Debates of May 4th, 2010

Opposition motion—Lobbying Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question is somewhat along the same lines as the member for Ottawa Centre in terms of the requirement for the parliamentary secretaries to be covered under the Lobbying Act.

The opposition day motion, as I understand it, really speaks to power in that it obligates those with power in government or connections in government over government decisions and taxpayer money to obligate them to report if they are lobbied.

What I am a little worried about, and I do not mind admitting it, is what I hear coming forward from the government side, that it should apply to all members of Parliament. That is a very clever ruse by the government to make it look like all of us in the House are members of the government. We are not.

The government is the cabinet and those connected to it, the senior bureaucracy, the government itself, parliamentary secretaries, sometimes they are sworn in to Privy Council and sometimes now, but they have access to information. Backbench members on the government side and opposition members do not have that same access.

What worries me is the intimidation tactics of the government. I know how it works with farm organizations. If we said who lobbied us, the government would be scare them.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Malpeque is quite right. The Conservatives are trying to create a diversion by saying that all members of the House should be included. A brief lesson is needed to explain to them that they cannot be hypocritical and try to make people believe that opposition members are subjected to lobbying. We are the opposition. It is the government that is in power and that controls the purse strings, government spending and contracts, and not opposition members.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate on a motion that would close a loophole, put into place by the Conservative government. I will speak directly to what the reasons are behind this loophole.

The motion before the House, as moved by my hon. colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl, is clear and concise. It seeks to close a loophole that allows parliamentary secretaries to meet with lobbyists and provide special access to their special friends of the Conservative Party.

I would like to discuss the blatant breech of conflict of interest the Conservatives have so successfully accomplished. I will outline the lack of transparency and the lack of disclosure of which the government is guilty. I will be addressing the question that is on the minds of all Canadians: Was this loophole a maliciously brilliant scheme, or was it an incompetent oversight by the Prime Minister? Either way, it is something that should have been addressed years ago, not after parliamentary secretaries have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar. Conservatives will argue that those hands came up empty, no cookies. Let us face it, once the hand is in the jar, even the resonant crumbs are enough to raise questions.

The past month has shown the Conservative culture of deceit grow to epic proportions. We have watched the development of the real Conservative culture: special access for special friends. What is this special access? Who are the special friends? How do we get special meetings and privileged access that most people only dream about?

Special access is the ability to have a meeting with a public office holder who has insight into where the money is kept for government contracts or funding and access to those who approve those contracts and programs. The Federal Accountability Act clearly states at part 1, paragraph 7:

No public office holder shall, in the exercise of an official power, duty or function, give preferential treatment to any person or organization based on the identity of the person or organization that represents the first-mentioned person or organization.

Who are public office holders? This is where it gets very interesting. According to the Federal Accountability Act, they are: a minister of the Crown, a minister of state or parliamentary secretary, a member of the ministerial staff, a ministerial adviser or Governor-in-Council appointees. Two words that stand out are “parliamentary secretary”. What is most interesting, however, is the definition of designated public office holder in the Lobbying Act which states that:

A minister of the Crown or a minister of state and any person employed in his or her office who is appointed under subsection 128(1) of the Public Service Employment Act.

What is missing here? Those two elusive words, “parliamentary secretary”. One can only conclude that “parliamentary secretary” is missing by design. Since April 8 of this year, the truth has come out. Canadians have learned about secret meetings between parliamentary secretaries, their staff and friends. At last count, seven ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

We know about these meetings. They are not secret any more because the Conservatives have been embarrassed into disclosing their contacts. Why? Because they are hiding behind the Lobbying Act. They are not mentioned in it, that is why. Yet the Conservatives have conveniently ignored their very own Federal Accountability Act. Special access for special friends.

There is no definition in either act but Canadians know very well what it means. It is clear. It means people who have privileged access to people in power, people who would not otherwise have had access without high power connections. This is a blatant breech of conflict of interest.

A typical group seeks a grant, a contract or funding for a program, fills out an application and submits it, sometimes on-line, into a deep, dark vortex. Then they hire a potentially $600 an hour lobbyist who is registered to follow up and guide their application or steer it to the right channels or the right people. By law, all these actions are to be recorded. Obviously, not all actions are, only convenient ones, or at least until a person is caught.

In this case Mr. Jaffer, the former Conservative caucus chair, did not register as a lobbyist because he was technically not being paid upfront to lobby on behalf of his client. However, evidence reveals that finders' fees were anticipated. Mr. Jaffer's business model relied on success fees, or contingency fees or equity in companies. What a windfall to a company seeking funding if it was successful. That news alone could send its stock soaring. If the principals had equity in the company, they could sell for a lucrative profit. This is what is called “pump and dump” and it too is illegal.

Because Mr. Jaffer had friends in high places, he had privileged access to parliamentary secretaries to review his files and send them along to the relevant minister responsible, possibly accompanied by a personal note, “From Rahim with love”. Maybe not “with love”, but there is a definite privileged access to friends in high places, the same friends who can review a file, rather than allow it to sit idle for months in the great vortex that I described.

Where are the ethics in this situation? Where is the transparency? While not technically illegal, this situation I have described is clearly immoral and unethical. Why? If it were not for Mr. Donovan of the Toronto Star on April 8, these secret meetings and the conflicts of interest would have no end and would have flown directly under the radar of Canadians and of Parliament.

Since then, ministers, ministers of state, and yes, even parliamentary secretaries have come forward admitting to private meetings. Why? They have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and they are in a conflict of interest and a breach of ethics.

The parliamentary secretary for transport, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, was put in charge of a $1 billion fund for green infrastructure. This was a known fact within Conservative circles. Mr. Jaffer took advantage of this insider information. We also know that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca and his staff had direct contact with Mr. Jaffer. The parliamentary secretary was clearly in a breach of the Conflict of Interest guidelines, an obvious loophole and a self-created legal buffer made by the Conservative government in the Lobbying Act.

What happened here was not an innocent oversight, but a deviously brilliant, immoral and unethical one which created a legal buffer to protect the minister and allow parliamentary secretaries to breach Federal Accountability Act rules, the Prime Minister's very own guidelines and the lobbyist registry regulations.

Canadians demand that Parliament and parliamentarians be trusted with such delicate matters as ethics, and so do I. The Conservatives came riding in to Parliament on their sanctimonious high horse and moved a Federal Accountability Act and Lobbying Act that are toothless and allow for a deviously brilliant loophole to exist to help them circumvent the law, certainly circumvent ethics.

Here is a quote, “what is appropriate is that we fulfill our election commitments by ensuring that everybody respects the Lobbyists Registration Act and that we put real teeth into it”. Who said that? It was the Prime Minister, that is who. Where are the teeth? Why are parliamentary secretaries not included? Where are they?

Here is another quote, “We also want to make it the law that one has to record every single contact with a lobbyist” Who said that? It was the Minister of Transport. Who was he referring to? Obviously it was not parliamentary secretaries. It is very convenient, is it not?

Why take so long to record these contacts? Why wait months, a year, or more, who knows? The culture of deceit is out of control.

The parliamentary secretary for transport, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, says that he did not breach the Federal Accountability Act, but he clearly broke the conflict of interest rules and he acted against the spirit of these guidelines and the act. Mr. Jaffer said that he did not breach the Lobbying Act and was not a lobbyist. He too broke the moral and ethical spirit of the law and acted as a lobbyist. If one attempts to rob a bank and finds that there is no money in the vault, it does not mean one is not a bank robber.

When people have special access to special friends, magical things can happen. Red tape is eliminated. The vortex quickly becomes dinner and cocktails with friends at high-powered restaurants. It means privileged private citizens such as Mr. Jaffer can use a parliamentary office and email account to conduct business. It means opening the door to the PMO. Most noticeably, it is the ability to avoid registering as a lobbyist to avoid reporting those meetings, something the Conservatives have become masters of through their self-regulated legal buffer and loophole. This loophole is a premeditated measure to allow special access to special friends.

I hope the opposition parties will support this motion. The Bloc says that the Federal Accountability Act is flawed and now is its chance to add teeth. The NDP has handled the Jaffer scandal on both sides of the fence. I hope it can take a stand that will make a difference.

I will be supporting this motion, and I hope all members will do the same. It is good for Parliament and it is good for all Canadians.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's rambling rhetoric with rapt attention. I will give her credit for being good at how she said it. It does not have to be true. That does not matter. I have a question, and it has been asked before.

First, we support the motion. Does the member realize that?

Second, if it is good enough for us on this side, why is it not good enough for everybody in the House? We are talking about lobbying. For goodness' sake, watching an ad on television could get someone accused of being lobbied.

We get members across the floor all the time who come to us with sometimes very specific lobbying efforts on behalf of somebody. That is fine and it is legitimate. Therefore, why would everybody not fall under the same guidelines, as all members of Parliament and senators frankly should?

All we are saying is that we agree. We will support the motion, but why not go further and make everybody accountable? It seems to me that is accountability.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Centre for his compliment. However, I want to also point out that it is you, as a government member, who is beholden to enact this legislation, not us. We are here. We are open to any sort of amendments you want to make. If you had wanted the act to have teeth, you would have made it so from the beginning, I would think. But certainly we are completely in agreement with making this law have the strength and the teeth it deserves.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I would just remind the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville to address comments through the Chair, not directly at other members. Not that it caused any disorder, but I just remind her to be mindful of it.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the government will be supporting the motion. I would like to point out to the member who just spoke, though, that there is no requirement for lobbyists to disclose the amount of money they spend on their campaigns to influence members of Parliament.

I would like to ask her whether she agrees that they should be required to identify specific campaigns, that they should be required to financially disclose and that there should be some spending limits on some of these lobbying efforts. We saw, last year, airline companies that supposedly are one step away from bankruptcy spending huge amounts of money on professional lobbyists and high-priced lawyers, putting on social events and receptions and sending letters to MPs, and we would like to know what that cost.

Would the member agree that we should be making those changes when the government gets around to making the required changes to this act?

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that we need to have full disclosure, especially of the amount of money lobbyists are spending. In fact, we had a situation where we took campaign donations from questionable sources and had them returned because we wanted there to be absolutely no doubt, no ethical breaches whatsoever.

In fact, I think we should just focus on open, honest, transparent and accountable transactions. We need to strengthen the Lobbying Act.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I loved my colleague's analogy about the teeth, and I would carry that one step further. It almost seems as if in this House this particular government, on occasion, claims it has teeth, but it is really like an elaborate set of dentures that is taken out and put back in at the convenience of the government. To me, that seems like somewhat of a double standard.

I would like to ask the member about the situation with respect to parliamentary secretaries. And for the benefit of anybody watching this debate right now, parliamentary secretaries are essential gatekeepers for information. If we are to go to the level of exempt staff, as well as deputy ministers, they liaise with parliamentary secretaries all the time, within the offices. I have witnessed it through my work with Fisheries and with Heritage.

I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know the act has dentures. That is quite right. And they were removed at some of the most expensive restaurants around town, the watering holes where the Conservative members entertain their friends and give them access, as I have described, special friends and special access.

I think the point is that parliamentary secretaries are exempt from the act by design. It was by intent, this little loophole. It is a brilliant but devious loophole that was created so that their special friends could legally have special access.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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 Sault Ste. Marie, Transport; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, the Environment; and the hon. member for Windsor West, Canada Post.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter into the debate on this very important subject of lobbyists and the influence lobbyists have on our parliamentary democracy, which I believe is undue influence. If there is one good thing that comes out of the scandal involving Rahim Jaffer and the member for Simcoe—Grey, it may be that Parliament feels compelled to revisit the role lobbyists play in the Ottawa of 2010.

Hopefully, a strong outcome or resolve will be reached by the process of the debate we are having today, which may lead to meaningful change that would finally tie a bell around lobbyists' necks. Then we would know when lobbyists were skulking around in the corridors of power and with whom they were meeting, and we would have some fighting chance to take measures to uphold the democratic process and not fall victim to what we believe is undue influence by lobbyists in Ottawa.

We thought we were doing that with the Federal Accountability Act. I was a member of the committee that went through the whole process on the Federal Accountability Act. We were dealing with so many egregious failures of ethics on the part of the Liberal Party that we were consumed with their ethical shortcomings to the point where we were trying to do perhaps too much too fast.

In the bad old days of the Liberals, there was so much traffic between the offices of senior lobbyists and the PMO, they had to have a revolving door installed. In fact, it became a safety hazard. People were getting nose bleeds because the revolving door was spinning around so wildly between the offices of Earnscliffe and the Prime Minister's office. The same individuals did not know where they were half the time. They had to be reminded which hat they were wearing.

That is how ridiculous it was getting in the days of the Liberal regime, so we trusted the Conservatives. We believed that the Conservatives were as appalled about the Liberal lobbying influence in Ottawa as we were. We took it at face value that all the opposition parties were sincere in their abhorrence of the regime that was put in place so that well-connected Liberal lobbyists could gain privileged access to the corridors of power, to set up their friends to get not just one paw into the cookie jar but both paws at once.

We took extraordinary steps in the Federal Accountability Act and I supported the motions. Little did we know. It took Liberals 13 years to get so corrupt and arrogant. As I pointed out before, the virus seems to have mutated because it took the Conservatives only four years to reach that level of arrogance and deceit, to where they now are the ones who seem to have put in place a regime where well-connected Conservative lobbyists now rule the roost in Ottawa.

Lobbyists are like bats in an attic. They are very difficult to get rid of, they cannot stand the light of day and if they are left there long enough, they rot one's timbers. I find we are faced with this problem today.

I know you will probably agree with me, Mr. Speaker, because I know your reputation for cleaning up corruption in Ottawa in your long career here, but it is very worrisome to me that the most senior lobbyists in Ottawa are also the most senior operatives in the Conservative Party. They are the very same names, those talking heads we see on TV, Tim Powers, Geoff Norquay, John Reynolds, Ken Boessenkool, Yaroslav Baran, Monte Solberg. All these guys, the most senior characters in the lobbyist world, are the most senior characters in the Conservative Party, and there is no effort to even hide it.

We see a guy like Tim Powers on TV introduced as “Conservative Party spokesman, Tim Powers”. He is actually a lobbyist. He is another guy who is whirling around in the revolving door. He probably has to pinch himself or have one of his staffers remind him where he actually is, in the PMO or his lobbyist boardroom.

The problem is getting out of hand. It undermines the most fundamental tenets of our democracy, that we should all have equal access to the government's grand largesse and the services it offers. Some people should not have better access than others based on their ability to trade on their connections or trade on the experience they developed in public life and are now trying to sell to private or personal interests.

That is the whole principle here. When we are in private life, we are not supposed to dine out on the connections we made in public life, unless that information is publicly available. It offends the sensibilities of most Canadians. It offends the ethics standards, the code of conduct and the conflict of interest codes, and it offends the Criminal Code of Canada when it passes a certain point.

The difference between lobbying and influence peddling is about five years in prison. Influence peddling is a very serious offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. In fact, section 121 is right up there with high treason in terms of high crimes and misdemeanours. That is how seriously those who drafted the Criminal Code wanted to condemn the practice of influence peddling.

We only have to look south of the border to see how lobbying has bastardized democracy. Capitol Hill in Washington is riddled with lobbyists. Finally, the Obama administration is putting its foot down. Obama made a speech recently. As his administration's next project, after the health care bill is finally through, he is going to drive the lobbyists off Capitol Hill. He is going to drive the money lenders from the temple. It is his goal and stated objective to clean up Capitol Hill from the undue influence of lobbyists.

We should be doing the same on Parliament Hill today. We should minimize their influence, tie a bell around their necks so we know whose office they are meeting in and what they are talking about and curb their opportunities to get both hands into the cookie jar. That is what we should be doing in Parliament in this debate today.

Let me give an example of why the public has a right to know who has the minister's ear. Let us put it in the context of the BP offshore oil rig disaster, the terrible environmental disaster that is happening in the Gulf of Mexico today. We have a right to know if most of the people the Minister of the Environment is meeting with are oil executives.

If there have been 120 registered visits from BP, Exxon, Shell and all the big oil companies, and the minister has been willing to meet only once or twice with the David Suzuki Foundation or whoever the environmentalists are, the public can use that information. The public should have that information. They might not be there with their hand out for some kind of grant or contribution. They might be there trying to shape public policy or environmental policy.

It would be very useful information for the public to see who has the dominant advantage of the ear of the minister. Those guys show up with well-connected, brand-name, Conservative lobbyists to break through the gatekeepers and barriers in getting access to the minister. They are very good at it. They sell access.

We learned in the Rahim Jaffer case that there are people out there with a commodity to sell and that commodity is access to the public office holders who create public policy. Taking it a step further, they are selling as a commodity their influence over those public office holders in the decision making that takes place.

That is what is fundamentally wrong. The public should be outraged at this issue, and I believe it is. I believe the public gets it. The public is aware that this kind of influence is taking place. Ordinary Canadians would have to pack a lunch if they wanted to penetrate the red tape associated with a fund like the government's green infrastructure fund. They had better dig in, camp out and get ready for a long fight if they are going to figure out how that fund is being administered.

However, if we phone a well-connected Conservative lobbyist like a Rahim Jaffer, all of a sudden the doors open and public servants jump and things are done immediately.

I have a quote from an email, “Rahim wants an answer by Friday and by the way, we will see you at the golf tee-off time next month”. This is a correspondence between Rahim Jaffer and a senior public office holder getting information about the green infrastructure fund that I and ordinary Canadians would not have a hope in hell of actually getting any access to. It is a graphic illustration, a depiction, of everything that is wrong with Ottawa in 2010.

Again, if there is any positive outcome from our examination and investigation of the application and administration of the green infrastructure fund, it might be that parliamentarians are finally seized with the issue that we are ready to take back our democratic institutions from those who seem to have undue influence and undue control over those very institutions.

I am not overstating things to say that the undue influence of lobbyists undermines the most basic tenets of our parliamentary democracy. It is not an overstatement at all. In fact, we are sounding the alarm, blowing the whistle on these guys, that enough is enough. We do not want to follow the route of the United States where nothing happens without the undue influence of lobbyists.

One of the best points made today, that I am really grateful, was brought to the floor of the House of Commons was made by my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas who introduced into this debate a brand new element, one that is rarely discussed and I believe cannot be overstated. Not only should we be demanding that parliamentary secretaries fall under the category when they are under the lobbyist rules. And not only should the onus be on public office holders to declare the meetings as well as the lobbyists.

Those two things are important and we support them. But the one element my colleague brought to this debate was that we also have a right to know the amount of money involved and the budget of lobbyists on various campaigns. They should have to declare it.

It should have to be public because in the same spirit and principle that we should be getting big money out of politics, we should also then be making the case that big money should not be able to buy influence in terms of public policy, legislation, or crafting the direction we may take as a country. It is a glaring oversight.

The principle that was put in place that we should get big money out of politics is absolutely correct. We left a glaring oversight by mistake in place. Whether it is big pharma, big oil or whatever the lobbying group is, they can launch a $100 million campaign to change the minds of parliamentarians to get a certain bill passed. How does the ordinary Canadian compete with that kind of influence?

There are interests in Canada that would pay anything to put in place a regulatory framework that would advance their private or personal interests. We have to protect ourselves from that undue influence or else our democracy and all the work we do to uphold the greatest parliamentary democracy in the world is in jeopardy. Otherwise, we might as well pack up our tent and admit that big money can still buy influence in this country.

I hope that as this debate concludes today one of the things we will take away from it is that we must put in place rules. We must put in place full disclosure requirements so that a lobbyist firms or lobbyists will have to post the amount of money they have spent on a campaign. In fact, there should be spending limits on how much they can spend because ordinary Canadians or the other side of that debate or argument should be on the same level playing field. Public policy should be shaped on the merits of the case and not on the depth of the pockets or the size of the chequebook.

This is one of the things that we have been so frustrated about. Really, the nub of the whole debate is that the public has a right to know who is influencing policy in this country, this Parliament and this government.

We would like to believe that our electoral process put 308 members of Parliament in this chamber and it is Parliament that decides the direction that this country will take in key important areas of public policy.

Let us not kid ourselves. There is another dynamic, another force at play here, that perhaps is shaping the direction Canada takes in the way that ordinary Canadians, all in good faith, cast their ballots in a way they would never have imagined.

One cannot swing a cat in Ottawa without hitting a lobbyist trudging up and down the hallways of this Parliament Building. They have access to the most privileged, senior offices in Parliament.

Another thing we should discuss today, and one of the things that has always bothered me, is that some of the most prominent lobbyists today on Parliament Hill are former members of Parliament. They wear their parliamentary pin, which gives them unlimited, exclusive access to virtually every corridor and office on Parliament Hill. They breeze by security with a wave of the hand and a “How are you”? and a “Thank you”.

I have waited many times for a machine in the member's gym because it is clogged up by some lobbyist who was a member of Parliament from 1984 to 1988 but forever wears that parliamentary pin in his lapel. Every time I want to use that machine there is a lobbyist on it. Then those lobbyists will be in the parliamentary dining room, brushing shoulders with decision makers and senior cabinet ministers. Somehow we have to curb the undue influence of these former members of Parliament who have been skulking around Parliament and get very privileged access.

I have seen lobbyists in our lobby. I think we should have a lobbyist alert. We should have a lobbyist watch. An alarm would go off whenever a lobbyist is in the lobby. We have to get the lobbyists out of our lobby. They should not be in there. Some of them get paid $600 an hour for every contact they make with a member of Parliament. All they have to do is walk through the opposition lobby and they are rich. It is wrong.

I would not want to name names in the context of a debate like this, but guys like Don Boudria are always under foot. We are always bumping into that guy in the wrong places.

Lobbyists should not be rattling around Parliament Hill unchecked. They should always be on a leash, and on a very tight leash so that they do not get into trouble and they do not make a mess in places where they are not supposed to be.

We have made big progress in this debate today. I want to challenge two of the government's responses. This really bothers me after all the questions in question period associated with the Jafferlena debate.

The Minister of Transport falls back on two patented responses now. I think he has a copyright on these things. The first response is that there is no harm, no foul, because Mr. Jaffer never received any money. This is almost laughable. I notice the Liberals are saying what I was saying. It is like the analogy of robbing a bank and the vault is empty, but that does not mean no offence took place.

It is still against the law to lobby illegally even if an individual is unsuccessful, even if an individual is a bad lobbyist. If someone is lobbying illegally, that individual is lobbying illegally. If someone is influence peddling, it does not matter if there was no benefit to peddling influence, it is still a criminal offence under section 121 of the Criminal Code.

The other thing that the Minister of Transport would have us believe is that the government has done nothing wrong because it is up to the lobbyist and the lobbyist alone to register.

We have established that there is an obligation on the part of ministers to uphold not only the letter but the spirit of the law, the very law that the government ran in to office on, the very law that was a centrepiece of its legislative agenda. It has a duty and a moral and ethical obligation if nothing else, to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the law.

The spirit of the law is that the public has a right to know if there is any illegal lobbying going on. That is why we crafted the Lobbyists Registration Act to begin with. It is almost laughable to hear the Minister of Transport and anybody else who answers questions on the Jaffer affair with, “We did nothing wrong. It is only up to the lobbyists”.

We hope to correct that today. We hope that Parliament speaks loudly and clearly when we vote on this particular resolution today, that the burden, the onus, and the obligation is on both parties.

It takes two to tango. It is not particularly difficult, on the part of a minister, to post, declare and disclose when a minister has met with a lobbyist and what the subject matter was any more than it is an onerous duty on the part of the lobbyist. That has to be fixed.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that the hon. member's gym membership is not as valid as it could be due to lobbyists using the facility. May I suggest that the member could go for a walk in the park; take a hike in Gatineau Park; go for a swim in the Ottawa River or put himself on the ice on the second longest skating rink in the world, the Rideau Canal; or even go for a jump off the cliff just over here on the other side of Parliament Hill.

He is a member of parliamentary committees. He is the vice-chair of a variety of parliamentary committees as are many members of Parliament and parliamentary committees are part of the political process, part of forming policy.

Therefore, perhaps we should go further and have lobbyists register their contact with all members of Parliament, not just parliamentary secretaries and ministers but members of the opposition parties, senators from all parties and independent senators, and independent members of Parliament.

Perhaps we should have all parliamentarians recorded as being lobbied when contacted by a lobbyist. Put the onus on the lobbyists and include all parliamentarians.

Would the member be in agreement to exposing all members of Parliament to being registered when lobbyists contact them? I think the public would be very interested in knowing that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is an enthusiastic yes. I checked that with the leader of my party earlier today. We believe that all members of Parliament should be subject to the same rule of full disclosure when they have contact with a lobbyist as well as indicating the subject matter discussed.

I do not see that as a burden. In fact, I do it all the time. My first question to someone who comes into my office on an issue is, “Are you registered as a lobbyist?”, or “Should you be registered as a lobbyist given the nature of the meeting?”. If the answer is no, then the meeting is over. I do not meet with them. I do not like having lobbyists in my office at the best of times, but if they are not registered, they are not going to finish the meeting.

It was the Lobbying Commissioner who advised us when the office was first created. We were told that the first question we should ask at a meeting is, “Are you a registered lobbyist”? and if the answer is no, that is it, the meeting goes no further.

As far as lobbyists and running into them elsewhere, I think lobbyists should take a hike out in Gatineau Park.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my hon. colleague. However, he seems to be quite an alarmist over the idea of lobbyists. He is proposing everything short of leghold traps placed around this place for lobbyists. I hope he is not too alarmist over the fact. Maybe the sirens will go off.

I want to focus the question on former parliamentarians because this is the issue that is in the news. When it comes to former parliamentarians and former MPs, he complained about a few of them who wore their buttons and went ahead of him on the treadmill. It must have been an absolutely discouraging event to see these people ahead of him on the treadmill. I can well imagine. From a party that is used to sharing, I find it somewhat surprising.

Here is another issue. There are actually registered lobbyists who pose as candidates for a party. Lorne Nystrom was one I believe. Perhaps the hon. member can scope out what he feels former parliamentarians should be limited to, in particular, like his friend Lorne Nystrom.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think, Mr. Speaker, there is a cooling off period for public office holders before they should be able to enter into lobbying. I think that is the recommendation. As we extend the duty and the obligation of parliamentary secretaries to fall under the Lobbyist Registration Act, I believe the same bar, prohibition and cooling off period should apply. By extension, that is probably the intent of the motion put forward by the Liberals today.

If a member is going to fall under the rubric of the Lobbyist Registration Act, the member should be subject to the same cooling off rules. A member cannot simply leave his or her office as a member of Parliament one day and then the next day open up shop as a lobbyist trying to trade off the contacts and the privileged access a member may have developed through the years as a parliamentarian. Again, this is based on the same principle that the public does not want members to use the time they spent in public office for their personal and private gain unless the information being used is accessible to the public at large.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, about a rule change that took place here under the Martin administration pertaining to the parliamentary secretaries and their influence on this Hill, and a change in how the job has actually become more important to be lobbied. The lobbyists recognize that and sniff it right out. What I am talking about is when the Martin administration came into effect it moved parliamentary secretaries onto committees.

Committees in the past were independent, very much creatures to themselves and were able to do a lot of good work without the interference of a parliamentary secretary. It was criticized, ironically, by the Conservatives at that time but they now bask in this type of element and have turned it into more of a controlling nature than ever before.

What ends up happening is that parliamentary secretaries become privy to information ahead of time, information that the committee often does not have. There can be influence peddling on the committee for it to go in a different direction than it was taking.

I would like to ask the member about that change and how lobbyists have sniffed that out.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it was the beginning of the end for the effectiveness of parliamentary committees when parliamentary secretaries were parachuted onto them.

Parliamentary secretaries have access to cabinet documents. Their loyalty, obviously, is to the government that they serve and not to the committee as a whole. The beauty of parliamentary committees, in theory, is that baggage is left at the door and committee members are all equal no matter what party we are in. Our goal and mandate in committee is to work together in a collaborative way to create the best legislation possible.

As soon as parliamentary secretaries were put on the committees, they sabotaged, undermined and bastardized the work of the committees. I have seen it with my own eyes. Believe it not, the government even wanted parliamentary secretaries to be the chairs of committees. We had to take drastic action to at least curb that which we thought was ridiculous and would cause irreversible damage to the committees. I do not think parliamentary secretaries should be on committees.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows the legislation well and was on the inside while it was crafted.

I am curious about something. Is it his understanding that it would be plausible, not that anyone ever would, that someone would not register, then deal directly with a parliamentary secretary who is not bound by the lobbyist law, and then they could even extend that to perhaps staff people throughout? Nowhere in there would they technically have broken the law vis-à-vis the Lobbying Act, although in that highly possible scenario they could have crept into some criminal aspects.

However, in terms of the Lobbying Act, if someone were to go that route, would he or she possibly be able to circumvent the act and the legislation and still be able to achieve his or her goal?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just outlined, possibly better than anybody else could, exactly what is wrong with the Lobbying Act as it stands.

It appears that Mr. Jaffer did exactly what my colleague from Hamilton Centre just described, knowing full well perhaps, because he was the caucus chair of the Conservative Party at the time that we crafted the Lobbying Act, that he could fly under the radar, make his contact with the parliamentary secretary, who, by some happy coincidence, is excluded from the Lobbying Act and does not have to file anything, and then gets all the access to the senior bureaucrats and public office holders by that open door.

The door was thrown open for well-connected Conservatives who knew the secret handshake and knew how to get past the rules. That is what is offensive and that is what needs to be corrected. It is a loophole that should not be allowed to continue for another day and, by order in council, those guys could fix it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to the motion from the Liberal Party. Given the hour, I suspect that my remarks may be the last during today's debate.

We have heard arguments from the opposition members today, some more informed than others, on the reality of the situation when it comes to lobbying in this country.

We have also heard members on that side state a number of times that the government was opposing today's motion. This is baffling, as I am quite sure that at no point during the debate did any member of the Conservative Party speak in opposition to the motion before us today.

Instead, we have not only accepted the proposal that parliamentary secretaries be covered by the requirements of the Lobbying Act, but we have gone a step further. We on this side have proposed that these rules not only cover parliamentary secretaries but also members of Parliament, senators and political staff in the offices of the opposition party leaders. So far, however, not a single member on that side has been open to that challenge.

I find myself at a loss to understand the situation we find ourselves in here today. On one hand, we have the Liberal Party talking about accountability but , on the other hand, these same Liberal members are unwilling to even consider complying with the same lobbying rules that public office holders abide by every day.

We are talking about some pretty basic requirements. We are asking members of the House to accept public releases of names and topics of their meetings with lobbyists. We are asking members to conduct their meetings in the light of day. We have no concern doing that on our side of the House. We have nothing to hide.

The member for Malpeque even argued that opposition MPs do not have any role in the development of public policy. However, we know that is absolutely misleading. Right now there is a good chance that there is a meeting between lobbyists and opposition MPs behind that curtain.

The members on that side of the House seems to have convinced themselves that they should not have to be accountable to Canadians. Can anyone on that side of the House look their constituents in the eye and claim that they have no right to know who their MP is meeting with or that Canadians have no right to know what they are discussing? I find that hard to believe.

The reality is that the Liberal Party thinks that it finally has a leg up on the government when it comes to accountability. However, the strange thing is that when members on this side ask the Liberals if they are willing to be accountable, they dodge the question.

We have heard evasive answers from that side of the House saying that government is free to bring forward legislation. The problem with that approach is that we have already seen what happens when we bring forward legislation to improve accountability. When we brought forward the Federal Accountability Act, those members kicked, screamed, squirmed and did absolutely everything possible, at nearly every stage, to delay and obstruct the legislation, and that was right after the sponsorship scandal.

The problem is that the Liberal Party has never grasped that it answers to Canadians. It has never grasped that it reports to Canadians, not the other way around.

What are Canadians to make of this?

We on this side support the motion we are debating today. There was no deliberate conspiracy to create a loophole in the Lobbying Act. We formed government at a time when Canadians were deeply mistrusting politicians and their representatives. We took quick action to create a regime that would provide accountability to all Canadians and we cast a wide net.

However, no system is perfect. We are always looking for ways to improve these rules. We will support this motion today. We are looking at options to go even further to ensure that we are all accountable to Canadians. I hope the opposition will support us in moving forward with this.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was on the Bill C-2 committee. The hon. member talked about fighting it all the way. I do not recall that. I recall meeting three or four times a week working to get the legislation, which was very rushed and very large in scope, to a decipherable level. I do not think the member remembers that because I do not think I saw him at those committee meetings.

My question is pretty simple. It has been almost four and a half years since those deliberations and the election that brought his party to power. Why did the Conservatives not do this sooner if they are in such agreement with it? Is it because they have revelations that many of their parliamentary secretaries, who are members of Parliament as well, had private meetings with the people who he says the public want to know about? They want to know about it because now they cannot know about it because under the regime that his party put in place four and a half years ago, it was not required.

First, why the delay? Second, what are the new measures that he spoke of about going further in a most robust and quick manner that are forthcoming after this four and a half years?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the Liberal motion was for the last four and a half years to make improvements. Where were those suggestions? He said that he was in committee. Why did he not bring those suggestions at that point in committee? They did not.

The reality is that the Liberals want nothing to do with accountability. They would rather meet with their friends behind curtains and do their own thing and anything that would bring that to the light of day would be extremely embarrassing.

We can look back at the sponsorship scandal and see what happened. Where is the $40 million? They still refuse to acknowledge where that money went to. There are always improvements that can be made and we will make improvements as we see fit, but I would like to know where the $40 million went.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke a minute ago asked where the Liberals were during the last three or four years. I would just remind him that in the last three or four years we were not in government. In the last three or four years we did not have Rahim Jaffergate. In the last three or four years nothing like this occurred so that we could bring in this motion, for example, or this suggestion.

Legislation develops as our country changes and society changes. Things happen and we address them. If there is higher crime, we bring in legislation to address it. I am puzzled today because I know the Conservative government introduced certain pieces of legislation to address crime and justice issues. I and my party thought they were good pieces of legislation to help our country and protect our society and we supported them.

I want to read into the record the motion from my Liberal colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl, which reads:

That, given the apparent loophole--

And the key word here is “loophole”. We just simply discovered that there is a loophole, something that we did not know two, three or four years ago.

--in the Lobbying Act which excludes Parliamentary Secretaries from the list of “designated public officer holders”, the House calls on the government to take all necessary steps to immediately close this loophole and thus require Parliamentary Secretaries to comply fully with the Lobbying Act, in the same manner as Ministers are currently required to do.

There was a friendly amendment from my Liberal colleague from Beauséjour. He spoke in question period and clearly outlined that when anybody approaches any minister or any parliamentary secretary with a proposal, that it is a violation of the act. The Conservatives' justification is that they were asking but they did not receive money.

I have always believed that Canadians are rather smart people and they will be able to read through this. While they were checking around to see what moneys were available, they submitted their proposals and they are saying that they did not receive any money. That is because the proposal, supposedly, so far, has not been accepted. They justified it that way.

What would have happened if the proposal, hypothetically, moved forward? What would have happened if one of the many proposals that were put forward by Mr. Rahim Jaffer was accepted? Then they would say, “Put the brakes on. Let me go register and then I will come back”.

Canadians will not buy that and they do not buy that. If the Conservatives believe they represent the people, they should be checking with their constituents. Canadians are not buying that. As I said earlier today, it is like when people go to rob a bank and there is no money in the vault, would the cops come in and say to the robbers that because there was no money they can leave?

We talk about premeditated activities. Premeditated murder is an example. If somebody is charged with premeditated murder, what does that mean? That means that somebody is making an attempt to do it. They did not murder the guy so that is okay, they can get off because they did not murder him.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

That would be attempted murder.