instance, when the Minister of Finance tells us in committee, with a lump in his throat, that we must absolutely tighten our belts, of course, he will tighten the belts of the poor, he will make cuts to unemployment insurance and social welfare, he will raise all the costs relating to post-secondary education, he will probably go after old age pensions, but the finance minister's ships are still sailing under a foreign flag. And then it dawns on us that those who are asking us to tighten our belts always wear suspenders.

The Prime Minister also makes statements in the House and outside of the House. For example, the Liberals said there were problems in Canada because of people who guzzled beer in front of their television set. But oddly enough, and these are smoke screen tactics again, they never talk about champagne drinkers slumped over in hotel lobbies, those who take advantage of tax havens to avoid paying taxes, about family trusts which they do not want to touch, or ever so slightly, if they have to.

They never talk about the hon. Peter Trudeau, who is getting a $1 million tax credit for the papers he is handing back to the government. That is welfare for the rich, Mr. Speaker. Brian Mulroney did the same thing; that too is welfare for the rich.

They hardly ever talk about Paul Tellier, the chairman of CN, who is getting a huge salary, who is having his mortgage paid off by CN at the taxpayers' expense, and who is laying everybody off.

They did talk a little about the $250,000 for new furniture spent by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, while cuts are being made everywhere else. The only answer we got from his department is that furniture is expensive. I was a carpenter and cabinet maker before becoming a member of Parliament, and I can tell you that for $250,000, you can get some really nice furniture.

More smoke screen tactics, when the Prime Minister himself tells us that everything is going wrong in Canada because of Quebec. I do not know how many times I have heard him say that since he has been in politics. He started that as soon as he became a politician, even before he was given a portfolio.

Yet, we realize-I have said it before, but this is worth repeating-that is was in a period of political stability, in the years following the rejection of sovereignty by the people of Quebec in 1980, that Canada experienced interest rates over 20 per cent. So that is exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister said.

It was in 1986, also, that the Canadian dollar tumbled to 69 cents. I remind you that at that time, the Mulroney and Bourassa governments were in office. That was before Meech and Charlottetown, the Bloc Quebecois did not even exist, and the Parti Quebecois was completely out of the picture. Therefore, there is no relationship between the disastrous state of Canada's finances and the political situation in Quebec. Once again, smoke screen tactics.

You will recall another masterminded statement, the one made by the Royal Bank just before Charlottetown, where they said that if Quebecers and Canadians rejected the Charlottetown agreement, it would mean the end of the world. We said no to Charlottetown and the world did not end, but of course this was all orchestrated to scare people. This was also a case of smoke screen tactics.

Let me give you another example of these tactics. The Prime Minister said that Quebec, through its premier, is showing contempt for democracy. I think we should review a bit of our history. Who was responsible for the patriation of the Constitution in 1982? The current Prime Minister. Who was involved in the implementation of the War Measures Act in Quebec? The current Prime Minister. I like to remind people that these measures were taken to scare Quebecers.

I will not say anything more on this issue, except that we also remember the smoke screen tactics used in 1980 when some politicians told us they were betting their seats that there would be some changes. There never were any changes and now, in 1995, our political situation has not changed at all. At the time, they tried to scare us by saying that if we voted yes to sovereignty, we would be crippled with debts, taxes and unemployment.

We said yes to Canada because we wanted to be team players, and what did that get us? Debts, taxes and unemployment. The debt has gone from $90 billion to $550 billion. Unemployment is constantly on the rise. We now have 808,000 people on welfare in Quebec. All this happened within Canada.

We were told it would take us 15 years to get back on our feet. That was in 1980, and now, 15 years later, were are in it up to our necks, and things will only get worse. The Wall Street Journal raised openly the very real possibility that Canada would go bankrupt. All this is part of a smoke screen strategy.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for the second time to Bill-43, which amends the Lobbyists Registration Act.

The first time was when the bill was at second reading and we discussed amendments hoping that we would be able to force the government to take more seriously the promises it made in the red book and also to stand by the positions it took when many of its members were in the opposition and discussed a situation identical to the one in which we find ourselves today.

Unfortunately, like the majority of my colleagues, I feel that I am wasting my breath. However, we are not asking the Liberal Party for anything very special. We are not asking it to attain the goals of the Bloc or the Reform Party. We are only asking it to keep the promises it made in the red book. The promise to tighten controls on lobbyists' activities and make the legislative process or the awarding of government contracts more transparent was one that should have been easy to keep. This time, the government cannot use the usual excuse that the till is empty to avoid doing what it promised to do. This promise costs nothing. The government had the power to tighten up the rules and to issue new standards of conduct. It had the unanimous support of the opposition to act but did nothing.

Where are the Liberals who clamoured against the carelessness of the Conservatives? Where are the Liberal Party hardliners? Where are the transparent and honest Liberals? They have vanished and unfortunately their words have also vanished without a trace.

Liberals have changed the meaning of the word promise. A promise is a firm commitment to do what you said you would, but for the Liberals, a promise is something you talk about but never do anything about or which you achieve in an incomplete or uncertain way. Indeed, it is becoming more and more obvious that, for the Liberal Party, there are two kinds of promises: the promise made to the people and which deals with public interest. That kind of promise is achieved only when all favourable circumstances are present but you can always find good reasons to postpone them and bring them back at election time. The second kind are the promises made to friends of the government, those who finance the slush fund. Those promises are often tied to private interests and can take the shape of bills or orders in council for the benefit of a few individuals or companies, or expensive contracts which are often overvalued and given without a real call for tenders.

In the case of Bill C-43, there were once more conflicting interests. On one side, the general public and all the people who elected the Liberal Party, that is a few million people, and on the other side, a few hundred lobbyists and the thousand or so big companies which employ them. By not keeping its red book

promises and by watering down and thus weakening this bill, the Liberal government has shown its contempt for the public interest.

The clear message that this government is sending to the backers of the Liberal Party, to former organizers and dignitaries of the party and to the friends, relatives as well as former and future associates of government members is this: everything is allowed, but would you please be very discreet. That will certainly not help restore public confidence in politicians.

The message from the government should have been that lobbyists, like any other professionals, must follow certain rules and be more transparent in their work, as promised on pages 94 and 95 of the Liberal red book. This bill is not all bad, but it does not go far enough in terms of supervising and regulating the work of lobbyists. I am not implying in any way that lobbyists are in the business of corrupting. The great majority of them do their job in a most honourable fashion. This bill should be aimed at preventing abuse and influence-peddling, not at preventing individuals and companies from dealing legitimately with the government.

In this regard, Simon Reisman, chairman of Ranger Oil Limited and star witness for the liberal government, expressed the opinion, at the hearings on the bill, that the practice of contingency fees, which will not be precluded by Bill C-43, "encourages the wrong kind of people into the business and-contingency fees perpetuate the perception of cronyism and back-door access to government insiders".

In another vein, I would like to remind members that in the red book, the Prime Minister committed himself to: "regulate the activities of lobbyists by appointing an Ethics Counsellor". The Bloc, like all Canadians, expected the appointment of someone who is beyond reproach who would go after people engaged in murky business. In reality, the ethics counsellor has only limited powers in spite of all the goodwill this person brings to the task. The code of conduct that the counsellor produced does not have the force of a statutory regulation, but is just so many empty words.

The ethics counsellor is not accountable before the House of Commons. The counsellor is chosen by the prime minister and is accountable to him alone. All investigations are conducted in private. Moreover, it has become clear that the prime minister does not always deem it necessary to consult his counsellor or that he consults him only after the decisions have been made or after the fact. Such a manner of proceeding is not calculated to raise public confidence in our political institutions. What we needed was a counsellor appointed by the House of Commons, having real powers and accountable to the House.

A code of conduct having the force of a set of regulations would have been appropriate, as would more stringent disclosure rules for lobbyists.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.