Deborah Grey

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Exactly the same way every other Canadian has to do it. Instead I was bound to put 11 per cent in there. It will pay me 4 per cent interest. With mutual funds, if I had been investing that $600-odd dollars a month, I could have been getting back probably 9 per cent or 10 per cent. I would have been sheltered from paying taxes on it now. I would be glad to pay taxes on it later; it is the way the regular RRSP plan works in this country. I would have been able to put all of that money in, but instead I was bound by law. Now I have the option. Now I am taking that option, although it does seem a little ridiculous that the government will not even pay $1 to $1 contributions.

Apparently to compensate members for the minuscule reduction in their future benefit accrual rate the government has also lowered the amounts members contribute toward their own pensions. The minister mentioned that. He said that instead of 11 per cent we will now be putting in just 9 per cent.

There has been all kinds of talk about whether or not it raises the salary of an MP. I will not argue about those figures. If I am not putting in eleven and I am putting in nine that gives me more disposable income. There will be more cash on my monthly cheque.

Let us think for a moment about reducing accrual rates from 11 per cent to 9 per cent, what I would have received if I had opted into the pension and what I might have received if I opted out. I want to look after my own money, my own retirement. I do not want to be dependent on the government. When I am older I want to look after myself with RRSPs. I do not even want to be a burden to the government if I am younger and collecting the MP pension plan that is so rich and generous.

If I had been given the option of taking the $600 a month that I have been putting into the MP pension plan and putting it into my own retirement plan, I could have put in $600 a month from 1989 to 1997. Let me use that nine-year period. What would happen if I had put $600 a month into private RRSPs, mutual funds, rather than into the MP pension plan? Age 75 is the average lifespan. Many people have calculated the average age to be 75 and how much they would get by age 75 with inflation at age 60. If the variables correlate to each other on par and I were to collect about 7.5 per cent interest, which is reasonable and fair, I would collect $663,900.

If I put $600 a month in for eight or nine years and let it sit there accruing interest I would get back at age 75 about $664,000. If for some reason I was particularly lucky and obtained a 10 per cent rate I would stand to gain $1.29 million. Under the pension plan that the government is putting in $3 or $4 to $1, I would stand to gain about $1.2 million.

This is hypothetical because I had to put money into the pension plan. I would collect about half what I stand to gain under the new plan if I put the money into RRSPs. It is no fun to collect only half. I do not think any member in the House would ask: "How stupid do I look?" Is it more fun to collect $1.2 million or $660,000? Obviously whatever we get we could live into that income, but the fact remains that the $664,000 I invested, that somebody went out and invested on my behalf, would be my money. At the grand old age of 75 I would be able to collect that money and say: "I did this. I looked after myself. I was not dependent on government and I feel good about that".

I would have a hard time collecting the MP pension plan. I would feel a little guilty spending the money because it was not my money, because I did not earn it myself or look after myself financially.

According to the Treasury Board, members will now contribute $1 for the $3.61 taxpayers contribute. That number was a lot richer in the last Parliament. It seems as though there was a great sweep of this place in 1993 and a lot of the older members left. There are many new members in the House right now. That is the largest reason. We were told by Treasury Board-it is not some figment of my Reform imagination-that it would be $3.61 to every buck we put in. It looks better. It looks more noble. It looks like there is a real saving but it has nothing to do with any nobility on behalf of the government.

It has to do with the fact that generally there are more new members in the House. That is what we were told in the briefing by the department. The government pays a generous rate of interest on this account, which is a cost to taxpayers but which is not included in the total cost of the plan that the government admits to.

My point is that in the public accounts of 1993-94 last year they paid interest on $23 million. That is kind of scary because it goes into government expenditures. At the same time it does not specifically look like it is paying the MP pension. It is just amazing. They are spending $23 million on interest and it is nowhere in the budgetary figures.

Many members on the opposite side of the House have spoken both during their election campaigns and later in the House on the need for changes to the plan. I do not mean to be critical at all. In fact I applaud the member for Lambton-Middlesex who indicated to her constituents during the election campaign that the MPs pension plan should be, and I quote from Hansard , ``more fair to the general public's pension plan''. I applaud her for that. It is terrific.

Similarly the member for Waterloo indicated in the House that during the campaign he supported the minimum age of 60 years. The member for Ontario said that he would opt out of the plan. This is not something we are trying to make our issue. It should be a totally non-partisan issue. We are talking about cash and not politics. It will cost money. Anyone on both sides of the House who has the nerve should be rewarded and applauded for opting out of the program.

Let me conclude my remarks by saying that the signal the bill sends is more important than anything else. It seems unfortunate to me that the signal being sent is that we are reducing the fat a bit, that we are sacrificing an incredible amount for the country but we will still take a lot more cash than anyone who is buying into a private pension plan.

This is unacceptable to us. We applaud the government for bring in the bill. I am sorry to say it is not good enough. It will not withstand the test of fire by the people who are paying the bills for it. Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:

That Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me continue by asking how the government gets around its own laws in paying these extravagant benefits. It uses the retirement compensation arrangement. People watching this do not have a clue. They know that hopefully we pay a lot of money in, $600 a month, and we get a lot more money out. If that is attack, I do beg forgiveness again, but those are the numbers and that is the way it is.

The plan created by the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is what we pay into but it contravenes the Income Tax Act. How do we get to pay more into a pension plan than those who are contributing in the private sector? We do so by writing our own rules and using the retirement compensation arrangement or an RCA account.

As we see in section 4300 of the income tax regulations, RCAs were originally introduced in October 1986 to prevent taxpayers in the highest tax brackets and employees of non-taxable entities from deferring the payment of tax, which happens across the country. Contributions to an RCA are subject to a 50 per cent refundable tax under section 207.5(1), which also applies to any investment income plan; most retirement plans are invested. It is a very expensive way to fund a retirement plan for anybody but the government.

As a report produced for the National Citizens Coalition points out, the use of the RCA means the government is going through the motions to comply on paper with the provisions of its own law. In other words, this looks legitimate under the Income Tax Act because it is all right under the RCA.

Madam Speaker, when I was called opportunistic that hurt me and maybe that bordered on something unparliamentary. I would have loved it if you had jumped up in my defence because I am giving up a lot of cash. As somebody who is opting out I should mention the effect Bill C-85 and the RCA account will have on me because it is substantial.

I trust there will be some opting out from the government benches because the full class of '88 is in the same position I am; all of us on this side of the House with the exception of a few Bloc members who were here before sitting as Tories.

The portion of my contributions that went into the retirement compensation arrangement, the RCA, or 7 per cent of everything I have earned in the last six years I have transferred over. I now will have to pay tax on it. It is one thing to think that I am somebody who is opting out and will just scoop up that money. The government says I can get all the money back that I have contributed but with zero from the government. It would be wonderful to say: "I opt out of the rich stuff, please just give me my contributions plus matching contributions from yourself". That is all we are really asking. Make it fair. Make it in line with the private pension plans. I will only be able to get back my money at 4 per cent interest, which is the money I have put in.

It would be wonderful to roll that over into RRSPs, mutual funds or whatever, but I will have to pay tax on 4 per cent of my income which is in a separate fund. The portion the government puts into a legitimate registered pension plan has been sheltered from taxes.

I do not know if I am making myself clear enough. It has taken me ages to figure this out and so I do not expect somebody watching television to figure it out immediately.

The 11 per cent I am putting in is broken into 7 per cent and 4 per cent, with the 4 per cent sheltered from taxes. The 7 per cent we put into the other fund will be taxable. We will have to pay tax on that now while we are in a higher tax bracket rather than later when we are retired and living at a lower tax bracket. It means we will have to put more in.

If I had the option I would have taken the entire 11 per cent I have been putting in for six years and some months and gone to my financial adviser. I would have said: "Here is this much money per month; please put this into mutual funds and I will accrue the interest. You invest it wisely and I will be able to live

on it". I could have done that. I had the option. Maybe, but no. It was law that I had to this and put it into this plan.

Really I had no option. I wish I had because I would have taken that money, the whole 11 per cent I had been putting in, which is $600 a month, and I would have said: "Please do something with this. Put it into RRSPs; put it into mutual funds and I will collect the interest on that and I will look after my own retirement. This is my money, my salary, not public money. I will let regular sources of investment planning look after my retirement".

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I stand to be corrected. We are talking about debate and I am sure that all of us need to be prepared to go into our places at home. If I said anything unparliamentary I ask your forgiveness and ask the Chair to straighten me out on that and chastise me. If I am debating I would like to continue debating.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

There are also some people who would say that it is just one way of giving a raise to MPs while avoiding public scrutiny. A study that was done by Sobeco Ernst & Young talks about that. The minister went on at great length about how we are perhaps underpaid and overpensioned. Something has to be done with the whole package deal to bring it into line. This certainly is not going to address that.

Many people would say, and I agree with them, that the increase to MPs' pensions, pay, perks, and everything else should be debated by the public, the media, and in the House. In fact, if we are sitting around as a collective, insulated group of people asking what we are worth: "Charlie, what do you figure, how much are we worth?" We all talk about it and say we are wonderful, it is unanimous, and we are such and such. That is exactly the way it has been done for years in this place: "How much are we worth, folks? Okay, that is what we have."

There is an inside group determining the rules and regulations of MPs' pension plans: Well, we are worth this much pay. What do you think we are worth, folks, for our pension? Do you not think we should be looked after? The whole country knows that we certainly have sacrificed and we are hard done by. So what are we worth for our pension, $6 to $1, or $4 to $1, to use the government's new figures? Is that what we are worth? Yes, it is unanimous again. Are we not wonderful? There we go, we are in the cash. We are in the trough.

Nowhere across the country would one find that.

Let us have an independent, arbitrary commission that will look at this and say that those people are worth x amount of dollars for their salary and x amount of dollars for their pension, and because we are paying the bills, we will determine what they are worth and what their pension plan will be. Let someone on the outside of the group who is an expert in this area determine it, rather than us sitting around in these hallowed halls saying we are worth a whole lot, so there we are, and my friend thought that was a great idea; we are here and the government is looking after us. There is absolutely no logic at all to it.

This bill establishes the minimum age of 55, which is certainly a step in the right direction, I will give them that. At least they did not make it any amount, like it was before. The minimum age is 55 for benefit eligibility, which is still too young. And it only applies to a portion of some members' benefits. Many members of this House will still get pension payments as soon as they leave politics.

For example, my friend from Sherbrooke down the way was elected young and is still young. If he leaves tomorrow he would still cost taxpayers over $40,000 a year. If he lived to the age of 75 he could cost the taxpayers $3.5 million. There is no way one could go to a town hall meeting and justify that.

The Prime Minister certainly is older and has had a long and distinguished career in this House. We realize and recognize that. Under the old plan, he would collect $90,000. Under the new plan, granted he will receive a little less. However, we are looking at a total of $2.1 million. That is a lot of cash.

My friend from Halifax would collect $19,491 under the old plan. If she lived to 75 years old she would collect $1.1 million. I am a little younger than her by about three or four years. The work done by the National Citizens' Coalition on my pension was that if I were to retire now, at age 42, because my benefits were vested on March 13, and if I lived to age 75-and sometimes in this profession one wonders if they will make it that long-I stand to make, gain, profit by $1.8 million. I will not use the word steal, because theft is something we do not approve of, but I think of other people out there paying the bills and being demanded to pay the bills by some select few here who think we are worth more than everybody else.

Because I am opting out of this plan I have been ridiculed and scorned, which I am used to in this House, by somebody who says "Oh, isn't she opportunistic". That was said to me in question period just last week or a couple of weeks ago when I asked the question. They said: "That Reformer from Beaver River is such an opportunist".

Money talks, as Neil Diamond used to sing. If I lived to the age of 75 and was fully indexed way back at age 60, under the old plan I stood to gain $1.8 million, which is pretty close to what my friend across the way would receive, give or take a few hundred thousand dollars, but what is that when we are talking those kinds of dollars?

Under this new plan, which is supposed to be so good and so effective in cutting down so much spending and so much of the taxpayers' dollars-and I hope they are getting angrier by the minute, because they are paying the shot for this-I will receive $1.2 million. Does this seem like a justifiable savings? I would hardly think so. Yes, it will be less. Yes, the government talked about the fact that we would be saving taxpayers 30 per cent of their dollars. But when we look at the size of the pension they are

paying out, it is going from $1.8 million down to $1.27 million. That is what our calculation is.

In this Parliament they are putting in $3.6 to every $1 that we are seeing but we still cannot justify that because of the $1 for $1 employer-employee contribution rate I talked about earlier which every other Canadian would enjoy if they had a private pension plan. I stand to gain $1.2 million. There is no way people across the country will buy this, red book or no red book.

When there was a commitment to save taxpayers money, if we are saving them a little cash from $1.8 million to $1.27 million we could harp on the savings and make it sound absolutely terrific but at the same time we think they are paying way more than they would pay if we had a regular pension plan.

The income tax rules for a registered pension plan state benefits must be reduced by at least 3 per cent per year if collected prior to attaining the age of 60, or alternatively has 30 years of eligibility or attaining age and years of service totalling 80 years. Lots of pension plans across the country have that, as the minister stated, adding age plus years of service.

That point is consistent with the recommendations also made in the Sobeco Ernst & Young report but this rate at which benefits accrue has been lowered from 5 per cent to 4 per cent per year. When we look at that we say that is good. It is going in the right direction. I draw to people's attention who are paying the bills for this that the 20 per cent reduction from 5 per cent down to 4 per cent on the payout will only apply to members whose benefits do not straddle the existing and revised plans.

Most everyone in the House is a straddler. Many of them were elected in 1988 and so they are in the old pension plan but they also straddle the new pension plan. All of us in the House are in the position that we still have one foot in the old and one foot in the new because these changes are being brought about in the 35th Parliament.

For far too many Liberal members in the House the reduction in benefits will be significantly less than 20 per cent due to most of their benefits having been accumulated at the 5 per cent rate. Many of us have been in the House for several years now and so we are looking at the 5 per cent rate. If we are to say that after royal assent it will be down to 4 per cent, we have been paying in for years at that rate and the amount will be far less.

In addition, under either the existing or the revised plans the total contribution of members relative to total benefits received will not change significantly, as I mentioned with myself. A member will contribute approximately 6.7 per cent relative to the total benefits received as they do under the existing plan.

I say let people know we are straddling something here. To me we have an option. I think of former Prime Minister John Turner who said he had no option. There are people across the way today who are still every bit as Liberal as Mr. Turner was and they cannot say what he said. They have an option. Whether it is opting out or opting in we will still discuss the semantics of that. It has been said to us that we have to opt out; in other words, we have to sign within 60 days if we say we do not want to take this pension plan. It has also been mentioned that we will have to opt in; in other words within those 60 days people who will say they will go on the regular MP pension, they will opt in.

I guess the semantics and the logistics of that are if I am to opt out I have to take my little trotters out of the trough and that is an active move for me to step away from the trough and say I do not want it, I cannot justify that back home, I will take my money elsewhere and I will invest it in the best way I can.

The flip side is if it is to opt in, and these are the semantics and the logistics of it, the people of the class of '88 have the option to opt out because the government did not put it in for the older ones. It says it cannot bring in retroactive legislation because it would be unfair. It brought in retroactive legislation, Bill C-22, on the Pearson airport deal and brought in retroactive legislation on the EH-101 helicopters. It amazes me that for some things it says "retroactive, no problem; it is a red book promise and we will do it". On something else that affects the wallet it cannot go retroactively.

In any event, here is the picture. I have to take my trotters out of the trough and step back and say I opt out. The class of '88 will have to get their pens ready and make a conscious decision to step into the trough on all fours. They say: "This is it. It is a sacrifice. This is my public service. Dear knows I have served the constituents of wherever long and hard and, don't you know, this is owed to me? This is my money". There is no way they will ever convince anyone in the country that is their money. It sounds like the ad on an Edmonton radio station that says: "I am talking about your money", as he gives financial advice.

This is not our money. I do not know what it will take to convince the government and Bloc members that this is not our money to free-wheelingly spend. They have to crawl back into that trough, not out. There will be people who will remember that. They will have the vision in their minds of people saying: "Here is my letter. I am opting into the pension plan. I am really sorry but cabinet convinced me to do it. I had no option". We know what happens to people who say they have no option.

People will take the option. If they say someone had the option to opt out but copped out, they will make the decision on the next election.

The members of the 1988 class in Parliament will have to make the decision about whose money this is and what they will do with it. They either opt out or they will cop out, and there will be a price to pay.

They will be sanctimonious. They will say: "Look at the member for Beaver River. There goes Deb again. Does she not go on and on?" I am sure my friend who is sitting in the House today is taking notes and will have a wonderful time with this. However, I would feel far more comfortable going home to a town hall meeting in St. Lina, St. Paul, Bonnyville, Mallaig, Therien or wherever else and saying: "That was your money and I will not spend it", rather than going home to St. Boniface and saying: "That was your money but sorry, I will spend it".

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

And democratically elected he was. Let us ask him to carry on in his democratically elected position sitting in the Parliament of Canada.

I talked about correcting certain irritants. The only irritant is with the Canadian public, who are paying the bills for this pension plan. I suspect this will not correct any irritant for them.

We have been trying to do some research during the last couple of days since this bill was brought in last Friday and introduced to the House for debate today. As I look at the figures, the numbers simply do not add up.

I am going to mention this opt-out clause now and then I will mention it several times again. I am going to keep mentioning it across this country every chance I get to speak. There is an opportunity for the class of '88 and anyone who was elected after them, such as myself and my colleagues, to opt out or not to opt in. We will look at some of the optics of that later. My friend from St. Boniface, for instance, and all the rest of them who were elected in 1988 have the option to opt out. I will be referring to that later and issuing some challenges to them.

Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision for a pension for members of Parliament, is being debated. It certainly has been a long time coming. It was a promise in the red book, and I am pleased to see that the government is doing something about it. The Liberals are fulfilling their promise for age 55 and no double dipping allowed, but they do not go far enough to correct the irritant of the people who are paying for this pension plan. Of course that is the taxpayer.

I suspect there has been quite a battle in the government caucus about when they would bring this in. It was made clear to me by Treasury Board within the last couple of weeks when the minister's press secretary assured my office that we would have an opt-out clause for me, Deborah Grey, Beaver River, because I was obviously so concerned about this.

It looks as though they have gone perhaps one step further on that and allowed the whole class of '88 to opt out. I applaud that, and I will have my pen out to write down all those colleagues of mine who are going to opt out.

We have called for pension plan changes for a long time. The minister, in his remarks earlier, said that we had an opportunity to discuss this plan in the House of Commons earlier, as if that were some kind of noble gesture from the minister. In fact that was on November 22, when I, the member for Beaver River, introduced the motion on our opposition day to talk about the MP pension plan. So it was hardly some great initiative on the government side.

In fact I would love to quote reams out of Hansard of that day. People stood in their places, a lot of them from the class of '88 because that was the day after their trough day, when they qualified for the pension and their benefits had become vested. They stood in their places and said: We do not make all that much money''. Compared to the private sector, no. Sobeco Ernst & Young proved that in their report.We have families and we have homes''. Of course we do, and we have to take that into consideration.

It goes on: "I just bought a house and I have a mortgage, so I need a pension; I had to lose my job from before; I sacrificed a lot for public life". On and on the tirades went. Yet when I look at the things they had to say and when I look at how the Canadian public viewed that debate that day and then I stand and hear something like this today, it makes me pretty sad. It makes me pretty mad also, because this is unjustifiable. This plan is indefensible and we simply are not able to condone it.

We called for changes that would move the retirement age to regular retirement age, age 60 perhaps. It is not that we are against a pension. We have never made that assertion. We have never made the comment across the country that we are against pension plans for members of Parliament. It is not in our blue sheet of Reform policies anywhere. One would not find that Reform MPs are saying we do not want any pension. What we are saying is that we want a fair pension, brought more in line with the private sector, moved to regular retirement age. Let us make sure that we are not getting some sort of special treatment.

I talked yesterday on the lobbyists act about two-tier systems for lobbyists. I talked about the two-tier health system that exists in this country for Canadians from coast to coast as well as for regular public servants on the Hill compared to MPs on the Hill. There are two tiers on a lot of things.

I do not think that anyone in this House today can justify that we think we deserve a two-tier pension system. It simply will not fly in the public. I go around and speak to various people and I am sure government members do too. They hear from the same Canadians I do. They travel around and hear from people and take heat on this.

I suspect that is one reason why the Treasury Board assistant said to me the other day and again today that the minister is trying to get this through by the summer recess so that it is all done, tucked away, and hopefully everyone will just forget about it and keep quiet.

The last government hoped that a lot of people would forget about a lot of things and keep quiet also. It simply does not happen. They did not forget about it. And we will never forget what happened to them in the last election. Perhaps it is a sign of things to come.

We want a fair pension plan. But we are calling for a pension plan similar to that of any other person in the country who buys into a private pension plan. That is, the employer will contribute one dollar and the employee will contribute one dollar, dollar for dollar. When I was with the Alberta Teachers Association I put in x number of dollars a month, and the ATA put in x dollars a month to match it.

We have seen the numbers. They range from $6 or $7 to $1, and now we are being told by Treasury Board that it is down to $3.60 to $1. Whatever it is, it is still obscenely rich. There is not another person in the country, except this insular group sitting in the green chamber and the folks on the other side of course, who are going to be able to say: "I gave up my life for public service. This was my sacrifice to the country." Well, if it is going to be a sacrifice to the country to serve in this place, then let us make it a sacrifice, so that we are not spending some obscene pension and living on it for the rest of our lives, and we will not feel guilty about the dollars we collect that other people have paid.

I hear from both sides of the House today, from the government and the official opposition, that it is okay because we have made some incredible sacrifice. I do not consider this to be a sacrifice.

I miss being at home, and I can hardly stand to leave my husband every week, but when I think about the opportunity we have to serve in the Parliament of Canada, it is remarkable. Surely we cannot whine and cry and go home to St. Boniface, Halifax, or Sherbrooke or wherever and say: "This was my sacrifice for the country, so I am going to collect a heap of cash. Sorry about that, folks, but this is what I did for you and the country, now this is what you are going to do for me". It will not fly. It is indefensible and unacceptable. So why not a fair pension plan? I do not know.

It would seem to me that the provision for virtually full protection against inflation is totally unchanged. Surely that is something that could be brought in. We do not see that in the legislation.

Many people do not know that at age 60 the present plan will be indexed to inflation back to whenever it was the person stood for a pension. I qualify right now at age 42. I would get

everything back indexed for inflation at age 60. That also is indefensible. Members across can try to convince me and the people who are paying the bills that it is defensible. I do not think we would see that anywhere, that any constituents across the country who will be putting an X somewhere at the next election are going to say it is justified. It is simply not going to work.

As I have pointed out before, it is something rarely found in the private sector. We are not going to find private pension plans like this. The husband of one of our members is an expert on mutual funds and RRSPs. He works in the insurance business. He would never stand publicly and say the private sector has the same plan as MPs, fully indexed back to age 42. That will never be seen. We all know it, especially the people who are paying the bills.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate today.

I would like to say by way of introduction that the most pathetic thing I have heard today is not a government trying to defend this plan, which is still far too rich for the Canadian taxpayers' blood, still far too generous, but more pathetic than that is what I have heard from a Bloc member who is fully endorsing this plan, who says that it goes a long way and that it corrects certain irritants.

This is a group of people who want to opt into this pension plan when at the same time they are sitting here trying to opt out of the country. That is disgusting. They cannot defend that. It is indefensible in this Chamber. It is indefensible in any one of the ridings this member would choose to travel to across the country. "Corrects certain irritants"-let me assure you, Madam Speaker, that the only irritant-

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

You bet I do.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

And the class of '88 too.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 3rd, 1995]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands asks if I have every been lobbied. If he had been here for my speech he would have heard that of course we are all lobbied. People will continue to be lobbied all the time. Let us have an ethics counsellor with some teeth to get to the lobbyists who are not doing the right thing. There are no teeth. This is a toothless ethics counsellor. That is most unfortunate and yet that is exactly what will happen. If lobbyists see somebody who has

absolutely no teeth they will gum it all the way to the Prime Minister.

There are things which are seriously wrong but my time is up. I would love to go on as I love this debate but I will sit down now.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect they are doing some listening to the lobbyists. Perhaps they are listening to cabinet. Perhaps they are listening to the Prime Minister as well.

I believe there is a deeper issue, a more serious malaise. The whole lobbying industry has mushroomed in the last 20 or 30 years. Something has to be done about it and I do not see the bill as going far enough in the direction to make sure people are not getting away with things, that people are not getting special deals, that they are not convincing the minister of heritage, for instance, to go to Disneyland for lunch; making sure these indiscreet things are not happening. That is what is frustrating about this.

There are many parliamentary secretaries in the House, as well as backbenchers. No matter what they do, because they did not do exactly the right thing by giving those two criteria to the ethics counsellor, this thing will not work. It will not work because it is tinkering with the system. I am sure the lobbyists watching this debate are already lobbying for changes around and tunnels and paths through the whole workings of government, getting themselves into ministers' offices and through the bureaucracy so there can be more money made and stronger ties with cabinet ministers' offices.

Lobbyists by definition are those who lobby government, naturally. They will look at this legislation. I am sure they have studied it already. They will be at the point at which they know exactly what they are after.