Debates of May 4th, 2010

Opposition Motion--Lobbying Act

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Somebody who undertakes this and under any other circumstance would be sent away in handcuffs and prevented from flying, we are supposed to just accept that she was sorry. Let us move on and there is no consequence. The Prime Minister protected the minister in this circumstance.

Then we have a situation where the husband of the cabinet minister is charged with cocaine possession and drunk driving. At that point, it would have been a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to say, “We had better do an enhanced security review of this minister to take a look at what kind of interactions have been taking place. If there is a potential that her husband has been coming in contact with illicit drugs, then there should be enhanced security screening of this minister”. It did not happen. The minister continued to be protected.

Then the former minister of state for status of women sent a series of letters written by her office, masquerading as constituents, writing her praises, talking about the great job she was doing. They were written by staff masquerading as constituents. That was not enough for the Prime Minister to remove her.

Then there were the allegations that exploded on the front pages of newspapers, starting first with the Toronto Star, about very unsavoury dealings with her husband trying to lobby the government as an unregistered lobbyist. Even when those allegations first broke, that was not enough. She was not removed at that stage.

Then we got to a point where the Prime Minister is visited in his office by a private investigator, who gives him information that is not disclosed to us and, suddenly, this is serious and credible evidence that is enough not only to remove her from cabinet but from caucus and to call in the RCMP, something that has not been done since 1987 under Brian Mulroney, when he had to call in the RCMP on a sitting member of cabinet.

What followed was a Prime Minister who hid the allegations, unlike following Mr. Mulroney's example where the allegations were disclosed, recognizing that the public had a right to know what is happening in the highest offices of the land. The Prime Minister shielded those allegations and said he referred them. What we find out is that no official referral took place with the Ethics Commissioner. In fact, the Ethics Commissioner said that she was reviewing media clippings, that was her access to information, and that she never received any formal request from the government.

We still do not know exactly what all the allegations are and all the information the Prime Minister has. We are still being kept in the dark. However, what did become clear in dribs and drabs, and we had to fight and scrape to get information, was that the former Conservative caucus chair was engaged in unregistered lobbying, had the opportunity to not only meet with parliamentary secretaries but with ministers through seven departments that we know of, and none of it was reported.

It is amazing to me, having been caught in this situation, that the government would not be leaping at the opportunity to support this motion, to say absolutely this should never happen again. That is what one would expect from a government that has been caught in this circumstance, but it has the audacity to go the other way, to say no, we do not need this, everything is just fine, do not worry.

Let us look at the seven departments that have admitted to having engagement with Mr. Jaffer and his unregistered lobbying. The principal department responsible for the green fund is the Ministry of Natural Resources. The minister who is currently responsible for that department and the immediate past minister have given us nothing but silence. We know absolutely nothing about their department's engagement with Mr. Jaffer or his business associates and the different schemes for government cash that he was pushing. We know nothing.

Not only did we have to wait to extract this information about the engagement with seven departments, but the principal departments, the ones most responsible for the fund, that were trying to be accessed by this unregistered lobbyist, we have no information. Parliament is still being left in the dark.

Requests for those ministers to come before committee have been completely ignored, so the ministers still are keeping us in the dark and Canadians are left without knowledge of what is going on. For the government, apparently this is what members call “doing the right thing”. My goodness, if this is their definition of doing the right thing, I would hate to see their definition of doing the wrong thing.

This issue pertains to the former Conservative caucus chair, husband of a cabinet minister engaging in unregistered lobbying, being given the run of seven departments, an access that no one else in this country could possible have dreamt of, by virtue of his Conservative connections.

Let us look at what other actions the government is taking that are really shutting down the ability of Parliament and independent officers of Parliament to look into the dark corners, to reveal the truth.

The actions the government is taking to shut down dissent and those who would speak against it in a method that in my opinion is a direct attack against our democracy.

Let us be clear, the ability to dissent, the ability to criticize a government, the ability for independent officers of Parliament to open up the doors and take a look at what is going on inside, and report that to the public is one of the most fundamental freedoms. I would submit it is a freedom from which all other freedoms flow. If we do not have that right there can be no democracy because we do not know the truth.

Just a couple of days ago on the government's crime agenda as an example, when the government kept telling us that one of its bills, Bill C-25, was going to cost $90 million. For months and months Conservatives said that was the cost of the bill, $90 million. I did not buy it, so I went to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and asked that he review it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer asked the government for basic information, information that should have been turned over in a day, information like projected prison population. He was denied that information. He was rebuked and told he could not have the most basic of information, completely shut out.

What did he have to do? He had to build statistical models using StatsCan data for six months using one-third of the resources of his office to get at information the government was hiding from him. Now days away from that report being released, the government says the $90 million is now $2 billion. In a 24-hour period it goes from telling the public something is going to cost $90 million, a line it has maintained all along, to when it knows it is about to be exposed turns around and says, “whoops we made a mistake, it's $2 billion”. That is one bill and that is the consequence of allowing a government to operate in secret and in the dark. That is the importance of a motion like this.

Let us continue down the list. The government began slowly in its means to control the message and bury information, first with its own MPs and its cabinet, making sure that if they did not speak off talking points that heads would roll. Members know that if they were on a panel and actually spoke their mind that they would be done. I could only imagine former members of the Reform Party, a movement started on the ability of members being able to speak their own mind, how they must feel to sit under a Prime Minister who has them under his thumb like that.

If that was not enough, then it went to the public service and to websites. Even the Canada Day event here on Parliament Hill, the stage was changed to blue, and it eradicated websites of any information that did not fit the talking points. Bureaucrats, whom I have had an opportunity to meet across this country, tell me that they are terrified of speaking their own mind because they are afraid of reprisals from a government that has shown nothing but vengeance for those who would dare speak against it.

When someone like Richard Colvin, a well-respected diplomat, comes forward and says that he has information about wrongdoings in Afghanistan, about torture and abuse in Afghanistan, the Conservatives attack him. They attack his credibility. Instead of calling a public inquiry to get at the facts and the truth, they attack his credibility just as they do--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is rising on a point of order.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the relevance of the current drift in the member's speech and actual motion at hand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I think the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering will keep in mind the substance of the motion when he concludes his remarks.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this goes right to the heart of this motion. If we do not have transparency or the ability to look into the dark corners of what is going on with the government, then there can be no democracy. This motion asks very simply for the ability to ensure that this loophole is closed, and that the Federal Accountability Act and the promises that the government made be honoured.

I am trying to establish a pattern of behaviour here that leads to the necessity for motions like this to open the doors to what is going on. It should not have to happen. The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl should not have to bring forward a motion like this, but it is because of these actions that bury truth and shut down dissent that motions like this are necessary.

We move on from attacking the public service and the independence of that public service to distorting committees. We all remember the handbook to mess up parliamentary committees. If that was not enough, after it tried to play games and shut down parliamentary committees, it moved right to shutting down Parliament not once but twice in a one-year period. It was not to refresh an agenda but to shut down debate, in this instance the Afghan detainee issue.

The Information Commissioner has come forward and said that there are unbelievable delays in people getting access to information. Departments are getting Fs. The Information Commissioner came forward and said that, in an unprecedented fashion, the government is shutting down access to information and shutting the doors on letting the public know what is going on.

As I mentioned earlier, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is getting his office budget cut and getting a refusal to get even basic information to allow Parliament to know the costs of the things that we are voting on. Then we have the attack on the independent officers of Parliament.

The nuclear safety regulator, who tried to come forward and raise concerns about the actions of the government and how they would impact both the nuclear industry and human health, was fired.

The head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, a man who came forward, stood up against the government on issues ranging from oversight to use of tasers to the RCMP pension scandal and others, and criticized the government for not implementing the recommendations of Justice O'Connor, the conclusions of Justice Iacobucci and others, was fired. He was replaced with a wills and estates lawyer with no background in the field, somebody who has donated heavily to the Conservative Party, and somebody from whom I am wondering if we will ever hear anything again in terms of criticizing the government.

The National Science Adviser, who spoke out against the actions of the government, was fired.

The victims' ombudsman, who came forward and said that the policies of the government are unbalanced, will not work and are not right for victims, was fired.

We go down the list to the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, who criticized the government. He was fired.

If we dare speak out against the government, if we dare have a dissenting opinion or want to know the truth, watch out. This is from a government that is in a minority position. Imagine the unrestrained vengeance that it would unleash if it was given the opportunity.

That brings me to the ruling of the Speaker just last week. It said that Parliament had a fundamental right to know, to have access to information, and to not have the kinds of loopholes that are used and frankly abused, and that are addressed in motions like this.

It is time that the government stop hiding, stop burying, stop being vengeful on those who criticize it, and actually live up to the words and promises it ran on in 2006. Accountability is not only a word, it is an action. It is time that the government started showing some.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservative caucus meetings must be pretty tense events these days. I hope no shoes are being thrown around.

The fact is the Prime Minister came in with a little hope that he would be different than the previous Liberal government of Chrétien and different than the Mulroney government. Both governments had their share of corruption. He has become, by all accounts, a big control freak. He has set up mechanisms to deal with avoiding scandals. What happened?

Rahim Jaffer, an unregistered lobbyist, has been getting around the system, violating it, not registering. Nobody in the government asked why he was not registered. How many other unregistered lobbyists are running amok in the Conservative government?

It has to be tense over there. The government must have been asleep at the switch while all this was happening. The Prime Minister must be going crazy. If he does not clean out the whole works of them and put in a whole new set, I do not think he will be able to sleep at night and stay calm.

I recommend that he make some changes and get some of the new backbenchers—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an important point. If a former Conservative caucus chair and husband of a cabinet minister of high profile could work his way through seven departments that we know of, and it could very well be more, for that many months, then how many other well-connected Conservatives have been given the keys to avoid all the different rules in place?

Rightfully, average Canadians, who do not have deep Conservative connections, wonder why they have to follow one set of rules and yet those who have deep Conservative connections follow another set of rules.

As a result of there being no requirement to publicly disclose who one is meeting with, and because one can do what the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did and pass it on to the parliamentary secretary who is not subject to the same rules and use that loophole, we are really being left in the dark.

The heart of the motion before us is to try to ensure we have some light shed on just how much of this goes on. How isolated are the actions of Mr. Jaffer in his ability to skirt all the rules? What else is going on out there?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Liberal Party took great liberties in discussing this motion, so I will take the same kind of liberties and pick up on a couple of the things he said.

I was really quite surprised that he would talk about democracy at committees when in fact he was the one who tried to force through a witness list that would not allow the government to choose witnesses on the gun registry issue, which will come before committee for the first time this afternoon.

He talked about what it would be like if the Conservatives formed a majority government. What would it be like if the Liberals formed government, if we judge them by what they have done as they head up a coalition to try to ram things through committees? It just shocks me that he would even use that as an example.

I want to come to something else. He used an example of cost overruns on a bill. A bill was passed by the Liberal government in 1995 that had the most horrific cost overrun in the history of Canada. It was projected to cost taxpayers $2 million. It ended up over $1 billion, and that was confirmed by the Auditor General. It is unbelievable. It would never have passed through Parliament if we had known it would cost that much.

I wonder if he would he come clean on some of these things.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do know what happens when there are majority Liberal governments. We have periods of unprecedented growth, prosperity, job creation and, by the way, no deficit. That is what happened the last time we had a majority Liberal government in our country.

Maybe the member fundamentally understands the concept of democracy. I presented a motion at committee. The committee then had an opportunity, by majority vote, to exert its will. In this instance, my motion did not carry and the committee went a different way. However, the government seems to have this idea that democracy is it getting its way. We heard the statement by the member. Why should the government be able to select its witnesses? The government wants these witnesses. If it does not get its witnesses, it is not democratic and it is not fair. It does not work like that. It is a minority government. We have to have a majority vote of either committee or the House to get what we want.

I moved my motion. Unfortunately it did not succeed. The committee made a choice by majority vote to go in a different direction. That is the very nature of democracy. We present ideas and then we have to win over a majority of people to get support for our idea to get it implemented. A democracy is not one person, be it the Prime Minister or anybody else, standing up and saying, “This is my idea. Take it. If you do not, I will force it on you or I will find a way to bring retribution if you disagree with me”.

On the issue specifically of the witness list, when we have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who, through its membership across the country, support overwhelmingly a bill that promotes public safety, when we have the Canadian Police Association, when we have the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP, when we have countless victims groups, when we have the Bar Association, pediatricians and doctors, all these individuals who have come forward and have said that the registry needs to be maintained, that we need to kill the bill that would gut the registry, then I stand with police, with pediatricians and with those people who keep our communities safe.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I quickly remind the member for Yorkton—Melville that the only coalition that succeeded was the Reform Party, the NDP and the Bloc coalition to overthrow the governing party of Paul Martin.

When I listen to the member for Ajax—Pickering, I hear that the government operates under a veil of secrecy. I heard members speak earlier on why they would not support the motion. They spoke about the adscam and money that was stolen. They justified their decision because no money was paid out. Some time ago the Prime Minister received some lobbyists at his house. He justified it because it did not work out.

Rahim Jaffer, as the papers say, was waltzing from minister to minister. The justification is no money was paid out. If somebody attempts to rob a bank, but there was no money to steal, does that mean it is okay? Does mean we do not charge that person for intent? We do not charge people for their interest in robbing. Does that justify it?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position that the only way this could have been lobbying was if cash was given is a little like a person, to use an analogy with guns, who has gone out hunting without a hunting licence, saying he has not shot anything. He says that he may have gone out hunting, but it really was not hunting because he has not shot anything yet. It is a little like a person who gets into a boat with a fishing line and says that he or she has not caught a fish yet, so it is not fishing.

Just because scandal shut all of this down before Mr. Jaffer could get his cash, does not make it right. The government needs to consider what it is actually saying in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As there is some extra time, I wonder if the hon. member would like to answer my question on the cost overrun going from $2 million to $1 billion. This is something—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There is enough time for some more questions and comments, but unfortunately the member cannot answer that specific point unless another members raises it.

The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are staring to remind me of an old expression in Newfoundland and Labrador that says, “Who knows the mind of a squid”. It is starting to become a reality here today.

My hon. colleague gave a very passionate and informed speech. He talked about parliamentary secretaries and their not being covered under the Lobbyist Act. Does he think it is an inadvertent omission or an intentional omission? With all the kind of subterfuge going on here today, I am starting to wonder myself.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask this question. Why are the Conservatives so opposed to this motion? They campaigned on it. They said that they believed in it in 2006. They said that it was extremely important.

We introduced a motion to try to shut down an obvious loophole, one that the government should be very embarrassed about. If the omission was a mistake and it was honest, then it would want to support this motion. It would say that we exposed something that was a weakness in the system, let us fix it. However, the fact that it is standing in opposition to the motion begs a lot of questions.

For the member who rose on the point of order. Right now the gun registry costs, according to the RCMP and the Auditor General, $3 million a year. By any definition, that is incredible value. We can attack the RCMP and the Auditor General and the validity of their comments, but I will stand by their numbers.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

It is rather ironic that the Liberals are putting forward this motion today, in light of their poor record of transparency. The sponsorship scandal went on for more than six years before the Bloc Québécois blew the whistle and brought this scheme to light.

Whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in opposition or in power, it makes no difference, and I will explain why. When the Conservatives are in opposition, they behave in a certain way, and when the Liberals are in power, they behave just like the Conservatives. Take the anti-scab law, for example. When the member for Jonquière—Alma was in opposition, he said it was a good law, but when he became Minister of Labour, he said that it was not the interests of workers, but the interests of all Canadians that counted and that he was therefore changing his position. Once he was in power, his ideology changed.

The same is true of the program for older worker adjustment. When I ran in a byelection in my riding, the same member for Jonquière—Alma came to tell my constituents that the program for older worker adjustment would be restored shortly. We are still waiting for this program.

I have a colleague who, during this session, introduced a bill in the House that would abolish the employment insurance waiting period. Even though most of the opposition members supported this bill, the government is refusing to grant the royal recommendation that would allow this change to be made.

The Liberals did the same thing when they were in power. When in opposition, the Conservatives supported employment insurance measures, but the Liberals did not grant the royal recommendation.

The Liberals and the Conservatives say one thing when they are in opposition and another when they are in power. For all these reasons, I am a bit surprised to see the Liberals move this motion.

That said, we will not oppose greater government transparency, because it is a good thing.

I talked about election promises. I would remind the House that in 2006 the Conservatives campaigned on the promise that their government would be much more transparent than previous governments. So far they have not kept their promise. We are still waiting for this transparency.

In fact, what the government is doing is worse than a lack of transparency. It often uses the Access to Information Act to justify its lack of transparency. However, if transparency is so important to them, I urge the government and the Prime Minister to appoint an information commissioner. As we know, the current commissioner was appointed on an interim basis in July 2009 and her term will expire in June of this year. No one yet knows or can tell us if the government plans to fill this position, which is so essential to our democracy, permanently as of June 2010. It does not cost the government a lot of money and would demonstrate its goodwill. That said, we are still waiting.

The Access to Information Act is over 25 years old. To put this in context, my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour was first elected to this House 25 years ago.

I was not even old enough to vote and my parliamentary assistant was not even born. This legislation has been around for a very long time. It is often said that one day in politics is an eternity, so imagine what 25 years means.

Twenty-five years is a quarter of a century. I must remind the government party of this. In 25 years, the government has had the time to reform the Access to Information Act. Also, 25 years ago, media such as the Internet, Twitter and Facebook did not exist. If for no other reason than to adapt to these new realities, the government should update this legislation.

I am not surprised that the government is dragging its feed regarding these announcements. One of the Conservatives' promises was to give all regions and rural areas high-speed Internet access. This measure was meant to bring our communities into the modern world. We are still waiting to hear from the government regarding these commitments, which are so vital to our communities. I am not surprised to see that the government is not making it a priority to ensure that Quebeckers and all Canadians have electronic access to information. It is also dragging its feet when it comes to offering these services to our communities.

Moreover, the current legislation does not include parliamentary secretaries on the list of public office holders, which is not good from an ethics point of view. Parliamentary secretaries often have to answer ministers' questions and fill in for them. Because they are delegated by ministers, the same code of ethics and responsibilities should apply to them.

The government answered many questions about lobbyist registration from my leader and the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, our ethics critic. I am very worried by the government's assertion that Mr. Jaffer cannot be considered a lobbyist because he did not sign a contract with the government.

Does this mean that from now on, when budding lobbyists go hunting for contracts, they do not have to register as lobbyists until they actually bag a deal? Will this measure apply to every individual who wants to become a lobbyist? If so, then democracy will suffer. What the government is saying is that there is a double standard.

The ethics commissioner appeared before the committee and told us that she had received no documents from the Prime Minister's Office. In response to numerous questions from my leader, the Prime Minister said that as soon as he found about the allegations, he forwarded the relevant documents and information to the ethics commissioner.

However, when the ethics commissioner appeared before the committee, she said that she had never received any such documents. I know that Canada Post—which the Conservatives are planning to cut too—can be slow at times. However, I also know that those documents left the Hill over a month ago. There is no reason why the ethics commissioner should not have received them yet.

By making such statements, the Prime Minister's Office is once again trying to mislead us, and that is not right.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there is no requirement currently for lobbyists to disclose the amount of money they are spending on specific campaigns. There is no requirement for financial disclosure. There are no spending limits for lobbying campaigns. In particular, in terms of the airlines council's role in fighting the air passenger bill of rights over the last year, it spent enormous amounts of money on 10 to 15 paid lobbyists' meeting members of Parliament, sending letters to MPs, phoning MPs and putting on receptions for MPs.

I would like to ask the member whether she and her party would be in favour of bringing in new rules for lobbyists, requiring them to disclose how much money they are spending on specific campaigns, identifying the campaigns and putting some sort of limit, because right now there are no limits whatsoever on these campaigns.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. The Bloc Québécois will certainly never be opposed to measures that will provide an effective framework for lobbyists.

I would go even further than my colleague and say that it is not right that lobbyists should not have to register if they do not spend the majority of their time lobbying. Lobbyists, whether they spend one hour or 40 hours of their week lobbying, should have to register.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fact of life that even if we legislate, if there is no buy-in, it does not work. A perfect example is prohibition.

I wonder if the member thinks that is true in the case of the Federal Accountability Act. Does the member think the government is actually complying with the spirit of the act in its actions during its time in government?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yukon for his question.

Ever since this Conservative government has been in power, we have seen a culture of secrecy develop and that is unacceptable. The latest example came out in the Jaffer affair. When I refer to Mr. Jaffer I also mean his wife, who was removed from the Conservative caucus. The last time a government removed a member from its caucus was under the Mulroney government. The allegations made against that person were disclosed.

In closing, since this is a matter of allegations, I would add that this government has a double standard. It says that it removed the former minister for the status of women because of the allegations. However, when we ask about the allegations of torture in Afghanistan, we are told there cannot be an investigation into mere allegations. What is more, they say the minister was removed for matters that do not affect the government, but they are not investigating a matter that does affect the government, namely, torture in Afghanistan. This is just another example of this Conservative government's inconsistency.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for agreeing to share her time with me. I congratulate her for the excellent speech and the many examples she gave concerning the culture of secrecy that has taken over Parliament, especially since the arrival of the Conservatives in 2006. The sponsorship scandal unfortunately showed us that it is possible for a government in power to fall into the murky waters of the culture of secrecy and favouritism, as shown by the examples that have been given since the motion was moved.

The Bloc Québécois supports the motion moved by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, which reads as follows:

That, given the apparent loophole in the Lobbying Act which excludes Parliamentary Secretaries from the list of “designated public office 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.

It seems entirely logical to me. I have not been a member for many years but I am nevertheless surprised that this was not done before. Had I been told that parliamentary secretaries were on the same list as ministers I would not have been surprised.

We now realize that there are loopholes in the law. Parliamentary secretaries, who have a great deal more power than an ordinary government backbencher, are not subject to the law. That problem can be remedied by this motion, if the majority of Parliament supports it. I believe that will be the case.

However, given the comments I heard today, I do not believe that the Conservatives will vote in favour of this motion. It is completely inconceivable that the party in power, which presented itself in 2006 as the champion of transparency and proclaimed its desire to make ethics a priority, would vote against such a motion.

I said earlier that both the Liberals and the Conservatives, when in power, frequently promised to clean up politics in Ottawa. Neither one kept their promises.

Over the years, the Bloc Québécois has made considerable progress on the ethics and transparency front, in particular by putting an end to corporate funding of election campaigns. Quebec prohibited businesses from contributing to election campaigns in 1977, under the René Lévesque government. At the federal level, parties were able to receive donations up until very recently.

Here are other achievements of the Bloc Québécois: tighter control over lobbying activities and the appointment of returning officers on the basis of merit by an independent organization, Elections Canada. That seems obvious, but that was not the case before. The government directly appointed returning officers. That is no longer the case, and the Bloc Québécois played a big role in that.

Although foundations have not been abolished, we have succeeded in making them subject to review by the Auditor General. That is a step in the right direction. Our many questions also helped put an end to the Canadian unity fund, which dated back to the Mulroney era. This reserve, with close to $800 million, was kept secret and helped fund various propaganda activities.

The Bloc Québécois has always maintained that the problem in Ottawa is not the lack of rules—although some issues could be fixed individually by filling in some holes in the legislation—it is the lack of political will to respect the existing rules.

We are in favour of this motion. During the 2006 election campaign, the Conservatives made themselves out to be the knights of transparency and ethics. This was after the Gomery commission was created by the previous government. With all the scandals that came to light, it was easy for the Conservatives to present themselves to Canadians as a different and transparent government. They claimed they would put ethics and accountability first. They ran their campaign under that banner. I know, because I ran in that election. I was running for my second term.

The Conservatives have completely failed in passing themselves off as the white knights of transparency and ethics.

The fact is that the Conservatives have not honoured their commitments to the public and democracy. Instead of strengthening ethics in government and promoting transparency, they have strengthened the culture of secrecy and cronyism. Earlier, a Liberal member referred to the early days of this government. It was clear from the start that the media no longer had access to ministers when they came out of a caucus meeting. Ministers no longer held scrums, which was something totally new for the media covering federal politics on Parliament Hill, because they had always had access to ministers. When a minister ran from the media, he made the news.

The new government had just taken power, and secrecy was already the order of the day. All the examples mentioned in previous speeches and all the examples we have heard about and seen in the media are now out in the open and show that this government has no intention of making good on the election promises it made four or five years ago.

The Bloc Québécois calls on the Conservatives to keep their election promises on ethics and specifically on lobbying. There are other loopholes in the law, including one that allows individuals to lobby without being registered if they spend less than 20% of their time lobbying or if they are just gathering information. An NDP member raised the same point earlier and said that the Lobbying Act should be strengthened. While I do not want to take a stand on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues who are leading our charge on this issue, I think that the NDP member is right. The law must be strengthened, not broadened so that anyone can do anything.

Lobbying politicians is a very delicate thing to do. It is not illegal, but it has to be done by the book. Special interest groups naturally want to tell the government that they have certain concerns and that they would like to see an issue handled in a certain way for the people they represent. There is nothing wrong with that, but the rules have to be very strict and everything has to be very well regulated so that things do not get out of control.

We were all a bit dismayed when the recent example of Rahim Jaffer hit us, once all the information was made public. No matter how much he denied it in committee, and no matter how we look at the situation, Mr. Jaffer was a lobbyist. He did not register, yet he still lobbied his former colleagues on numerous occasions. He received a warm welcome from staff and from the Prime Minister's Office, no doubt. At least, that is what he has always claimed. He still had the Conservative Party logo on his website. I will not repeat everything that we already know, but, one thing is certain, this gentleman created quite a stir when certain information was made public.

There is also the matter of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who is responsible—the parliamentary secretary, himself, not the minister—for a program with a budget of about $1 billion; not $1 million, but $1 billion. That is significant. He is an obvious target for lobbyists, which is why more stringent rules for this type of role are not only justified, but also necessary.

As I said, we would have expected parliamentary secretaries to have already been included. It is a stark and prime example of how important it is to apply strict rules to lobbying. The parliamentary secretary, who has significant responsibility, opened his door to Mr. Jaffer. He is not an ordinary backbencher.

That is why we must support this Liberal opposition day motion.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Bloc will be supporting this important motion to close a gaping loophole in the Lobbying Act.

The member mentioned that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has access to the $1 billion green fund. I am quite concerned about other parliamentary secretaries. We have not heard, for example, from the parliamentary secretaries or the Minister of Natural Resources.

Does the member share the concern that while we may be closing this loophole, it may be a little late, and that the government should be very forthcoming on what it already may know?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the hon. member. This specific example shows us that something fishy is going on and there is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. I do not understand how the current government can disagree with such a measure since a parliamentary secretary is not an ordinary MP. I do not mean “ordinary” in any derogatory way. A parliamentary secretary has an additional responsibility. He replaces the minister in committee; he listens and speaks for the minister. In the House, when the minister is not here to answer the opposition's questions, it is always the parliamentary secretary who rises. He becomes responsible for what happens in the department. He even makes announcements on behalf of the minister.

Given that a parliamentary secretary may have significant funds to manage, it is clear he could encounter problems with regard to a certain form of lobbying.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to comment on the fact that there is no requirement for lobbyists to disclose the amount of money spent on specific campaigns, no requirement for financial disclosure and no spending limits for lobbying campaigns, especially in light of the air passengers' bill of rights and the lobbyists' efforts to kill that bill where they spent enormous amounts of money on advertising, on receptions and on visiting members.

Does the member think that members of Parliament should have a right to know how much money lobbyists are spending on their campaigns?