Gilbert Fillion

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, my colleague says that the government does not intend to create new national standards, whereas Bill C-76 refers to new national standards that will be implemented only "where appropriate". Does it mean that a consensus from the provinces will be needed to implement these new standards?

I find it a little strange that we are talking about new national standards when negotiations with the different provinces have not even taken place. It seems to me that, when we want to establish new standards, we first reach a consensus with the provinces and then implement them. We are currently doing the opposite. We are putting the cart before the horse.

So, I would simply ask him this question: What does he think about Bill C-76, which does not provide for a consensus with the provinces before implementing the new act? We should negotiate first.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue quoting from my speech: "-the government, contrary to the red book commitments"-I know it is shocking-"refuses that all professional lobbyists, that is to say those who influence the government for purely economic reasons, be made to abide by the same disclosure rules". This is what I said. I was referring to lobbyists whose goals are essentially economic. I differentiate between the two categories. So, when it comes to lobbyists whose goals are essentially economic, their name, interests and rules should be disclosed, just as we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are not afraid to publish the list of taxpayers who contribute to our election fund, since we do not accept gifts from companies.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to point out that his comments show that he did not really listen to my speech, but only grasped two or three words from it, on which he based his incomprehensible gibberish that he probably does not even understand himself.

I will quote exactly what I said in my speech: "Nobody in this House would be surprised to hear that, as usual, the government-your Liberal government-contrary to its red book commitments-".

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member opposite understood perfectly the answer I gave earlier. He understood every word, but he chose to interpret it in his own way. However, I do not agree with his interpretation. I do not agree, because once again, the rules must be the same for lobbyists involved in the financial sector.

I understand what he is getting at. He would like to stifle the activities of pressure groups as well, but that is not the point. We will not prevent lobbying on issues pertaining to unemployment insurance, student loans and post-secondary education. We will not prevent lobbying in those areas, except in the case of financial lobbyists, when the time comes to pass strict laws that will help the old-time parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, show a little more integrity and more transparency in their operations.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to answer this question. First of all, lobbying can be divided into two categories. The first category is the kind of lobbying where fundamental problems concerning basic principles are discussed, whether they be moral principles, work principles, or whatever. The other category is the economic lobbying category. These lobbyists are the ones that I am talking about. Just take as an example the events which took place over the last few weeks. Think about Power Corporation and Power DirecTv. These two examples are enough to give the members opposite pause.

I want to add that when we talk about integrity and transparency in this area, we are talking precisely about fiscal integrity and transparency. You organize dinners at $1,000 a plate. What ordinary citizen can afford a dinner at that price? It is Power Corporation who will buy 10, 15, 20 or 25 tickets at $1,000 each and give them to their friends. Is that your idea of transparency?

The Bloc Quebecois is simply saying no to that. All we want is to improve the integrity of parliamentarians.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-43, the Liberal government has as usual ignored the real problems.

With this bill to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other acts, the government has not resolved anything. What this Parliament needs is not another bill but above all a code of conduct for lobby groups, which wield excessive powers in this country.

To go on and conclude that lobbyists are leading the country seems to be the logical step. True enough. We know that lobbying activities have always been part of the Canadian political scene. Over the years, these activities have become an important component of the political process. Between 1969 and 1985, some 20 private members' bills dealing with this issue were tabled in the House of Commons.

All these bills were motivated by the same reason, the same need, the same desire, that is, to make the government more open and democratic. The fact that we are being asked to address this issue again today means that we have not made as much progress as we hoped.

As I read this bill, it occurred to me that, between the time when election promises were made and the time when they were put into law, lobbyists probably dictated the final version of Bill C-43, which would account for this abrupt turnaround in Liberal policy. I would like to caution this government against dissociating itself from these groups, as we all remember that the Government of Canada started being influenced by lobbyists as far back as 1969, under the Trudeau government, of which the current Prime Minister was an active member.

Let us remember the role played by lobbyists in developing the free trade agreement and the goods and services tax. Remember also the role played by the Business Council on National Issues, the most powerful and active lobby in this country. In fact, to join, you have to be president of one Canada's top 150 corporations. Together, members of this select circle manage $975 billion and employ 1.5 million Canadians, or 12 per cent of the country's labour force. It is therefore fair to say that this group has power, or a hold, over the government.

We also know that the members of this organization make generous donations to campaign funds, whether Conservative or Liberal. Must I remind members of the influence this group had on the Mulroney government when the Meech agreements were passed in 1990? As members will recall, the Mulroney government had hired Ronald Watts to act as the brain behind the constitutional strategy. But what everyone here may not know is that Mr. Watts was the expert adviser of the Business Council on National Issues at the time. Just think of how much influence he had and was able to bring to bear on the government.

I would even go further and say that the kind of lobbying practised in Canada is causing this country to become dehumanized.

In his memoirs, a former Quebec Premier, René Lévesque, refers to a meeting which took place in 1982 with a Bank of Canada official who was obsessed with the fight against inflation, but showed very little concern about unemployment.

As you can see, central bank officials change, but their obsession remains the same. Why? Simply because of the lobbyists, whose companies prefer to maintain unemployment high, so as to have access to cheap manpower.

When the party in office claims to want to put people back to work, we have to wonder, since its cannot do anything against powerful lobbies.

This is why members opposite are not so irked by a referendum campaign, since it provides them with an opportunity to avoid the real problems which they cannot solve, such as job creation.

I am only asking the government to fulfil a commitment made last June, when the Prime Minister said that initiatives relating to transparency, including Bill C-43, would give unprecedented transparency to the federal administration. The events of the last 15 days give you an idea of this transparency.

There can be no doubt about the power of lobbyists. According to an article published in a London newspaper in December 1992, there were 149 rich men and women in Canada. These are the people who run the country. These rich men and women are of course the members of the Business Council on National Issues. This is a group which, I say again, makes financial contributions to the Conservative and Liberal parties.

The credibility of the Parliament of Canada is undermined by such headlines. The time has come to act and this is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking that all lobbyists be subjected to the same disclosure rules.

Nobody in this House would be surprised to hear that, as usual, the government, contrary to its red book commitments, even refuses to subject all professional lobbyists, that is those who influence the government for essentially economic reasons, to the same disclosure rules. Why? What is the government's interest? Who is it trying to protect? Who is it trying to please? We hope those questions will be answered.

Obviously, clauses concerning the ethics counsellor need to be closely scrutinized. One of the main functions of the counsellor should be to prepare a code of conduct for lobbyists. Properly designed, that code could increase public awareness of lobbying and reduce improper conduct on the part of lobbyists. I hope that code would have a greater impact than the Lobbyists Registration Act itself.

[Code Of Conduct, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having allowed the motion of my colleague for La Prairie. The Bloc Quebecois will support the motion.

For as long as the members opposite have been in power, Canadians and Quebecers alike have helplessly watched as political scandals teeming with conflicts of interest have unfolded with every passing week and month right before our eyes, without the government, currently sitting on its majority, revealing any pangs of conscience.

By stating on the weekend in Trois-Rivières that he had succeeded in restoring honesty and integrity in Ottawa, after only 18 months in power, the Prime Minister simply added fuel to the fire. Did he not have to defend his own actions last week? Did he not come to the defence of his Minister of Canadian Heritage, who, for the second time in recent months, found himself in a conflict of interest situation by attending a dinner given by an American film giant? Integrity and honesty here border on scandal.

I would like, if I may, to refer to the red book, which the Liberals were forever brandishing about during the last election campaign. I note in passing, however, that we hear less and less about it, since the government is unable to deliver the goods, that is, jobs. This government deserves its title of government of unemployment and poverty. The red book refers to integrity in chapter 6, on page 90, in the following terms:

The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored-

A little further on, at page 91, we have the following:

If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored.

Once again, this is wishful thinking, but it is no longer enough these days.

Let us be realistic about these things. Conflicts of interest are not new, they have always been with us. However, in recent years, such conflicts involving those in public office have caused a lot of concern in the public. Not surprising, then, that the public gives politicians the lowest approval rating.

Clearly, even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest causes the public to lose confidence in the integrity of public office holders. Need I even mention the cavalier and scandalous behaviour of certain ministers and of those working closest with them, most often relatives, which has made the need for this code of conduct greater now than ever before.

The code of conduct we are demanding would distinguish between MPs, Cabinet members and their staffs. The Bloc Quebecois is against creating a joint committee of senators and MPs. In our opinion, only the elected should be able to deliberate on this issue. Members of the other place do not represent the population and, hence, cannot take part in decisions which are the sole responsibility of those who must answer to the electorate. Furthermore, their reputation has been more than tainted recently, by their own actions, behaviour, words and the high-budget foreign trips which some members of the other place have taken. I will not name any names. And, in reality, the issue that interests us is ethics in Parliament, so, let us directly address it.

According to Mr. Justice Parker, who presided over the inquiry into the alleged conflict of interest in the case of the hon. Sinclair Stevens a few years ago, there are several kinds of conflicts of interest. For example, a real conflict of interest occurs when a minister is aware that a personal financial interest is great enough to influence the exercise of his or her official functions and responsibilities. This definition should be noted.

In addition, according to Mr. Justice Parker, a potential conflict of interest always exists when a minister ends up in a situation in which a personal financial interest could influence the exercise of official functions and responsibilities which were not yet exercised. A potential conflict of interest becomes a real conflict when the minister does not dispose of the holdings in question or does not resign from public office. These are the issues which the committee should be examining.

Mr. Justice Parker also stated that an apparent conflict of interest occurs when a reasonably well informed person has a reasonable doubt that a conflict of interest exists. This happens almost daily in this House.

Impartiality and integrity underlie any conflict of interest rules. Decision-makers cannot be regarded as impartial and upright if they benefit or might benefit personally from their decisions. The members opposite have learned this the hard way.

Government's actions over the past 18 months have seriously shaken public confidence in government institutions. We need a code of conduct to restore public confidence and improve the government's image, especially as certain types of conflict of interest are unavoidable. This is the case of inherent conflicts of interest, which are due to the fact that parliamentarians are also members of society, and as such are either landlords, parents or consumers.

Also, there are unavoidable sources of conflict because parliamentarians represent constituents with whom they share common private interests, be it farming, fishing or natural resources development.

Family business raise a particular issue as this category generally covers a whole array of assets, debts and financial interests. It is usually at such interests that the conflict of interest legislation is aimed as they may have a significant impact on the independence of lawmakers.

The most common interests that may put lawmakers in a conflict of interest situation are the following. First of all, investments; then, debts which can be a source of conflict; also,

as managers, they must act in the best interests of their companies, whereas, as members of Parliament, they have an obligation to the public; offices held in companies may be a source of conflict.

Another potential source of conflict is other positions or professional activities. Let me give you a definition. To what extent should parliamentarians be allowed to practise law, act as consultants or hold any other kind of position? A lawmaker might attract more clients if they believed the lawmaker could increase their influence on the federal government.

There is also lobbying. It is absolutely normal for legislators to deal with government officials on behalf of their constituents, but what about MPs who take advantage of their positions to promote their own interests, or one who is paid to act for a third party? Conflicts of interest can also arise, in the case of government contracts. To what extent should members of Parliament have the right to own shares in companies that get government contracts?

Gifts and fees are another element. Should a member of Parliament be authorized to accept free trips, vacations and other gifts from acquaintances or foreign governments? Can fees be considered as gifts in disguise?

Information obtained in the performance of one's official duties can also cause conflicts of interest. Must we implement control measures to prevent legislators from using such information for personal purposes?

Finally, what about spouses and children? To what extent should the interests mentioned earlier be controlled if they belong to relatives of a member of Parliament? This is no small issue. MPs could be influenced just as much by interests owned by their families as by their own. Out of politeness, I will not insist on that point; it would simply be too easy to do so.

As you know, all of us here are governed by statutory and parliamentary rules. However, there are some contradictions in the legislation. It prevents some public office holders from being candidates but does not prevent members of Parliament from accepting those same offices once they have been elected.

Another example comes from the fact that the Parliament of Canada Act states that a person cannot be elected to the House of Commons if he or she holds a government contract providing for the expenditure of public moneys. However if a member of Parliament does not receive public money, but benefits otherwise from such a contract, he probably will not fall under this provision, but that is far from being clear, and this is the part that hurts the most. That is far from being clear.

Finally, a parliamentarian who is a shareholder in any company having a contract with the government is covered by this provision only when the contract is for the building of public works, which seems to allow the parliamentarian to invest in a company and thus avoid this requirement, which, you will agree, constitutes a huge loophole.

In 1973, the federal government released a green book entitled: "Members of Parliament and conflict of interest". In 1978, once again, the government moved the bill on the independence of Parliament, which would have expanded the measures proposed in the green book. In 1979, after its second reading, the bill died on the Order Paper. In November 1985, the House Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services was to examine the appropriateness of establishing a register of members' interests. Four bills aimed at governing federal legislator conflicts of interest were tabled during the 33th and 34th Parliaments.

In 1991, it went on. The government tabled its third bill on conflicts of interest, Bill C-43. In 1992, the Special Joint Committee on Conflict of Interest tabled its report. The committee members' views differed in many respects from the policies reflected in Bill C-43. In March 1993, the government tabled its fourth bill on the same subject, Bill C-116, and again, in June 1993, the Speaker of the House of Commons reported to the House, recommending that Bill C-116 be put aside. And in 1993, once again, the Liberal government stated that ethics was a significant part of its mandate. It still has not done anything.

This is of great importance since we know that in the last 20 years, millions of dollars were spent on consideration of these bills, on the establishment of parliamentary commissions or joint committees on conflicts of interest, or on the development of ethics codes for members of Parliament. Yes, millions and millions of dollars were taken from the pockets of taxpayers from Canada and Quebec. This has to stop. I want action on this, once and for all. We must stop fooling the people and act on the problem.

Government leaders must do everything they can to change the public's perception of parliamentarians. They must stop all this protecting each other, stop trying to dazzle us with all this fancy footwork to cover things up, and simply be ready to admit that some government member is in conflict of interest. It is often said, and rightly so, that it is up to leaders to set a good example. That is why I support the amendment of my colleague for La Prairie.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of submitting to this House a petition from the people of the county of Chicoutimi, who wish to draw the attention of Parliament to the following: considering that seniors are naturally the least familiar with voice mail technology and considering that seniors are entitled to appropriate service with regard to their requests concerning income security, the petitioners ask the government to abandon its plan to install voice mail for senior citizens.

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the comment made by my colleague allows me to demonstrate that despite the past hundred years, the people of Quebec have matured and are not about to gamble with their future. They will make a decision based on events they have witnessed throughout history.

The people of Quebec have reached a point where they will have to make a decision. Of course, that decision will be to hand the government of Quebec all political and economic powers to allow Quebec to govern itself without having to constantly wait

for actions from this Parliament that never materialize, for instance responsibility transfers that do not come with the required funds.

There is no doubt that we are now at a crossroad. The decision will be made. I am convinced that with the debate to be held in the coming months, a majority of Quebecers will say no to these fruitless battles we have been involved in for too long.

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, historical facts from a more recent past will give us the answer to that question.

In 1965, the War Measures Act was proclaimed in Quebec. In the middle of the night, the government of Canada invoked the act. The army, used certain pretexts, supposedly to stop a separatist movement. Five hundred people were arrested without warrant. That is the first fact. The second one is even more recent. It happened in 1981, when the premiers of Canada, once again in the middle of the night, in Quebec's absence, went against what they had signed and accepted the unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

I could also remind the hon. members of the very recent Meech Lake accord in 1987. Everybody knows that one member of this House prevented his legislature from discussing the Meech Lake accord, with the result that everything that had been provided for in that accord was rejected. That member now sits on the government benches.

We could also recall the Charlottetown round of discussions and the way it all ended. It is too bad, but Quebecers will not forget these facts. Bloc Quebecois members will not abandon their option, which is to pave the way to Quebec's sovereignty. Through our efforts here, we will reach that goal.

The only thing we are asking for now, because we are still in this federation, is the preservation of our rights. It is that simple. When Quebecers make a decision on Quebec sovereignty, you will do as you please. When that moment comes, both founding nations will gain something, in my opinion.