Marcel Proulx

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it, you would find consent to see the clock as being 5:30 p.m.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

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

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his question.

As I said in my speech, the Conservatives knew very well what they were writing when they wrote the new legislation. They knew exactly what they were doing when they excluded the parliamentary secretaries. They also knew exactly what they were doing when it came time to deal with lobbyists. They would refer them, on almost an automatic basis, to their parliamentary secretaries so they would not be soiled in their vocabulary by these connections or meetings. Whenever the parliamentary secretaries would deal with, or would agree to or would discuss with these lobbyists would appear nowhere because the parliamentary secretaries were not subject to the new legislation.

On the question of my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, obviously the Conservatives knew what they were doing when they drafted the legislation and, yes, these parliamentary secretaries should be included in the law to avoid this type of business in future.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville.

I rise today to speak in support of the Liberal motion before us regarding a loophole in the Lobbyists Registration Act that makes it possible to get around the rules in that act. It is a shame that it has come to this. During the 2006 election campaign, the Conservatives were the champions of accountability. Once in power, they quickly pushed accountability legislation through. They were hoping to impress the gallery and set up a smokescreen.

I am referring to the Stand Up for Canada campaign platform the Conservatives waved around like a bible. In that platform, we find things that have lost their lustre over the years. I am thinking more specifically about the parliamentary budget officer position. The Conservatives are doing everything they can to prevent Mr. Page from doing his work. This was clear to us when the government took months to provide him with documents he was requesting. They eventually sent the documents not in electronic form, but in hard copy, in paper form, even though an electronic version existed.

Then there are government appointments. Even though the Conservatives criticized partisan appointments, in March they stacked government boards and commissions with 79 partisan appointments before bragging about cutting vacant positions.

Then there are communications and polls. The Conservatives promised to clean up polls and advertising, but a few weeks ago we learned that they have spent almost $42 million to advertise their economic action plan. That is more than the total advertising bill for all of Canada's breweries combined. The Conservatives spent $42 million to advertise their economic action plan when many non Conservative regions were still waiting for the so-called windfall that action plan was to provide.

Today I want to talk about their 2006 election promise to tighten up the Lobbying Act. Their plan was to require ministers and senior officials to register any communication they had with lobbyists.

What are the provisions in the current Lobbyist Registration Act? It defines paid activities that are to be considered lobbying. As a general rule, they include communications with public office holders for the purpose of amending legislation, regulations, federal policies or programs, obtaining a financial benefit such as a grant or contribution and, in some cases, for the awarding of a government contract or for arranging a meeting between a public office holder and any another person.

The law requires individuals to register as lobbyists when they expect to be paid for lobbying activities. This means that these individuals must provide certain details about themselves and, where applicable, about their business and the subject they intend to discuss. They must indicate, and I quote: “—the name of any department or other governmental institution in which any public office holder with whom the individual communicates or expects to communicate...is employed or serves”. This information is made public when it is entered into the registry of lobbyists.

One of the new rules designed to increase accountability requires lobbyists to file a monthly return when oral and arranged communication has occurred between the lobbyist and designated public office holder. Oral and arranged communications include telephone calls, meetings as well as any other communication arranged in advance. The information is subsequently made public when placed in the registry of lobbyists.

This type of report is not required for meetings with parliamentary secretaries. By excluding the latter from the definition of designated public office holders, the Conservatives have created, in the Lobbying Act, a loophole that they are currently exploiting. The Conservatives drafted this legislation. They know it like the back of their hand and they deliberately created a way to circumvent it.

We must close this loophole to ensure that parliamentary secretaries are required to register meetings they have with lobbyists.

The Conservatives are not keeping their promises. We have asked the Prime Minister to explain in detail the consequences for Conservative ministers and other public office holders who violate the Conflict of Interest Act and the government's own departmental guidelines. Our questions are met with silence.

In April, the Prime Minister's communications director assured Canadians that Rahim Jaffer did not have access to the government, but after weeks of obstruction and denials, one by one, Conservative ministers started panicking and giving out limited information on their dealings with Green Power Generation and its owners, Rahim Jaffer and Patrick Glémaud.

We learned that one Conservative minister, and then another Conservative minister—seven Conservative ministers in total—had opened their doors to Mr. Jaffer and his business.

The documents also reveal troubling and repeated violations of the Conflict of Interest Act and the Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State, which was created by the Prime Minister himself.

The Conflict of Interest Act is clear about the role of public office holders:

—a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends—

It goes on to say:

No public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder ’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives or friends—

It is clear that Mr. Jaffer's friends, the ministers and parliamentary secretaries, or their staff, who personally intervened to fast-track his requests for funding, violated these sections of the act.

An employee in the office of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities wrote on a proposal submitted by GPG, “From Rahim—submit to dept.”

When Mr. Jaffer asked for $700,000 for a mercury capture proposal, the Minister of the Environment's staff forwarded his request to a senior Western Economic Development Canada official, who asked to have someone review the proposal on a priority basis because he needed to get back to Rahim.

According to one email, the current Minister of Natural Resources tried to put Mr. Jaffer in touch with the top official at his former department, the deputy minister of Public Works, about a GPG proposal to install solar panels on government buildings. When the file appeared to stall a month later, the minister's staff ordered bureaucrats to speed up their review.

These infractions are in addition to violations of the Prime Minister's own Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State, which states that:

Ministers and Ministers of State...are responsible for ensuring the bona fides of those with whom they have dealings... Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the government are conserved and enhanced.

Since the Conservatives continue to place themselves in conflict of interest situations and violate various codes of ethics, members of the current government must be accountable. They have to drop the “do as I say, not as I do” attitude.

Currently, parliamentary secretaries to ministers do not fall within the Lobbyist Registration Act's definition of designated public office holder.

We have to eliminate this loophole to make parliamentary secretaries accountable to the public with respect to their contact with lobbyists.

We urge the government to fix this problem by including parliamentary secretaries in the act's definition of designated public office holder to prevent future secret meetings between lobbyists and Conservative loyalists.

The Conservatives only make promises about accountability when they get caught. If they cared about accountability at all, they would have kept their 2006 election promise to make ministers responsible for reporting their meetings with lobbyists. Why has it taken four years?

[Lobbying, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we were promised transparency and we got cronyism. The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse allegedly used his riding office to promote the commercial interests of a donor and neighbour. The hon. member was caught red-handed. The Conservatives are increasingly working for lobbyists and donors. They have deserted Quebeckers.

Do Quebeckers have to hire lobbyists or make donations to the Conservative Party in order to be heard by this government?

[Youth Bowling Canada, May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute the young people involved in Youth Bowling Canada, their coaches and parents and all of the volunteers who are participating in the 46th national fivepin championship in Ottawa-Gatineau. I would also like to thank everyone who came out to support these young Canadians and cheer them on.

This Youth Bowling Canada championship brings together young participants from Canada's 10 provinces, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. These 318 young competitors have the opportunity to demonstrate their talent, learn about fair play and, for some, to taste victory.

Congratulations to the organizers, particularly the host coordinators, Monique and Paul Godmaire. During the three-day competition, young Canadian bowlers will collect experiences and memories to look back on fondly for years to come.

I wish all an excellent stay in Gatineau and Ottawa and a memorable tournament.

[Ethics, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Keephills project received $342 million from Natural Resources Canada.

We also know that Rahim Jaffer used the name of the former minister for the status of women in making representations to Environment Canada about this same Keephills site.

But the government still has not disclosed the communications between Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Glémaud and the Natural Resources Canada officials.

Do Canadians not deserve full disclosure now that we know the extent of Mr. Jaffer's scheming with Conservative ministers?

[Ethics, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, half a dozen ministers have been linked to Rahim Jaffer's schemes. His files received privileged treatment and political staff pressured our bureaucrats to fast-track his requests and arrange high level meetings for him.

But there seems to be something missing. We are still in the dark about Mr. Jaffer's efforts with Natural Resources Canada, which oversees major green subsidy programs.

Does the government expect us to believe that Mr. Jaffer lobbied everyone but the Natural Resources Canada officials?

[Ethics, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I even gave him multiple choices. Either it was the minister or the parliamentary secretary who wrote the note, thus proving they must have been directly lobbied by Mr. Jaffer. Or was it someone else and they still misled Canadians about what happened?

Why the secrecy? Have the Conservatives not learned that they cannot hide information from the House and get away with it? Or will their culture of deceit continue?

[Ethics, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will try again in the other official language. Who wrote that little handwritten note on the proposal submitted to the cabinet minister? Was it from the minister, the parliamentary secretary or a staff member? Was it from someone else?