House of Commons Hansard #39 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was lobbying.
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do think that this loophole was left on purpose in the act, so that other friends and sympathizers could approach well placed government officials, in this case cabinet members, to do their lobbying without necessarily being registered. I agree that it was probably an intentional loophole.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member would be prepared to accept amendments to the law that would force lobbyists to register their contact with her.
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I said it earlier in French and I will repeat it in English. The government is free to bring forth any bill it wants to address that question.
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Conservatives have been challenged of late with accountability and transparency. We can look to access to information and the recent comments of the Information Commissioner. We can look to the recent comments of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
However, I have a question for my hon. colleague, who gave an outstanding speech. Why are the Conservatives so concerned about implementing a 2006 promise they made to Canadians in their platform? I will read from their platform, which said:
Require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists.
All day long we have heard resistance from our Conservative colleagues on this matter. Why does my hon. colleague think that is?
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am as baffled as my colleague is about this lack of will to implement this electoral promise and the Conservatives' total refusal of accountability in this instance.
Parliamentary secretaries are part of the governmental institutions and should be included in this act. I totally agree with her. There is no reason why they should not be part of the accountability act.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives were serious about this issue, surely they would bring in their own amendments to this act, not engage this House in smokescreens, wanting to talk about the gun registry and trying to draw people's attention away from the issue at hand. I think they are looking for diversions. Would the member agree with that assessment?
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my colleague on the fact that the Conservatives seem to want to divert the whole focus of this motion. This motion would cover a loophole in the act. It is nothing more than something that respects an electoral promise made by the Conservatives. I do not think we are asking for too much. We are asking that this loophole be covered by the new act.
Opposition motion—Lobbying ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Nepean—Carleton Ontario
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the occasion to address the House and to thank my friends in the opposition for bringing forward a motion that I believe leads us to a fruitful discussion.
Of course, the government of the day introduced the Federal Accountability Act, the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. That was the first bill that we brought forward after the 2006 election. We needed to reassure Canadians that the government was run in an ethical and transparent way and that the people elected to represent Canadians' interests were living up to that responsibility.
The level of trust that Canadians have in their government is closely linked to the perception of equal access to decision-makers. That trust between citizens and their elected representatives is absolutely crucial to a healthy democracy, and all those scandals that had preceded our government during the era of the previous Liberal regime had severely damaged that trust. That is why the government introduced the Federal Accountability Act and raised the bar and the standard of accountability.
Naturally, when we were drafting the act, we looked closely at the systems that were in place. We noted the complete and utter lack of any kind of independent watchdog with the power to investigate lobbying abuses. We were very concerned that even the changes the Liberals begrudgingly agreed to did not go nearly far enough. The Liberals thought it was appropriate to house the Registrar of Lobbyists under the industry ministry. We disagreed. We believed in having an independent watchdog who would be accountable to Parliament, a commissioner, and that is what we introduced with the new Lobbying Act.
The Lobbying Commissioner now reports to parliamentary committees and carries out independent investigations. He does not serve at the pleasure of the government but rather at that of the House of Commons. We gave that office the mandate it needed to investigate breeches in the act and in the code of conduct.
Under the previous government, there was extremely low compliance with registration requirements. The Federal Accountability Act changed all of that. We have accomplished our goal of bringing lobbying into the daylight.
During debate on the act, the former president of the Treasury Board pointed out that people should not get rich bouncing between government and lobbying jobs. He stated, “Lobbyists should not be allowed to charge success fees, whereby they get paid only if they deliver the policy change or the grant their clients want”.
Those two principles guided our government's thinking in making two major changes to our lobbying regime. They are what led us to take the tough step to ban key government decision-makers from lobbying for a period of five years after their positions expire. It is also what led us to ban contingency fees. These two measures have gone a long way to maintain and build upon the trust that Canadians have in their government.
When we introduced the five year ban on lobbying by key decision-makers, some said that it was too tough, but when we take a closer look at those to whom it applies, we realize that our response was measured and responsible. After all, we are talking about people who, by virtue of the position they hold and the duties they perform, exercise a lot of power and influence. We are talking about people who are involved in some of the biggest decisions affecting the well-being of our country. These are people who, through their daily decisions and contacts, have a significant impact on the lives of Canadians and a direct impact on policy and decision-making of the government. Therefore, the people who occupy these kinds of positions need to operate by the highest ethical standards.
I am talking, of course, not only of elected officials on the government side, but of Parliament as well. The Lobbying Act currently applies to ministers, ministers of state and their exempt staff. We brought forward a five year ban on activities that also applies to senior officials, such as deputy ministers and chief executives of departments, agencies, among others.
The opposition members have made the argument over the last several days that Parliament is supreme, that Parliament has all the power and, taking them at their argument, presumably parliamentarians are the ones with all the power. Following further on that logic, if we want the Lobbying Act to provide accountability to those who have the power, then presumably the act would apply to parliamentarians who, according to the opposition's logic, have the power in our system.
On numerous occasions today, my colleagues and I have asked members of the Liberal caucus, who together moved today's motion on the Lobbying Act, whether they would be prepared to subject themselves to the same scrutiny that they wish to put forward onto parliamentary secretaries on the government's side. Up until this moment, we have not had a single, solitary Liberal MP willing to subject himself or herself to that scrutiny.
Canadians do not want parliamentarians of any party, on the government side or opposition side, to engage in double standards or to hold others to standards that they themselves are not prepared to meet. That is why I am looking forward to some members of the Liberal caucus rising here in the House of Commons to consent that they would support the kind of scrutiny on their own activities that they are proposing to thrust upon parliamentary secretaries on the government side.
Therefore, I am putting forward for discussion today the idea that our members of Parliament, senators and the staff in the opposition leader's office should be subject to the same kind of lobbying rules that currently exist for ministers and ministers of state. That would, of course, capture parliamentary secretaries, all of whom are, by necessity, also members of Parliament, and it would put everybody on the same level playing field.
If members of the Liberal caucus believe their conduct is of the highest standard and capable of withstanding the most intense scrutiny, there should be absolutely no objection to that kind of decision. Therefore, I invite members of the opposition to join with me in working together, in the interests of Canadians, to raise the standard by which all members of Parliament conduct themselves in their relations with lobbyists by declaring their support for an extension of the act to apply to all parliamentarians, themselves included.
With that, I will close on the note that Canadians sent us here to raise the level of accountability. I am prepared to work with members of good faith from all parties, and I believe there are members of good faith in all of the parties, to help lift that bar and improve the system that we have put in place together. There is no reason that we cannot, in that same spirit of Canadian co-operation, come together now to restore faith, build upon the faith that Canadians have in our system, eliminate all double standards and treat all parliamentarians equally, at the highest level of accountability and with the best standards in the world.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to, in return, ask the member whether he would simply introduce the required amendments and bring them to this House in the normal pattern. He is a representative of the government. The Conservatives are the government and they should be coming to grips with this crisis that they are in right now where they have unregistered lobbyists, known to them for many years, running amok and looking for contracts. One would think that they would want to take this issue seriously and come to grips with their problems, admit that they have a problem over there and introduce the amendments that he is talking about.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my question for members of all opposition parties was to ascertain whether or not we as the government would have support to extend the same high standards to which ministers are held to all members of Parliament. So far I have not heard a single, solitary member of the opposition declare his or her willingness to live up to those standards.
They are pointing out that they want parliamentary secretaries, all of whom are on the government side in the Conservative caucus, to live up to a certain standard, but none of the opposition MPs are prepared to declare themselves willing to live up to those same standards.
I would encourage the member, in his supplementary question, to rise and affirm his commitment to support that kind of legislative change.
As to whether or not the government will introduce an amendment to make that happen, he will have to stay tuned and I hope that, if and when we do, we will have his support.
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Speaker, yes, the member has got one.
Here is the situation. The question is, if it is so imperative for the parliamentary secretary right now, why was it not back then? Mea culpa, maybe they did not think about it.
I am just trying to raise the bar in a conversation about how we can do it. He talked about the functions of governance and how the Conservatives originally set out what they wanted to do in 2006 in the campaign. He mentioned the ministers, their exempt staff, the deputy ministers. Certainly even in his role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister , he must realize the information that he holds and the responsibility that he wields to be involved in this.
The member also talked about past circumstances and past scandals that sullied the reputation of politicians. Does the current scandal not do much of the same?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member's opening “yes” was a reference to my question, would he be willing to subject himself to the same scrutiny that he would like to impose upon others. I am hoping that when he said “yes”, he was answering my question. I do not know for sure if that is the case.
However, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River and I would conclude my answer to the member by saying I wish that he would work with us in a spirit of co-operation and collaboration to raise the bar, so that all members, himself included, myself included, would be subjected to the highest possible standards.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate on the opposition motion today. We have to assume that the opposition has brought forth the proposal to extend the lobbying requirements to parliamentary secretaries in good faith. Yet, when we asked the members to level the playing field and be fair by including themselves, it seems that they refused to do that. I believe that not one of them so far has said that he or she would agree to impose on himself or herself exactly the same requirements and standards the Liberals are trying to impose on members of the government side. They refused to do it.
Why does the member think that is? I would like to get an idea as to why he thinks they refuse to do that. It seems like a double standard.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I guess members could call me an optimist. My belief is that at the end of the day we can all work together to improve the system and raise the bar.
When the member said that they are not willing on the other side, I believe that Canadians will pressure them to live up to the standards that they are calling for others.
Martin Luther King said, “I don't judge a man by my principle but by his own”. I ask the members to judge themselves by their own principles and support imposing all of the same rules on themselves that they call for others.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is an opportunity for all of us to get up on an issue that is important to all of us, the issue of accountability.
Our government has certainly demonstrated over the last number of years its commitment to openness, transparency and accountability. The ethical atom bomb known as the sponsorship scandal caused many Canadians to lose their trust in elected officials.
People will recall that I was elected and the Conservative government was elected on our commitment to change the way that things are done here in Ottawa. There is no doubt that we have delivered. We put accountability and ethical behaviour squarely at the centre of our contract with Canadians and squarely at the centre of our governing agenda.
I can assure the House that our commitment to accountability has not diminished. Accountability is the only thing that will earn the public trust in government; ensuring it is a full-time job and the basis for everything that we do.
The Federal Accountability Act was the first step. This was toughest anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history. Our commitment to ensuring accountability did not stop, though, with the passage of that act in 2006. It continues to be at the forefront of our engagement with Canadians. It pervades every action of this government.
One of the first things we did was to bring forward that act to reduce the influence of big business and big labour's donations in elections. As a result, a law banning contributions to political parties by corporations, unions and organizations and lowering the limit on individuals' political contributions came into force in 2007.
We do not believe that money should drive the political system or that untraceable envelopes of cash passed between Liberal operatives have any place in any government.
When we drafted the legislation, we wanted to ensure that our public servants could report wrongdoing without worrying about reprisals. We put into place a whistleblower protection act to ensure that these brave individuals would be protected.
As a result, Canada has one of the strongest, if not the strongest, whistleblower protection regimes in the western hemisphere. Canadians have a right to expect from their public officials, elected and non-elected, that they act ethically and are accountable for their actions. In almost 100% of the cases, they are accountable and they conduct themselves in this way.
These measures have sent a loud and clear signal that the people who are entrusted with taxpayers' money have a duty and responsibility to look after taxpayers' money. Those who abuse the trust and commit fraud are subject to prosecution and tough penalties.
We have also lowered the annual limit for political contributions from $5,000 to $1,000. We cut the influence of big businesses and big labour on the political process.
Canadians wanted a more open and transparent government and the government delivered. We put into place measures to provide Canadians with broader and better access to more information from public organizations than they had ever had before. For example, we extended the Access to Information Act to over 70 crown corporations. Over 250 organizations are now subject to the Access to Information Act.
To help restore public trust in government, we introduced measures to strengthen ethical conduct among lobbyists as well. One of the key aspects of the stipulation that lobbyists now have to undertake is the requirement that they file monthly reports for lobbying activities that they initiate with ministers, their staff and senior officials. As a result, lobbying is more transparent and open than it has ever been before.
Today, anyone can find out who is lobbying ministers, who is lobbying senior government, and in what context they are lobbying. This information is available on the Internet. Information about lobbying activities such as which lobbyists are communicating with which ministers and senior officials on what topics is available to the public. The government has also drawn a line between appropriate and inappropriate lobbying.
One of the most important changes that we made was to ban people who had been in positions of power from lobbying for at least five years after they leave those positions. We specifically targeted those who would influence the government's choice of policies, programs and services for personal gain.
This act is strict. If any designated public office holder breaches the act, he or she could be subject to stiff sanctions ranging from monetary penalties to jail time. Fines can be as high as $50,000.
These measures have given Canadians one of the most robust lobbying regimes in the world. More importantly, they have given Canadians the reassurance that former senior officials, politicians and their staff cannot use their personal connections to obtain special favours from the government once they leave office.
Our reforms have created the Commissioner of Lobbying and ensured that this agent of Parliament has the power needed to be an effective independent watchdog. This is a considerable break from the Liberal system where only a toothless registrar had oversight of these matters.
These are only a few of the measures that have been taken by this government to strengthen accountability in the public service and to ensure that lobbying is conducted openly and transparently.
I am very proud of the reforms that our government has introduced since first coming to power.
I think it is a little bit rich that we hear the Liberal Party presenting this motion today. It is, after all, the same party that brought us the sponsorship scandal that forced us to take the steps that I have outlined today. It is the same party that kicked and screamed at almost every single step of the process when Parliament was considering the Federal Accountability Act.
We on this side of the House believe that Canadians have a right to know who is pressuring their representatives. We cast a wide net in the Federal Accountability Act, but no system is perfect.
Today we have heard the President of the Treasury Board and the government House leader propose that these same lobbying rules be extended to all parliamentarians, to every single member of Parliament and to every senator as well. We also believe that the staff of the opposition leaders' offices should also be subject to these requirements. This only makes sense. After all, these parliamentarians play a key role in shaping public policy and Canadians have the right to know who is meeting with those people.
If the opposition is really serious about accountability to Canadians, they should have absolutely no problem with supporting these measures that were outlined today.
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Speaker, when my hon. colleague from Alberta talks about the Federal Accountability Act and certain scandals of the past, I go to the question that I asked his colleague. What about the current one? Could the member flesh out this idea about what the current scandal about a former MP is doing to the situation and how we can raise the bar?
The member made a passionate argument for extending it to all members of Parliament. My question is, if that was 2006 and this is 2010, why now? Was it ever discussed by him or other members about including everybody?
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is absolute clear at this point who is and who is not supporting a measure that would include all parliamentarians. It is this side of the House that is proposing that we move further than any other party in this House as it relates to new measures. I believe that every member of Parliament should be accountable for whom they meet with, and to disclose to Canadians and more importantly to their own constituents with whom they are meeting and by whom they are being pressured.
It is interesting to watch the doors of the opposition lobby, because we see a number of lobbyists go through those doors, former Liberal ministers. Canadians do not know what happens behind those closed doors. I think it is important and incumbent upon those members to disclose to their constituents and to all Canadians who those people are.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member discussed the whistleblower legislation. All of the government's initiatives have been a big improvement over where the government was before. But the question is: how did this whistleblower legislation work with the Rahim Jaffer case? Who blew the whistle on him?
The way he was caught was through the drunken driving and possession of cocaine charges. That is when people started asking more questions. Where was the government during this time? No one asked Jaffer or checked to see whether he was a registered lobbyist. He met with seven ministers and several parliamentary secretaries, but nobody asked any questions. Nobody went on the computer, as he suggested, and checked to see if he was reporting meetings with them. Had they done that, they would have realized that he was not.
Is Rahim Jaffer a one-off--
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, the facts are absolutely clear as they relate to the issue that the member presented.
The first point is that neither Mr. Jaffer nor his partners received any government money. The second point is that all the documentation that we are discussing around committee tables has been brought forward by the government in an act of full transparency and full accountability. That is the way that Canadians would expect a transparent government to conduct itself and that certainly has been the demonstration in this case as well.
Opposition motion—Lobbying ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
North Vancouver B.C.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have chosen to talk about accountability and so-called loopholes here today, so let us find out what the Liberals are doing in this regard. I have here an email which was sent out by the national director of the national Liberal fund of the Liberal Party of Canada asking for donations under $200, so that they can be “reported to Elections Canada anonymously”.
Is this the Liberals' idea of openness and accountability? I would like to ask my hon. colleague, what does he think about this so-called anonymous donation request?
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, this highlights the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. On a day that we are talking about transparency and accountability in this House, we have a letter that is being distributed by the bagmen of the Liberal Party asking for people to hide their donations. We are getting back to a situation where the next thing they are going to be asking for is for the money to be enclosed in brown envelopes. On a day that we are talking about absolute transparency and accountability, it is time that the Liberals joined the rest of Parliament on this expedition toward full transparency.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville.
I rise today to speak in support of the Liberal motion before us regarding a loophole in the Lobbyists Registration Act that makes it possible to get around the rules in that act. It is a shame that it has come to this. During the 2006 election campaign, the Conservatives were the champions of accountability. Once in power, they quickly pushed accountability legislation through. They were hoping to impress the gallery and set up a smokescreen.
I am referring to the Stand Up for Canada campaign platform the Conservatives waved around like a bible. In that platform, we find things that have lost their lustre over the years. I am thinking more specifically about the parliamentary budget officer position. The Conservatives are doing everything they can to prevent Mr. Page from doing his work. This was clear to us when the government took months to provide him with documents he was requesting. They eventually sent the documents not in electronic form, but in hard copy, in paper form, even though an electronic version existed.
Then there are government appointments. Even though the Conservatives criticized partisan appointments, in March they stacked government boards and commissions with 79 partisan appointments before bragging about cutting vacant positions.
Then there are communications and polls. The Conservatives promised to clean up polls and advertising, but a few weeks ago we learned that they have spent almost $42 million to advertise their economic action plan. That is more than the total advertising bill for all of Canada's breweries combined. The Conservatives spent $42 million to advertise their economic action plan when many non Conservative regions were still waiting for the so-called windfall that action plan was to provide.
Today I want to talk about their 2006 election promise to tighten up the Lobbying Act. Their plan was to require ministers and senior officials to register any communication they had with lobbyists.
What are the provisions in the current Lobbyist Registration Act? It defines paid activities that are to be considered lobbying. As a general rule, they include communications with public office holders for the purpose of amending legislation, regulations, federal policies or programs, obtaining a financial benefit such as a grant or contribution and, in some cases, for the awarding of a government contract or for arranging a meeting between a public office holder and any another person.
The law requires individuals to register as lobbyists when they expect to be paid for lobbying activities. This means that these individuals must provide certain details about themselves and, where applicable, about their business and the subject they intend to discuss. They must indicate, and I quote: “—the name of any department or other governmental institution in which any public office holder with whom the individual communicates or expects to communicate...is employed or serves”. This information is made public when it is entered into the registry of lobbyists.
One of the new rules designed to increase accountability requires lobbyists to file a monthly return when oral and arranged communication has occurred between the lobbyist and designated public office holder. Oral and arranged communications include telephone calls, meetings as well as any other communication arranged in advance. The information is subsequently made public when placed in the registry of lobbyists.
This type of report is not required for meetings with parliamentary secretaries. By excluding the latter from the definition of designated public office holders, the Conservatives have created, in the Lobbying Act, a loophole that they are currently exploiting. The Conservatives drafted this legislation. They know it like the back of their hand and they deliberately created a way to circumvent it.
We must close this loophole to ensure that parliamentary secretaries are required to register meetings they have with lobbyists.
The Conservatives are not keeping their promises. We have asked the Prime Minister to explain in detail the consequences for Conservative ministers and other public office holders who violate the Conflict of Interest Act and the government's own departmental guidelines. Our questions are met with silence.
In April, the Prime Minister's communications director assured Canadians that Rahim Jaffer did not have access to the government, but after weeks of obstruction and denials, one by one, Conservative ministers started panicking and giving out limited information on their dealings with Green Power Generation and its owners, Rahim Jaffer and Patrick Glémaud.
We learned that one Conservative minister, and then another Conservative minister—seven Conservative ministers in total—had opened their doors to Mr. Jaffer and his business.
The documents also reveal troubling and repeated violations of the Conflict of Interest Act and the Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State, which was created by the Prime Minister himself.
The Conflict of Interest Act is clear about the role of public office holders:
—a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends—
It goes on to say:
No public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder ’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives or friends—
It is clear that Mr. Jaffer's friends, the ministers and parliamentary secretaries, or their staff, who personally intervened to fast-track his requests for funding, violated these sections of the act.
An employee in the office of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities wrote on a proposal submitted by GPG, “From Rahim—submit to dept.”
When Mr. Jaffer asked for $700,000 for a mercury capture proposal, the Minister of the Environment's staff forwarded his request to a senior Western Economic Development Canada official, who asked to have someone review the proposal on a priority basis because he needed to get back to Rahim.
According to one email, the current Minister of Natural Resources tried to put Mr. Jaffer in touch with the top official at his former department, the deputy minister of Public Works, about a GPG proposal to install solar panels on government buildings. When the file appeared to stall a month later, the minister's staff ordered bureaucrats to speed up their review.
These infractions are in addition to violations of the Prime Minister's own Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State, which states that:
Ministers and Ministers of State...are responsible for ensuring the bona fides of those with whom they have dealings... Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the government are conserved and enhanced.
Since the Conservatives continue to place themselves in conflict of interest situations and violate various codes of ethics, members of the current government must be accountable. They have to drop the “do as I say, not as I do” attitude.
Currently, parliamentary secretaries to ministers do not fall within the Lobbyist Registration Act's definition of designated public office holder.
We have to eliminate this loophole to make parliamentary secretaries accountable to the public with respect to their contact with lobbyists.
We urge the government to fix this problem by including parliamentary secretaries in the act's definition of designated public office holder to prevent future secret meetings between lobbyists and Conservative loyalists.
The Conservatives only make promises about accountability when they get caught. If they cared about accountability at all, they would have kept their 2006 election promise to make ministers responsible for reporting their meetings with lobbyists. Why has it taken four years?
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting for Canadians to try to figure out what has happened in the last couple of weeks, and they are confused. They are confused about the rules that were proposed by the government and what has happened.
There is a great deal of confusion around the responsibilities of parliamentary secretaries. I think it is fair to say that parliamentary secretaries have an enhanced role. We see one of the largest cabinets ever in the history of Canada. Part of that is because of the roles of the parliamentary secretaries.
Does the member believe that the enhancement in the increased numbers of members in the cabinet and therefore the numbers in the parliamentary secretary role require that the rules contemplated by the Conservative Party when in opposition should be strengthened and be in line with the growth in the executive and the influence of the executive to include parliamentary secretaries?
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his question.
As I said in my speech, the Conservatives knew very well what they were writing when they wrote the new legislation. They knew exactly what they were doing when they excluded the parliamentary secretaries. They also knew exactly what they were doing when it came time to deal with lobbyists. They would refer them, on almost an automatic basis, to their parliamentary secretaries so they would not be soiled in their vocabulary by these connections or meetings. Whenever the parliamentary secretaries would deal with, or would agree to or would discuss with these lobbyists would appear nowhere because the parliamentary secretaries were not subject to the new legislation.
On the question of my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, obviously the Conservatives knew what they were doing when they drafted the legislation and, yes, these parliamentary secretaries should be included in the law to avoid this type of business in future.
