Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments before this debate draws to a close. I have been listening all morning to the comments that have been made on this side and on the side of the government side with regard to the Lobbyists Registration Act. I find it very interesting to make parallel comparisons between this and the gun registration scheme that was implemented in 1995. That scheme was supposed to control guns. By giving bills certain labels or giving them certain descriptions, the government tries to give the impression to the public that that is what it is. It gave the impression that this was somehow gun control. When members looked and scratched beneath the surface, they found it had nothing to do with gun control. It was simply a bureaucratic exercise.
Now we have the Lobbyists Registration Act being introduced as part of an ethics package as if it has got something to do with ethics. Again, the label really has nothing to do with the content of the bill.
Back in 1995 I thought how could we oppose gun control. Then when I began to look at the actual content of the bill, I found out that it was simply a registration process. It was simply laying a piece of paper beside every gun in the country.
Maybe this is just putting a piece of paper on the wall of a certain lobbyist. How can that piece of paper prevent things from happening behind the scenes which are very unethical? I do not think it guarantees anything of the kind.
How can we oppose an effective ethics package? We cannot and I would not, but the lobbyists registration scheme is not equivalent to preventing abuse.
I would ask this. How does putting a piece of paper on the walls of lobbyists prevent them from pressuring the government to give a certain corporation, individual or individuals special considerations? It does not in any way let us know what is going on behind the scenes or behind closed doors. That piece of paper does not control anything any more than a gun registration controls what is happening with the gun.
How does it prevent taxpayer money from flowing to the wrong individuals and the government receiving kickbacks at election time? It does not.
I want to make that comparison and I have not heard a single explanation from that side of the House today as to how this actually will be an improvement in ethics in any way.