TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, June 17, 1994
Bill C-43. Motion for second reading 5503
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5506
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5507
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 5510
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5511
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5512
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5514
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5514
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5514
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5515
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5515
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5516
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5516
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5516
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5517
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5517
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5517
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5518
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5518
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5519
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5519
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 5524
Bill C-44. Motions for introduction of the firstreading deemed adopted 5525
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5526
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5527
Bill C-43. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5528
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5533
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5540
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 5541
Bill C-211. Motion for second reading 5541
5503
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 17, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
-Minister of Industry-Second reading and reference to the Standing
Committee on Industry of Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration
Act and to make related amendments to other acts.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That Bill C-43. an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make
related amendments to other acts be referred forthwith to the Standing
Committee on Industry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion today is very
simple and straightforward. The government wants to provide
members of this House with a greater role in preparing
legislation through House of Commons committees.
That was a commitment we made in the red book. We honour
the commitment to give MPs a greater role today as part of the
process of honouring another red book commitment, that of
restoring public trust and confidence in the government's
decision making process.
[Translation]
Yesterday, the Prime Minister presented a comprehensive
reform program, one component of which is the bill now before
us today. The proposed amendments to the Lobbyists
Registration Act are based on two fundamental principles,
principles which are shared by my colleagues in this House.
[English]
The first is that all Canadians have a right to approach their
government without employing lobbyists. The second belief
that forms the basis for the legislation before us is that lobbying
must be transparent so that Canadians can have confidence that
decisions are based upon merit.
It is with these principles in mind that the Prime Minister
announced yesterday the creation of the position of ethics
counsellor.
[Translation]
In the red book, we pledged that a Liberal government would
appoint an ethics counsellor who would be available to advise
lobbyists and their clients on how to do business with the federal
government.
The ethics counsellor would also have the task of drafting a
code of ethics for lobbyists which would define behaviour
standards in the industry.
[English]
This bill gives the ethics counsellor the powers necessary to
investigate lobbying activities contrary to the code. The
counsellor will be able to report publicly on breaches of the code
and will have the power to disclose publicly the fees charged by
lobbyists in pursuit of government contracts where it is in the
public interest to do so. This will provide a strong incentive for
lobbying firms to abide by the spirit of openness and
transparency that is at the heart of the reforms before us today.
The other reforms in the bill before us build upon the
requirements in the Lobbyists Registration Act which came into
effect in 1989.
(1010)
[Translation]
I would like to remind the House that last year, the Standing
Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and
Government Operations studied the lobbying issue.
In June of 1993, committee members released a report
entitled ``A Blueprint for Transparency: Review of the
Lobbyists Registration Act''.
[English]
The committee's report concluded that the Lobbyists
Registration Act did not reveal enough about the activities of
lobbyists. The report made the case for the disclosure of
additional information about lobbyists and their activities and
those are the recommendations that have provided the basis for
the amendments before us today.
The legislation provides greater transparency in four ways.
First, under the existing Lobbyists Registration Act lobbyists
need to disclose only general subject matter. Under the new bill
they will have to be very specific.
5504
Second, under the existing legislation lobbyists need not
disclose to whom they will be talking. Under the new bill they
will have t disclose what departments and governmental
agencies they will contact.
Third, under the existing law lobbyists need not disclose how
they intend to lobby. Under the new bill they will.
Fourth, under the existing law lobbyists who are employed by
organizations such as associations and by companies need only
provide their name and business address. Under the new law
these in-house lobbyists would disclose the broad subject
matter of the lobbying and detailed subject matter of their
lobbying efforts, including the name of the legislative proposal,
bill or resolution, policy, regulation, grant, contribution or other
financial benefit and they would register the name of the
departments or governmental agencies to be contacted.
[Translation]
The government has decided to maintain the distinction
between consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists who work
either for an organization or a corporation. We believe there is a
major difference between these two types of lobbyists, both in
terms of the nature of their activities and their status.
Consultant lobbyists work somewhat independently under
contract on behalf of a client. Unless they file detailed returns on
the nature of their client's interests, it is impossible to say that
their activities are transparent.
[English]
Organization lobbyists, on the other hand, work for
associations that are formed by their members to pursue their
common objectives. The objectives of the associations are
generally well publicized and in a similar way corporate
lobbyists clearly and legitimately pursue their own company's
interests. Most important, all lobbyists will be required to
disclose both more information and information that is more
meaningful than is now the case.
This legislation has gone a great distance to shed more light
on the activities of all lobbyists so that Canadians can assure
themselves the system is not being abused.
In this regard several proposed changes have been introduced
to improve the administration and enforcement of the provisions
of the act. The limitation period for laying charges in summary
proceedings will be increased from the current six month period
to two years to strengthen the RCMP's ability to enforce the act.
[Translation]
At the registrar's request, lobbyists will be required to clarify
the information contained in the returns that they have filed.
Lobbyists will also be allowed to file their returns
electronically to avoid an unnecessary paper trail and to
accelerate the disclosure process.
[English]
The first of our two principles, I would remind the House, is
that all Canadians have a right to approach their government.
They do not require lobbyists.
[Translation]
I hope that in the coming weeks, we will all benefit from the
advice and counsel of Canadians who will be asked to present
their views on this bill to the committee.
[English]
I look forward to hearing new ideas that the committee may
propose and we are willing to amend this bill if it means
providing a piece of legislation that will do more to earn the
trust and confidence of Canadians in the decision making
process.
(1015)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43
comes within the comprehensive plan unveiled yesterday
morning to restore the trust of the public in their institutions.
The bill focuses on lobbyists and thus, does not address issues
pertaining to the code of conduct governing ministers and senior
officials as well as parliamentarians. In that regard however, the
Prime Minister indicated yesterday in his presentation that these
issues will be dealt with in a subsequent bill.
The main elements of the bill are the following: first,
lobbyists are required to disclose the specific subject-matter of
their activities, the name of the government departments or
institutions they will be lobbying, the communication
techniques that will be used and, in certain cases, information
about the true beneficiary of the lobbying.
Second, consultant lobbyists, that is to say those who work for
lobbying firms, commonly referred to as professional lobbyists,
are required to report this information for each new undertaking
or contract, while in-house corporate and organizational
lobbyists, those who work for large companies or interest
groups, are required to report annually. Both tiers of lobbyists
are required to report changes in this information within thirty
days.
Third, the enactment allows lobbyists to file their returns
electronically, sets the limitation period for enforcement
proceedings at two years and provides for a Parliamentary
review of the act in four years. The prescription period was
extended to two years-from six months-with respect to
proceedings before the counsellor, but this will be discussed
later.
Finally, the enactment provides for the designation of an
ethics counsellor who establishes a lobbyists' code of conduct
and investigates alleged breaches of it.
5505
The Bloc supports the establishment of an ethics counsellor
position and is satisfied with the powers of investigation vested
in the counsellor. Although the Bloc agrees with the
appointment of Howard Wilson, who is now Assistant Deputy
Registrar General, it had hoped that future ethics counsellors
would be appointed by the House of Commons.
The Bloc is therefore disappointed to see that the Liberals will
make the appointment through an order of the
Governor-in-Council. The counsellor is supposed to be a kind
of guardian of integrity. Why would he not be accountable to
Parliament for his actions?
On the contrary, Bill C-43 sort of makes him accountable to
the Prime Minister who, as we know, has partisan interests,
unlike Parliament. The other guardian of public integrity, the
Chief Electoral Officer, is appointed through a resolution of the
House of Commons. The Bloc thinks that the guardian of this
institution's integrity should be chosen on the same basis.
Finally, in response to the argument that the leaders of the
opposition parties were consulted before Mr. Wilson was
appointed, yes, it is true that a letter sent by the Prime Minister
to the Leader of the Official Opposition and to the leader of the
Reform Party mentions Mr. Wilson's appointment, but it was not
the main purpose of the letter.
The Bloc agrees that Mr. Wilson's first mandate should be to
develop a conflict-of-interest code for lobbyists. It is, however,
disappointed that the Liberal government refuses to give
regulatory status to the yet-to-be-developed code, which would
have made it more legally binding. In my opinion, since the
ethics code is neither a statutory instrument nor an act of
Parliament, it has the substance and consistency of a prayer,
which I think will make lobbyists, who are not in the habit of
worrying about minor considerations, feel morally entitled to
circumvent prayers.
(1020)
Unfortunately, the Bloc would have liked the government to
announce the end of tax deductions for lobbyists' fees, as the
Minister of Transport suggested. This deduction means that
taxpayers are indirectly financing the efforts of those trying to
influence authorities.
Nowhere does the bill say that lobbying expenses or contracts
will be made public. For the sake of openness, the public should
have access to this information because it is very relevant for
assessing what lobbyists do. At the very least, the bill could
have provided that if there is an investigation, the counsellor
should be required to make this amount public.
The bill has an attractive feature: disclosure of the means of
communication used by the lobbyist. However, it is difficult for
us to assess its significance at this stage. The regulations will
surely make the scope of this provision clear. The bill also
mentions electronic communication; it will favour
communication by fax and other modern media. Regulations on
these matters will follow.
To ensure greater transparency, as the Minister of Industry
just said, the Liberal Party's position on the Lobbyists
Registration Act, as stated on page 95 of the red book, is as
follows: ``To increase the transparency of the government's
relations with lobbyists. . . a Liberal government will implement
the. . . June 1993 report of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs respecting the
Lobbyists Registration Act'', known as the Holtmann report.
Among the main commitments of the Holtmann report, it said
in Recommendation No. 1 that the distinction between Tier I
lobbyists, who work for lobbying companies and are called
consultant lobbyists in the new law, and Tier II lobbyists, who
are paid employees of a corporation, for example, the
vice-president of public relations at Bell Canada or another big
corporation, should be eliminated.
In another recommendation, it said that the disclosure
requirements should be the same for all lobbyists, in whatever
category. Unfortunately, these recommendations were not
followed and the dual system persists. These are major dilutions
of the Holtmann report. How can you justify giving lobbyists for
big corporations two months to file a return when consultant
lobbyists must do so in 10 days? What is the rationale for such a
distinction?
The Holtmann report also recommended that the Lobbyists
Registration Act and the Lobbyists Registration Regulations be
amended to force lobbyists to provide more details on the
purpose of their efforts. More specifically, lobbyists should say
whether their representations concern bills, amendments to acts,
subsidies, contributions, regulations, policies, programs,
contracts or legislative proposals. They should also mention
who they are trying to influence and name the department
responsible for the service concerned, as well as the office of the
parliamentarian or organization contacted. That
recommendation was also significantly watered down.
From now on, lobbyists, regardless of their category, will
have to specify the purpose of their representations to the
government. They will have to name which bill, proposal,
legislation, resolution, regulations, program or subsidy is the
object of their efforts. We notice that the government has
listened to lobbyists representing major corporations and
interest groups which can afford full-time lobbyists, and has
maintained two tiers of lobbyists.
(1025)
The Bloc Quebecois nevertheless congratulates the
government for having gone a little farther. However, we are
under the impression that the Liberals are like fishermen who do
not enjoy fishing. They go fishing but they do so reluctantly. If
they make a good catch, it does not necessarily make them
happy. It is unfortunate that we do not see any real political will
and drive to put the emphasis on the activities performed by
lobbyists. This may be the biggest reproach that we can level at
the Liberals, who nevertheless deserve some praise for having
gone a little
5506
farther, as I just said. By taking small steps from Parliament to
Parliament, we may eventually reach our goal.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on amendments to the
Lobbyists Registration Act.
The primary reason for changing the act is to ensure that
decision making is done with transparency and under public
scrutiny. We are trying to ensure that lobbyists are going to truly
represent the people and not special interest groups. I applaud
the government for making these changes to the Lobbyists
Registration Act.
Historically, lobbyists have wielded enormous power. Their
numbers are not insignificant; they have grown from over 800
two years ago to some 944 as of March of this year. They have
often operated in a secretive fashion and not, I believe, in the
best interests of the public. It is unfortunate their power has been
so significant because they do not necessarily represent the
silent majority this country has. It is something the people of
Canada have often felt powerless to engage in.
These individuals run their agendas through government,
often peddling their influence to certain groups. As I said
before, it is not necessarily in the public interest that they
prevail. It is wise to look at some of the changes this act
provides.
The proposed legislation tabled today is aimed at restoring
public confidence in the decision making process. As part of its
commitment to ensure that members of Parliament are given a
greater role in drafting legislation, the government intends to
send this bill to committee before second reading as permitted
under the standing orders. I applaud the government in doing
this because it makes the process more open to all parties.
The proposed amendments would strengthen the Lobbyists
Registration Act by increasing the transparency of lobbying
activities directed at the federal government and by increasing
the power of the newly employed ethics counsellor to
investigate complaints about lobbying activities. The
amendments follow the recommendations of the Standing
Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and
Government Operations requiring all lobbyists to reveal more
about their projects.
Consulting lobbyists who act on behalf of clients would be
required to file more specific information of their undertakings.
Right now they disclose only the general subject matter of their
lobbying campaigns. Under this bill they would have to report
the following: the specific subject matter of their lobbying
efforts; the name of each department or government institution
to be contacted; the techniques they will use; and the true
beneficiaries of their efforts.
Under the current act in-house lobbyists who work for
companies or organizations need file only business card
information. Under this bill they will be required to file once a
year specific information including the following: a description
of who their employer represents and the employer's lines of
business; the specific subject matter of their lobbying efforts;
the name of each department or government institution to be
contacted; the techniques to be used; and the names of the
employees who engage in lobbying.
All lobbyists would have to inform the registrar of lobbyists
within 30 days of the termination or change of activity.
(1030)
Lobbyists that do not adhere to these rules can be found guilty
of a criminal offence and fined up to $25,000. It is interesting to
note that these penalties are often missing in the lobbyists
registration acts in the United States.
This act is a leader in North American and in first world
nations because it gives some teeth to the act that are missing in
other countries. It also provides for the ability of the RCMP to
enforce the act.
The legislation tabled today also provides that the ethics
counsellor would develop in consultation with the industry a
lobbyists code of conduct and investigate complaints about
lobbying activities that run counter to the code. It would also
make a public report of the results of any investigation. These
are all in keeping with the transparency I mentioned before and
can only be applauded.
With the legislation the government intends to ensure that
lobbyists cannot exercise the undue influence they have in the
past. The primary reason for revamping the Lobbyists
Registration Act will ensure, as I said before, that decision
making is done with transparency and under public scrutiny. It
will try to ensure that lobbyist representations are made very
clear and the techniques they use are made very obvious to
everyone concerned.
There are some amendments that we need to make. The new
ethics counsellor is available to the Prime Minister to
investigate cabinet ministers. We believe it should be the other
way around. Instead the Prime Minister should be available to
the ethics counsellor for these investigations. The reason behind
it is that we feel the counsellor must be independent of political
influence.
5507
Another point to be made is that government funding for
lobby groups and special interest groups must stop. That is
something we have continued to put forth as a party in the House
and in the public for a long time. We believe it is very unfair for
the public to be funding a special lobby group, a special interest
group, that in many cases does not represent the true interests of
the silent majority most of the time. I implore the government to
take heed of this point. We have raised it before in the House. I
also implore all government officials, particularly those of us
who are new at the job, to be very wary of these groups.
One of the most difficult things I have found since being here
is how to get to the truth of the matter, how to find out what the
true answers are, what the people want and what the real
problem is in definition. We are all in our offices subjected to
large numbers of people from different groups who are giving us
various points of view. Sometimes when we sit there listening to
them we can be convinced that they represent the will of the
people.
Being a sceptical individual I find it very difficult to believe
that many individuals truly represent the truth, truly represent
what our constituents want or truly represent the wishes of the
silent majority. I would ask all of us in the House to be wary of
that and try to continually ask ourselves what the majority of
Canadian people feel about a specific issue. It is not an easy
thing to do. It will be a continual battle for all of us to try to
answer during our tenure.
I also implore members of the public to influence us where
they can. We do not as a group want to be influenced by special
interest groups. We need the influence of the silent majority in
order to effectively represent the wishes of the majority of the
people in the country. Only by the Canadian public coming to us
to tell us what the average person on the street wants can we
effectively and truly represent their wishes and do the best job
we can.
I make an open plea to members of the Canadian public, if
they are feeling apathetic, to try to influence us, to write to us
and to give their wishes and views on what they want us to do
here. That is the only way we can be forceful in terms of wishes.
We are only as good as the constituents who influence us.
It is wise to summarize by looking at the underlying
principles of the current legislation we want to promote such as
openness. Records on paid lobbyists should be available
publicly. There should be clarity to reinforce the principle of
openness. There should be access to government by all people,
not only lobbyist groups. The people on the street must have
access to us freely, as the minister mentioned before. They must
take advantage of that in a democratic society such as we have in
the country. Not every country in the world has given the power
to the people to do that. We are one of the few countries to have
it. I implore the people of Canada to come out and exercise their
right to do so.
(1035)
We have a credo in our party. I ask all members of the House
to please listen. We believe in the common sense of the people,
their right to be consulted on public policy matters before major
decisions are made, their right to govern themselves through
truly representative and responsible institutions, and their right
to directly initiate legislation for which substantial public
support is demonstrated.
I hope the government will listen carefully, use them as
guiding principles in its legislative efforts and institute and
support efforts to democratize the system this party has
presented, which I know many people in the House support.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that the member
for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has raised a couple of very good
points in terms of possible amendments.
The point he raised about government funding lobbyists is
something we have to review. Many members find it strange that
we fund heavily many lobbyists. In many cases the government
funds them to constantly criticize even the good things
governments are doing. Therefore, as the bill proceeds to
committee, I know that part of it will be subjected to some good
and rigorous exchanges in debate.
I also congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Industry for taking the necessary time to bring before the House
a comprehensive package. Often in our haste we could have
maybe had the Lobbyists Registration Act amended and it might
not have met the total test. By having a comprehensive package
which includes an ethics counsellor, the Prime Minister has
sensitized all of us who are public office holders and the entire
machinery of government, as well as outside lobbyists. We will
do our best to make sure the process of rebuilding trust is one
that involves a constant, high profile, highly respected public
servant who will keep us all alert to what tends to be the
temptations to which the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
alluded.
Many people come into our offices at times. Sometimes it is
difficult to judge where the real truth comes from. It is so easy in
this game because sometimes the presentations to us as
members of Parliament are so sophisticated and well organized
that we end up buying in to some of the policies thrown at us.
This will put a very vigorous discipline on us to make sure we
get to the bottom of all information presented to us.
(1040 )
I would like to highlight subclause 5(2)(i) which reads:
5508
where the individual has undertaken to communicate with a public office
holder in an attempt to influence any matter described in subparagraphs 1(a)(i) to
(vi), particulars to identify any communication technique that the individual has
used or expects to use in an attempt to influence that matter;
That is a central point in the legislation and I say that from
experience in the past Parliament. Often in the past we were not
aware of the various techniques used by lobbyists. What are
some of those techniques?
First, let us take the drug patent legislation as an example.
That is a bill by which members can see the full force of a lobby
at work. The organization of brand name manufacturers not only
had very good lobbyists but used polling companies. It used
advertising. It used print. It used the media. If we were not really
sensitive to the total package or the comprehensive
communication strategy they were using, we could be very
susceptible to their particular lobby or their particular point of
view.
Often in the House of Commons we are susceptible to polls
because we have been conditioned as politicians to look at polls
to find out what people are thinking. In the past we have seen
lobbyists designing polls and using polls to create a sense that
the public was supporting the presentation they were making to
us on a particular issue. That is where we have to keep our heads
up.
Mr. Speaker, you are a veteran of the Hill; you have been here
for many years. You have seen these various techniques
employed. The bill states that the technique lobbyists are using,
whether it be print media or polling, the total package of how
they will try to shift our attitude toward redrafting a piece of
legislation, has to be on the table. Their operation has to be
transparent in the way it comes at us. That is a key component of
the legislation. It will help us make better laws for the people of
Canada.
The Minister of Industry made another very important point
in his speech: Canadians do not have to pay to talk to their
members of Parliament. Millions of people would probably be
shocked at the very thought of having to pay to speak to their
members of Parliament.
The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca alluded to the fact
that during the last 10 years the sector of the economy that grew
the most in this town was the lobby sector. I do not know what
the percentage increase was, but it outstripped every other
sector in terms of growth in this city. An impression was created
that if we really wanted to get something done in Ottawa we had
to go through a lobbyist. It made members of Parliament seem
irrelevant.
(1045)
I remember being in opposition and feeling the frustration.
When I would run into constituents flying back to Toronto or in a
restaurant or doing something in town here, I would say: ``What
are you doing here?'' They would say: ``Well, I'm with my
lobbyist trying to get something done''. I would ask: ``What do
you mean you are with your lobbyist? Why wouldn't you just
come around? This is what we as members of Parliament are
here for. This is what we are here to help you with. You don't
have to pay a lobbyist''.
If we are talking about a piece of complex policy where they
want to get some ultra-sophisticated advice on how one might
advance a very complex issue, fine, there are some good
professional policy people out there who can help. But you
never have to pay to get access to your member of Parliament.
In dealing with this legislation in the first part of our mandate
in a comprehensive way, we are not only going to help our
constituents, whether they be from a social agency or a business,
but we will also be reinvigorating the role of members of
Parliament.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry through this
legislation will make our role as members of Parliament much
more meaningful than it has been in the last 10 years. In the
previous 10 years it is a well known fact that if one had a really
good lobbyist who could get to the eight or ten key people who
were basically administering the government, one had a pretty
good chance of getting one's issue on the front burner.
The Prime Minister is saying with his comprehensive ethics
package: ``Work with your members of Parliament. They're
here. They're working for you''. We are not trying to put
lobbyists out of business, but we are trying to put the role and the
responsibility of members of Parliament back to where it once
was.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, the
proposed legislation to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act
gives us a chance to reflect on the state of our democracy. Since
the Berlin wall came down and the Soviet empire was
dismantled, we have seen some major attempts at
democratization, by countries which for decades had lived under
the yoke of a totalitarian state.
Against this background, we are sometimes tempted to
idealize our own political system and give it virtues that do not,
however, stand up to close scrutiny. There are also those who,
rather simplistically, tend to confuse democracy with universal
suffrage. I do not deny the fact that the electoral process is
ultimately a symbol of democracy, but, with Alexis de
Tocqueville, I want to point out that democracy means far more.
During the last federal election campaign, the Liberal Party
announced it would work on enhancing the credibility of
parliamentarians and wanted to give them a code of ethics. So
what happened? Since the beginning of the 35th Parliament, the
government has repeatedly done the exact opposite of what it
pledged to do.
A few examples. Before the Standing Committee on Human
Resources had even started its consultations and studies on the
reform of health and social security programs, the government
announced in its February 22 budget, without involving
parliamentarians or the Canadian public, a number of draconian
cuts in unemployment insurance totalling more than $5 billion.
Did the government receive a democratic mandate from the
people, in this case?
5509
(1050)
Without the consent of opposition members democratically
elected to the House of Commons, the government, by the sheer
force of its majority, imposed the presence of non-elected
senators on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
Defence. Does this not show contempt for the democratic
process? Before the Special Joint Committee responsible for
reviewing Canada's foreign policy had even started its
activities, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that from
now on, development assistance would no longer be conditional
on a country's respect for human rights.
Did the government receive a mandate from the people to that
effect? Hardly, if the objections of Canadian stakeholders in the
international development sector are any indication. I am
thinking in particular of the tens of thousands of Canadians and
Quebecers who spend their time and their energies so that NGOs
from Canada and Quebec can provide humanitarian aid to the
poorest in the world. I am also thinking of the close
relationships forged with people in developing countries,
relationships that are formed around the concepts of viable
development, democratic development and respect for human
rights.
In its Bill C-22, dealing with the cancellation of the contract
to privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Toronto Airport, the
government refuses to make full disclosure of all the dirty tricks
surrounding the signing of this privatization contract. It refuses
to force the main players in this affair to come before the
Standing Committee on Transport.
In clause 10 of this bill, for example, the government gives
itself the power to compensate friends of the federal system for
services rendered before cancellation. Is our democracy such a
good example? Where is this wonderful openness announced by
the Liberals? Unfortunately, there is not much more openness in
this bill.
For weeks and months, the government, through strategic
planning or lack of ideas, reduced the legislative program to
very little. The government is taking months and months to
develop legislation, but very often it is introduced only the day
before consideration in the House, which was the case with this
bill. Can we really talk about making parliamentarians more
responsible? Do you think that the democratic process is well
served by such shortsightedness, such meanness?
In our parliamentary system, opposition parties are part and
parcel of the democratic process. Should a government
concerned about democratic principles not make a minimum of
effort so that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, an expression
dear to federalists, can play its role efficiently?
The bill amending the Lobbyists Registration Act is at the
heart of the debate on democracy, since the activities of these
professionals are always the very opposite of the democratic
process. Let us keep in mind that in a democratic society the
long-standing principle of one man, or woman, one vote is the
cornerstone of democracy. By definition, lobbyists are
constantly trying to influence the political power in order to
obtain privileges or special favours for a particular individual or
group. It is their raison d'être.
We may tolerate this practice as a necessary evil, but we
cannot accept the lack of transparency which too often
accompanies it. The present bill, aimed at bringing transparency
to the practice of lobbying in Canada, is broadly based on the
commitments contained in the Liberal red book. Originally, the
provisions of the bill were supposed to be much more stringent
that any existing legislation. However, if we look at it more
closely it falls short of the commitments made by the Liberals
during the last election campaign and does not meet citizens'
expectations concerning the promised reform.
Of course, some elements of the bill are in keeping with the
Bloc Quebecois' ideas on this issue. It appears that some
amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act match the
recommendations made by the Commons committee.
(1055)
According to the bill, the Governor in Council designates the
ethics counsellor who, among other things, has to develop a
code of conduct. The ethics counsellor is also mandated to
investigate alleged violations. However, the ethics counsellor is
designated by order of the Governor in Council. Why is the
ethics counsellor not accountable to Parliament, instead of just
the Prime Minister?
Also, the bill seems to have diluted other important demands
made by the Bloc Quebecois. For example, lobbyists are only
required to disclose the name of the government department or
institution they will be lobbying and not the amount of money
they will be spending on their activities, if such activities are
subject to an investigation.
Moreover, the code of conduct to be developed by the ethics
counsellor will not be a statutory instrument. With this
provision, the government significantly reduces the impact of
the code.
Political actions of members sitting in this House are very
often offset by the cynicism many voters feel towards the
politicians whom they do not trust any more. For too long now,
they have heard politicians make promises and do the exact
opposite. Interdependence is not something you have to take
into account only at the international level. All elected members
5510
are affected by the statements and the actions of all politicians.
That is why, in my view, this bill does not go far enough.
Finally, I want to say that, since lobbying is not available to
everyone, because there will always be honest citizens who
refuse to resort to such influence networks and others who
cannot afford such services, it undermines the principle of
democracy.
Consequently, the Bloc will co-operate in the effort to
improve this bill which does not even come close to the people's
expectations or the Liberal promises.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be
able to participate in the debate on referring this bill, an Act to
amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, to committee prior to
second reading.
Lobbying is a long-standing part of democracy in this
country. It pre-dates Confederation. Ever since the birth of this
country, individuals have tried, directly or indirectly, to
influence government decisions in their favour.
[English]
This House knows along with the increased activity by
lobbyists grew a concern among Canadians. So long as the
activities by lobbyists were conducted outside public view,
Canadians might question whether government decisions were
indeed made for the public good or under undue influence from a
particular group.
[Translation]
This concern is nothing new. In 1969, the first private
members' bills were tabled to demand that lobbying be opened
to public scrutiny. By the time the government announced the
establishment of a system for the registration of lobbyists in
1985, about 20 such private bills had been tabled but none had
been passed by Parliament.
[English]
In 1985 the Government of Canada took up the cause of
lobbying reform and issued a discussion paper which was
studied by the Standing Committee on Election, Privileges and
Procedure. The ideas presented in that standing committee
report became the basis for the original Lobbyists Registration
Act. It was given royal assent in September 1988 and came into
force a year later.
[Translation]
This Act rests upon the fundamental principle that the
registration of lobbyists serves to inform the public about
lobbying and to guarantee that government decisions are made
on the basis of the issues. In other words, the Act seeks to make
lobbying transparent. The public has a right to know who is
trying to influence government decisions.
[English]
By opening up the process to public scrutiny registration
provides the opportunity for others to initiate their own efforts
to present their views to the government.
This government believes that every Canadian has the right to
approach government officials without using lobbyists as an
intermediary. No one should feel they have to hire a lobbyist to
bring matters to the attention of their member of Parliament, the
ministers of the crown, public servants or any other institution
in our governmental system.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that, during the 1993
election, the Liberal Party of Canada promised that we would
implement the Standing Committee's recommendation.
[English]
The registry will indicate who is attempting to influence what
government department and agency on what specific subject
matter, on whose behalf and using what technique. They will
also be required to clarify any given information at the request
of the registrar.
[Translation]
The amendments also provide for a review of the Act by
Parliament after a period of four years.
[English]
These measures in total represent a major step in the evolution
of lobbying in Canada.
[Translation]
The sub-committee members may want to make suggestions
to enhance this legislation in order to ensure that it adequately
guarantees the openness and transparency of lobbying activities.
It is therefore proper that members have the opportunity to make
their comments before the bill goes to second reading.
[English]
The Speaker: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by
members, pursuant to Standing Orders 31.
5511
5511
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, today the
Governor General, His Excellency, the Right Hon. Ramon
Hnatyshyn, will honour three police officers from Burlington
with the medal of bravery.
Sergeant Stephen J. Carroll, Constable Gonzalo Couce and
Constable Thomas A. Doherty are officers with the Halton
Regional Police Force.
On September 27, 1993, Sergeant Carroll and Constables
Couce and Doherty were called into a high risk situation and
attempted to save a woman who had been shot outside her home.
Although Sergeant Carroll managed to carry her to safety, the
Burlington woman did not survive. Constables Couce and
Doherty later entered the house to find that the gunman, her
former husband, had killed himself.
Police officers across the nation take incredible risks to keep
us safe. I commend all of them for their hard work and their
dedication to public safety.
Today the efforts of Sergeant Carroll, Constable Couce and
Constable Doherty are being recognized with a medal. I would
like to extend my thanks and appreciation to all 30 recipients of
medals today and to all Canadian police officers for their
dedication.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, according to
a front-page report in
Le Droit on June 11, 1988, ``francophone
public servants must bite their tongue''.
Paul Gaboury reported at the time that in spite of the Official
Languages Act, English was still the language of work in the
federal public service in the Ottawa region. By all accounts, the
situation is not all that different in 1994.
Francophone employees realize that there is a world of
difference between the public service's language policies and
day-to-day reality. French, their mother tongue, must take a
back seat to English.
Many have said that they are unwilling to stand up for their
rights for fear of reprisals ranging from isolation to being denied
opportunities for advancement. This is just one more example of
the dubious results of federalist rhetoric.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, this week's
family poll indicated that, although the majority of Canadians
are happy with their own family life, they fear for the future of
their families. They see warning signs that indicate the family is
seriously threatened.
I am disappointed at the apathetic attitude of the government
toward these fears and concerns. Throughout this past week my
colleagues and I have presented in the House the issues of
concern to families.
The government has not responded with a single constructive
word. The Liberals have ignored the wishes of Canadians by
maintaining and pursuing legislation that is harmful to the
family. It is a betrayal of the trust of those who elected them.
If the Ministers of Justice, Finance, and Human Resources
Development would dare to get close to the grassroots of Canada
they would discover how deeply troubled the families feel. But
the Liberals are not paying attention.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues and I are
here to defend the interest of Canadian families but we will not
allow the family to die a slow death at the hands of the
government.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, here is another example of how the government is
putting sustainable development into action.
On June 9 an agreement was signed in Halifax between the
Government of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia. This
agreement, called the Canada-Nova Scotia Economy
Agreement, was developed under the authority of the Canada
Water Act.
Its purpose is to help integrate good water resource
management practices with economic decision-making. By
better understanding the value of water and its importance to
economic prosperity, Canadians will be able to make informed
decisions about their water use.
The real value of the new agreement will be improved
long-term economic growth by ensuring that water will be used
wisely in Nova Scotia and that it will be kept available for future
economic development.
This agreement illustrates our ongoing commitment to
establishing frameworks in which environmental policy and
economic policy work together, laying a firm base for
sustainable development.
5512
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I have
discovered in my riding that our public school system is in
desperate need of overhaul.
While education is a provincial jurisdiction, I believe that
federal government funding of unemployment insurance and a
portion of post-secondary education makes us partners with the
provinces in working toward an improved educational
environment.
Forced passing of students with poor reading and other
academic skills is not in the best interests of Canada. Poor
discipline has led to a situation where many teachers fear for
their safety.
Different programs in different provinces are retarding our
growth as one nation. We should immediately undertake a
national forum on education in order to fulfil all government
commitments to provide for an educated and motivated
generation of new Canadians who will have to deal with the
changes demanded by the 21st century.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, a woman in the
riding of Oxford recently collected over 500 names on a petition
asking for changes to the Young Offenders Act. These
petitioners are asking the government to create a law that will
protect the victims rather than the offender.
The justice minister has done a great deal to advance the cause
of victims' rights by proposing legislation which is now before
the justice committee to ban the distribution of serial killer
board games and trading cards. I believe the changes proposed
to the Young Offenders Act will assure the Canadian people that
youths must take responsibility for their actions.
I would like to thank these petitioners for informing me of
their concerns and for taking it upon themselves to try to
improve our justice system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, the Governor
of Vermont stated clearly yesterday at the meeting of New
England governors and Eastern Canadian premiers that he was
prepared to maintain good business relations with a sovereign
Quebec. Not surprisingly, our neighbours to the south are
proving to be the most receptive of all to our democratic plans
for sovereignty.
The Governor of Vermont rightfully pointed out that the
business community in his state has no qualms about a sovereign
Quebec government. Vermont has understood that it is in its best
interests to respect the democratic choice of Quebecers and not
to engage in a debate about the province's future. There is no
question that the New England states will maintain their sound
economic relations with a sovereign Quebec, just as all of
Quebec's other trading partners will.
The federal government's fear-mongering is simply not
working.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today, somewhat belatedly but with
no less sincerity, to pay tribute and to mourn the passing of
Rabbi Menachem Schneerson who served as the Grand Rabbi of
Lubavitch for four decades.
Rabbi Schneerson's devotion to his community and to society
as a whole is demonstrated in his legacy of achievements which
includes the establishment of drug rehabilitation centres,
prisoner outreach programs, non-profit loan organizations, day
schools and Education Day U.S.A. The world is a poorer place
with the passing of Rabbi Schneerson.
I would ask all members of the House, and indeed all
Canadians, to join with me in honouring the memory of the
Rabbi and I would ask members to join with me in extending our
deepest sympathies to the Lubavitch community at this most
difficult time.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, as a
member from Ontario, I would like to express my support for the
immediate construction of the blood fractionation plant. This is
a vital initiative for the health and safety of Canadians.
The Department of Health established a blue ribbon panel
composed of independent experts in this field to review the issue
of blood fractionation. I welcome their report which concluded
that blood fractionation should begin immediately in Canada. It
was last fall that Halifax was chosen, after an extensive site
selection process conducted by the Canadian Red Cross Society,
as the best location in the country for this project.
(1110)
This issue is far too important for petty regional politics. We
need a fractionation plant and we need it now. This is not just
good news for Nova Scotia, this is great news for all Canadians.
5513
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's private radio broadcasters have suffered very
tough times in recent years.
In the past three years, collectively they have lost more than
$100 million. In 1992 private radio stations on average lost
$72,000 and 58 per cent were unprofitable. Now the Department
of Canadian Heritage, in amending the Copyright Act, is
considering major new fees on private broadcasters known as
neighbouring rights.
I am very concerned that the neighbouring rights amendment,
as proposed, would be detrimental to the survival of small radio
stations in my riding in Truro and in Amherst.
It is essential that any changes in copyright law must not
endanger the vital services of small town broadcasters to all
Canadians.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, I want to protest the proposed cuts to the Black Watch
Regimental Band stationed in Montreal. In effect these cuts
would kill this renowned Canadian institution.
The Black Watch Band is 132 years old and is the last
remaining highland band in Quebec. It represents an outstanding
regiment which distinguished itself in both the first and second
world wars.
This band has been a significant symbol of Canadian valour,
culture and social commitment. Every year the Black Watch
Band appears at a wide variety of community and social
functions, including the Canada Day parade, the St. Patrick's
parade and many others.
It seems strange that in the same month where we honoured
our Canadian troops for their D-Day contribution and the Black
Watch Band participated in these ceremonies, the government is
now taking steps to cut the band.
Since it is only a matter of $28,000, which will not affect our
deficit one way or another, I ask the government to reconsider
this decision which would kill a great Montreal institution, one
that contributes much to our heritage and to our community.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the member for Wild Rose said something in
this House that I found quite outrageous. He condemned the
Department of Health for distributing an information brochure
on how AIDS is transmitted.
The disturbing thing is that an elected representative of the
people does not know that AIDS is a viral infection transmitted
through blood or semen. For lack of protection and sufficient
information, hundreds of people have contracted this disease
and died from it. It is unfortunate that Reform members are so
hard on the homosexual community. This gut-level homophobia
has no place in Parliament.
Some Reform Party members have shown
narrow-mindedness, partisanship and base ignorance of the
AIDS problem. The Department of Health should give them an
intensive briefing on how AIDS is transmitted; this search for
information should be the first step to greater tolerance.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, recent reports
confirm that a number of health practitioners have illegally
imported and are prescribing the abortion pill RU486.
The drug's manufacturer has said it will not apply to test and
sell the drug in Canada unless specifically invited to do so. The
government has been quoted as saying that it never asks
companies to make specific drugs available and will not make
an exception for the manufacturer of RU486. Nevertheless the
drug is in Canada and is being prescribed to women without
legal approval.
Possession and use of illegal drugs are serious criminal
offences and for good reason. The health and safety of
Canadians depends, to a large degree, on effective and enforced
drug legislation. Criminal law dealing with RU486 should be no
exception.
Therefore I call on the Solicitor General to initiate an RCMP
investigation into the possession, use and prescription of the
illegal drug RU486.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to remind members of the House and all
Canadians that Environment Canada is accepting nominations
for environmental achievement awards until August 2.
(1115)
[Translation]
These awards to be given by the Minister of the Environment
at a conference in December show that every effort helps to
protect our environment and thus our future.
5514
[English]
Let us hope that award winners and nominees alike will be an
inspiration for others wanting to become environmentally
responsible citizens.
We can all contribute to this worthwhile effort by nominating
constituents who are making concerted efforts to protect and
restore the environment.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, let me ask the House the following skill-testing
questions. What is the name of the party that preached listening
to people and then proceeded to vote against a measure approved
by business, government and natives in the Yukon Territory?
What is the name of the party that professed to do
parliamentary business in a different way and then used Harvie
Andre and Erik Nielsen tactics?
What is the name of the party that professed to cut costs and
government waste and then proceeded to delay the
parliamentary committee by 16 hours with points of order and
clarification and repetition, thereby wasting $13,000 taxpayer
dollars?
Give up? It was the Reform Party of course. It is time for a
recall.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing. Is that the right one?
Mr. Taylor: The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: That is close enough.
Mr. Taylor: Yes it is. We are neighbours.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Minister of Transport should resign. In
recent days he has demonstrated a complete lack of
understanding of the western grain economy and in doing so he
has completely ignored the history of the transportation debate
which time and time again has proven the support for the Crow
benefit among the people it most affects.
In a country as large and diverse as Canada our government
should be looking at developing a national transportation policy
that supports and not penalizes those who depend on
transportation for their livelihood.
If the minister wants to stay in transport then he should be
thinking about ways in which his department can help those who
depend most upon it. If the minister will not review and
renounce his position on eliminating the Crow benefit then he
should step aside and let someone who knows western Canada
and cares about transportation take over.
_____________________________________________
5514
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. The latest information on
the status of intergovernmental negotiations to eliminate
interprovincial trade barriers points to mediocre results. Yet, on
May 6, Canadian Press reported that an agreement was
imminent and even that a nearly complete draft agreement
would be given to the provincial trade ministers at their meeting
in Winnipeg on May 9 and 10.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Can he tell us if the
June 30 deadline set by his government to reach an agreement is
still valid and if the agreement, if there is one, will really
eliminate interprovincial trade barriers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are quite confident that an agreement will be reached by June
30 and that it will be substantial.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
does the Prime Minister not realize that, given the serious
reservations expressed by several provinces and by Quebec, the
agreement announced by the federal government may be timid
and full of major exemptions and amount in essence to an empty
shell?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are consulting the provinces. They have their jurisdiction,
we have ours and we are working toward an agreement that will
satisfy all the parties involved. We strongly favour the
elimination of as many interprovincial trade barriers as possible
in Canada. Some provincial governments are reluctant,
however, and I am surprised that the hon. member from the Bloc
Quebecois is blaming the Liberal government for being too nice
to the provinces.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
given, one, that the forum on health has been postponed
indefinitely; two, that the Minister of Human Resources
Development is going it alone by trying high-handedly to
impose a reform of social programs on the provinces; and three,
that the so-called agreement on the elimination of
interprovincial trade barriers may worsen interprovincial
relations instead of improving them, does the Prime Minister
not realize that, after three months, his government's record on
federal-provincial relations is a dismal failure?
(1120)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am very surprised by the question because in matters of trade,
we have our federal jurisdiction. We could impose things, but
we do not want to do so. The Constitution clearly states that it is
a federal responsibility. While we want to respect the provinces'
5515
opinions, those who favour the status quo in Canada do not want
anything to change.
If the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe tells me that I must
use federal powers, we can settle this in two minutes. However, I
am so nice that the hon. member criticizes the federal Prime
Minister for consulting too much. Now that is a switch!
* * *
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, newspapers are
reporting this morning that in a report which is now before
Cabinet, the human resources minister's panel of experts on
social program reform has recommended that further cuts of up
to $6 billion be made to the unemployment insurance program,
which would result in over 500,000 claimants being disentitled.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development commit
now to rejecting out of hand this despicable recommendation
aimed once again at reducing the federal deficit at the expense of
the unemployed and the most disadvantaged among us?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that such reports
are purely hypothetical and speculative. I do not pay any
attention to them. I would advise the hon. member not to pay any
attention to them either.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand from the minister's answer that the only way to
reduce unemployment is to force people onto welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister of Indian affairs.
Recently the minister has been travelling across this country
telling aboriginal communities if they want self-government to
step up and sign on the dotted line. Our party believes there are
many serious issues that the government is not addressing in this
kamikaze approach to self-government.
Will the minister stop his headlong rush into these deals and
ensure that no more deals are signed until full consultation with
all concerned citizens takes place and a detailed cost accounting
of each deal is disclosed?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, it is a very broad question with no
focus but I am prepared to answer it in this way.
I am as concerned as the hon. member about costs and
accountability. I am prepared to work with the Reform Party to
that end.
If holding our committee until 6 a.m. this morning for no
useful purpose is any indication of the way the hon. member
wants to go, I am not with him.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
The fact that this government believes that cabinet should be
the dispute settling mechanism in these deals indicates to me
that it is only interested in maintaining the current paternalistic
system that now exists.
Will the minister remove the political and partisan
interference from self-government agreements and establish an
autonomous body to deal with the dispute settlements?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, again it is a matter of different
approaches and different philosophies. We are working with the
aboriginal people.
I might remind the hon. member that our techniques vary in
this way. The first question you asked in this House had 58
words in it and eight were derogatory. Eight were derogatory
about the very people you purport to be defending today.
(1125 )
The Speaker: I would remind all hon. members that both
questions and answers should be directed to the Chair.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I have a
further supplementary question. It was a very interesting
response. If this minister really had any sense of responsibility,
he would have appeared before the committee to defend his own
legislation.
We heard from witnesses who had real concerns with this
deal. The minister had the arrogance to ignore these concerns. If
the minister will not defend his legislation, will he defend the
complete abdication of his responsibility and his apparent
disdain for the democratic process? What does he have to say-
The Speaker: Order, please. I would encourage all hon.
members when they are putting questions if they would put the
questions. I think we are getting into a great deal of
editorializing, if you will.
5516
That is not particularly helpful to the debate or the questions
and answers on either side. I intervened before. I heard the hon.
member putting a question, and so would he put the question
now.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, my question was what does he
have to say to Canadians who have concerns about his
self-government legislation?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, when I inherited the Yukon
legislation in the form it was in I took the time to go to Yukon
and spend three days negotiating with the Yukon people. When I
say Yukon people, I mean the Chamber of Commerce, the
mayors, the First Nations and the legislature.
When the CYI came to Ottawa for a week and a half, it tried to
set up a meeting with these hon. members. They would not even
meet with it. That is our dialogue with the people. That is this
party's dialogue with the people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Prime Minister unveiled his government's action plan to
take, as he put it, ``unprecedented action to open up the process
of government in Ottawa''. In his statement, the Prime Minister
said, and I quote: ``Deals like the Pearson Airport deal must
never be allowed to happen again''.
Since the Prime Minister claims to mean business when he
talks about restoring integrity in the federal administration, how
does he explain his government's refusal to give to the ethics
counsellor the mandate to investigate the role of lobbyists in the
Pearson Airport scandal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as regards the Toronto Airport issue, we did what was our duty
and what we said we would do: We cancelled the contract. What
else can we do? The ethics counsellor has the necessary power to
conduct any inquiry which he deems appropriate.
This is a new Parliament and, unless I am mistaken, the
legislation provides no compensation for those who paid
lobbyists regarding the Pearson Airport contract. Mr. Nixon
conducted an investigation and reported his findings within 30
days, which was faster than anything we had seen before. A
decision was made. The contract was cancelled, period. The
ethics counsellor will fulfill his mandate in compliance with the
provisions of the act, which go a lot farther than what was
unanimously recommended by the committee last year.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask the Prime Minister to read the bill thoroughly.
Compensation can be made with Cabinet approval.
Since yesterday's statement was silent on this issue, does the
Prime Minister intend to follow up on the Minister of
Transport's suggestion to no longer allow lobbyists fees as a tax
deduction, a measure which the American government intends
to take?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
tax exemptions are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
He is informed of all the suggestions made by ministers and
members when he drafts his budget. Consequently, any
recommendation in that regard should be made to that minister.
This is therefore a technical issue which will certainly be of
interest to the Minister of Finance.
* * *
(1130)
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
As members of this House know, on behalf of the government
Mr. Bob Wright is currently accepting claims for compensation
from the consortium affected by the cancellation of the Pearson
airport development deal. Mr. Wright, a Liberal fund-raiser,
friend and former law partner of the current Prime Minister is
receiving $1,000 a day for this job.
Will the Prime Minister tell this House how this appointment
fulfils the government's promise of governing with integrity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the member is attacking a person who cannot defend himself in
this House.
Mr. Bob Wright is an extremely competent lawyer who was
the head of a commission for the Ontario government and was
kept on by the NDP government. He is an extremely honourable
person. Yes, he helped me in 1984. Yes, he did what some people
do for members in their ridings. When someone makes a
contribution to get someone else elected he should not apologize
for it. What he is being paid at the moment is less than what I
charged when I was a lawyer.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, a supplemental for the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Transport when he appeared before the
Standing Committee on Transport on May 31 stated that Mr.
Wright had no mandate to negotiate, but in fact he was simply
accepting claims to be reviewed by claims analysts.
In light of this, will the Prime Minister tell Canadian
taxpayers why we owe Mr. Wright over $66,000 plus expenses
for simply collecting receipts?
5517
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
it must be Friday to hear such pitiful statements from the
opposition.
I said at the committee, where the hon. member had every
opportunity to pursue this further, that Mr. Wright had been
given a very specific mandate. He was not to negotiate any
payments to any lobbyists who were involved in the Pearson
deal. He was not to negotiate any arrangements that provided for
lost profits. He was to negotiate on the basis of appropriate out
of pocket expenses.
With all due respect to the hon. member, this person has been
chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission. A person
operating in the legal profession in Ontario with the reputation
and ability of Mr. Wright regularly charges fees to his personal
clients, corporate clients and the Government of Canada at least
twice and three times what is being charged to the Government
of Canada as he carries out his responsibilities in this matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
We have learned that the Department of Human Resources
Development is about to provide substantial financial assistance
for the establishment of a parapolice patrol force on the
Kanesatake reserve.
Given the very serious problems with security on the reserve
and the tense relations between Chief Jerry Peltier and a
substantial portion of the Mohawk population, many people
have expressed serious fears about the addition of-
[English]
The Speaker: Order. It is getting a little bit difficult to hear
the questions and answers. I wonder if all hon. members would
please give their full attention to Question Period. Would the
hon. member please put his question now.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, many people are concerned about
the establishment of this patrol force.
Was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
briefed on the discussions which took place between the
Kanesatake Band Council and the Department of Human
Resources Development concerning the establishment of such a
patrol force at Kanesatake?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the member's statements are
greatly exaggerated.
(1135)
These Aboriginal project proposals involve establishing a
team to operate a 24-hour suicide hot-line.
Teams would also be trained to deal with distress and family
violence situations. This initiative is entirely constructive,
peaceful and humane. This is not a paramilitary force that is
being set up, but rather a team to assist groups and individuals in
distress.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, can the Indian
affairs minister tell us what specific guarantees he has obtained
from the band council to reassure the residents of Kanesatake,
who are afraid to see this patrol force become a police force?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member
is trying to create a situation of fear when there should be none
at all.
The project is very simple. Under our department there is the
Pathways group. This group of native people from across
Canada make decisions on employment projects and give
assistance.
As I just said the purpose of this group and the project is not to
provide any police service whatsoever. It is to help families who
are in distress, who are in fear of suicide, who are in fear of
family violence. It is part of the healing process that we must
provide for native people across this country. It is exactly the
kind of thing that can bring peace and reconciliation in that area
which is so very important that we provide.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I noted
with interest reports this week that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs made some comments that the
federal government is contemplating holding a referendum on
Quebec independence. It is good to see the government
acknowledge the value of direct democracy.
Can the minister give us some details of the government's
plans? What would be the timing of a national referendum and
when would the House expect to hear more details?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government is not planning to have a
referendum on these questions. It is not planning it for a good
reason. The Liberal government in Quebec will win the election
and we will have no need for such a referendum.
5518
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, that is
one of the more rapid policy changes we have seen. It certainly
does not reflect the trust us approach we heard from the Prime
Minister yesterday on the lobbying issue.
In committee a couple of days ago the member for
Saint-Denis was saying that many voters are too illiterate to be
able to get their names on voters lists and referendums. We
believe that Canadians are well informed and should be
consulted.
It has been the position of this party in the past that on
constitutional issues there should be national referendums.
Quebec's separation would be-
The Speaker: I would ask that the hon. member put his
question forthwith.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime
Minister agree that Canadians should be consulted by national
referendums on major constitutional changes, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
when we debated this question under the previous government I
was the one who proposed the national referendum which led to
the vote on the Charlottetown accord.
There is a law on referendums but it is not an instrument we
use for every question. I believe that the fundamental
responsibility in democracy lies with members of Parliament to
stand and vote representing their people.
If the hon. member does not have enough confidence to use
his own judgment and wants a referendum on everything, if he
does not have the guts to make up his mind and cannot stand the
heat, then he should get out of the kitchen. We are here to make
decisions and we will make them.
* * *
(1140)
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the
Environment. In a report published last week, Statistics Canada
announced that Canada was one of five countries with the
highest waste production per capita in the world. Subsequently,
the Minister of the Environment said that she considered
introducing an environmental tax next fall if negotiations on
waste recycling between the provinces and the private sector
were not successful.
In dealing with this problem, does the minister intend to
launch a national waste tax program or would she let each
province develop its own strategy?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in the announcement made
following the meeting of the Council of Environment Ministers
held in St. John, New Brunswick, three weeks ago, it was agreed
unanimously to develop a specific strategy that would be in
place at the next meeting.
Obviously, waste collection is a provincial responsibility, and
any action plan that results from our meeting in November 1994
will have to be implemented by the provinces.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, last week, the Minister of the Environment stressed the
importance of harmonizing policies in Canada. Are we to
understand, considering the government's poor record on
federal-provincial agreements and irrespective of the outcome
of negotiations between the provinces and the private sector,
that the federal government will go ahead this fall with a
national waste recycling policy?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had
listened to my answer to his first question, I thought I made that
clear. This is not a matter of the federal minister imposing her
own solution. This was a unanimous decision made by all
environment ministers at the meeting in St. John. We identified
a problem, and we wanted a harmonized solution.
We followed the path described by my colleague, Mr.
Chrétien, the environment critic, who stated at the beginning of
his mandate that the environment was not a provincial problem
but one that went beyond provincial boundaries and was shared
by all Canadians. What I throw in the water in Ontario
eventually arrives in Quebec, and that is why we want a
harmonized policy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
Many people in my riding of London-Middlesex are greatly
concerned with the reintegration of repeat violent offenders into
our community. The parole system is our only mechanism to
return offenders to the community with controlled supervision
and support, however it is not without some flaws.
Could the minister inform the House of the steps that will be
taken to improve our current system of parole?
5519
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member makes an important point in his question.
First, I would like to inform the House it is our intention to
propose legislation quite soon that will cover a number of areas
in the subject matter he mentioned. It will make it easier for the
Parole Board to rule that the correctional service must keep in
prison until the end of the terms imposed by the courts those
convicted of violent sexual offences against children.
Second, it is a matter of public record that we are proceeding
to appoint people of proven merit and competence to the Parole
Board.
Third, we intend in legislation to create a process of
disciplinary review for Parole Board members.
All these steps, including steps to improve the training of
Parole Board members, will help restore public confidence in
the Parole Board's operations.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday for the second time the government turned to the
Reform Party for help in defining the family. Instead of
answering my colleague's question, the secretary of state for
finance showed his confusion about what the family is.
I would like to advise him that the family is already clearly
defined in the Income Tax Act for which he is partially
responsible. I suggest he look it up. The problem is not the
definition of the family but the impact of the tax system on the
family. The current tax system penalizes parents-
(1145 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, I think it is reasonable to have a
sentence or maybe two before a question but when we get four or
five, I would encourage all hon. members in their questions and
in their responses to please be as brief as they can. Will the hon.
member please put his question.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of
State for Finance. I hope he will finally answer. Will the
Secretary of State acknowledge that the current tax system
discriminates against families who care for their children at
home?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, it is not only Friday but I
think there is a full moon.
The third answer is this. Our tax system is based on, as
members all know, individual tax returns. We do not have family
tax returns. There are certain things in individual tax returns that
affect the family. Yes, there are certain distinctions in the
Income Tax Act for a variety of things. It does not discriminate
against them. It simply recognizes that there are certain items
that affect the incomes of families.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, let me clearly
say that the Reform Party is in no way opposed to families who
send their children to day care. We are opposed to a system that
penalizes parents who choose to care for their children at home.
Will the government ensure a fair tax system by removing the
penalties for parents who care for their pre-school children at
home?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the
Income Tax Act that implies that there is a tax applied to parents
who keep their children at home.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
As part of Public Service Week, it is necessary to recall the
importance of equal pay for men and women whose functions
are recognized as equivalent. In answer to a question raised by
the Official Opposition on March 8, the President of the
Treasury Board said that this issue was a priority for this
government.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us if his
bargaining agents are about to reach an agreement with his
employees on the back pay required to bring certain
classifications up to date?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
Treasury Board is in exploratory discussions with the employee
representatives, the unions.
We have held three or four meetings with the Professional
Institute. We have held at least one or two meetings with the
Public Service Alliance. We are continuing to explore working
toward a solution to this matter. We are a pay equity employer.
We want to resolve this matter as quickly as we can so that we
can curtail this very long tribunal process that the previous
government put in place.
We want to treat our employees with fairness and equity.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, since the
government is an employer that cares about pay equity, as he
said on March 8, can the President of the Treasury Board
promise to respect his own law which forbids any discrimination
in this regard?
5520
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, of
course. We intend to try to get this matter settled and intend to be
an equity employer. The previous government put money into
pay equity and that is a very high priority intention of this
government.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On May 9, 1994, in response to a question from my colleague,
the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, the
minister told this House that he had urged the provincial
attorneys general to more aggressively pursue the prosecution
of section 85 of the Criminal Code, the extra penalty for the use
of a firearm during a crime.
I wrote two letters to the minister requesting an explanation of
what was said to the provinces as well as any responses received
regarding section 85 but have yet to receive a reply. Will the
minister advise this House in general terms about the
communications he had with the provinces over section 85?
(1150 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the communications I have
had with the provinces are those I have described. I have written
to my provincial and territorial counterparts and have drawn
their attention to the fact that section 85(1) is there to deal with a
problem of broad concern, which is the use of firearms in the
commission of offences.
I have encouraged them to see that that section is used when
the facts permit and that plea arrangements are not entered into
which result in such charges being dropped in appropriate cases.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice stated in this House that he is
contemplating further laws on guns. The emphasis seems to be
government intervention with law-abiding gun owners rather
than action with gun-toting criminals.
In view of the problems with section 85 of the Criminal Code
can the minister indicate what he will do to make it a priority to
fight criminals who have guns before he pursues a policy that
interferes with law abiding gun owners?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the government has under
consideration a wide variety of options which have been
developed through caucus to be brought forward in the form of
specific proposals. These will be intended and will be fashioned
to deal with the criminal use of firearms. They will involve
regulation of firearms that will respect the legitimate use of
rifles by hunters and by farmers.
* * *
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
On June 7 I raised the question of the plight of Alexandre
Makar of Edmonton, Alberta. Can the minister inform the House
of the status of Mr. Makar's case?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, some two weeks ago the member
and other colleagues of ours from Edmonton brought to the
attention of this House the question of the Ukrainian individual
who had certainly made a case for a compassionate review in
terms of his landing and his medical inadmissibility.
As a result of that we opened up a line of communication with
the province of Alberta as well as the province of Saskatchewan.
I am happy to report that as of this morning through that the
province of Alberta has accepted the case.
It shows that when provincial and federal governments do
work together and involve the community that first raised the
question of compassion, we can make decisions that both favour
the individual circumstances and at the same time uphold the
rule of the law.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. There are two areas in
Quebec, namely the North Shore and the Magdalen Islands,
where airport control services in French are only available after
an 8 to 15 minute delay, because they come under the
jurisdiction of the Moncton control unit, which provides regular
services in English only. Both these areas could be adequately
served by the Quebec City radar control unit which the
government is going to close down.
My question is this: How can the minister, who claims to be
concerned with air safety, justify his statement to the effect that
bilingual services can be provided from a bilingual province
such as New Brunswick just as well as from anywhere else in
Quebec, when the regular service provided from Moncton is
only in English?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
in any air navigation system, there are always areas where
communication in one official language or the other, or both, is
difficult. What we are saying, and I want to reassure my hon.
colleague, is that anybody who uses air navigation services in
Canada knows that they are exceptional and that they compare
well with any other system in the world. If, as my hon. colleague
is claiming, there are gaps here or there, we will try to see to
them. But I do not like the fact that he is trying to create a red
5521
herring. New Brunswick, including Moncton, is bilingual. We
are very proud of it. We recognize our obligations to those who
use the air navigation services and we will try to take all the
necessary steps to ensure their safety.
(1155)
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, how does
the minister justify that two areas in Quebec are not adequately
served in French from the control unit in Quebec City, which
could provide this service in French?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
we will keep on doing our utmost to provide adequate services to
ensure the safety of the people who use the air navigation system
in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Justice.
A few weeks ago I attended a briefing by a group of gun
control activists. They freely acknowledged that ``additional
controls would have little or no effect on violent crime''. To
justify their position they pointed to the 31 per cent of suicides
that are committed with guns and which they claimed might be
partly preventable.
Since 27 per cent of suicides are committed-
The Speaker: Order, please. Once again I am loathe to
intervene in the question and answer period, but I would ask the
hon. member to please put his question.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I was into my question. I am
sorry.
Will the minister show some responsibility and protect us
from ourselves by instituting a rope control program, with rope
acquisition certificates and a mandatory registration of all ropes
more than a metre long?
The Speaker: The Chair is a little confused. I am not quite
sure if that is a hypothetical question or not, but I will permit the
hon. minister to answer it, if he likes.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted. I
should first observe that the hon. member has demonstrated that
if we give him enough rope he will hang himself.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. On
Wednesday my colleague from Prince George-Peace River
pointed out that no hard data exists to demonstrate that further
gun control legislation will reduce gun related crime. On several
occasions the minister has stated that we must look for the root
causes of crime rather than caving in to knee-jerk reactions.
Will the minister commit that he will introduce no further gun
control legislation until there is hard statistical evidence that the
current legislation is not working?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the approach which we take
for safe homes and safe streets will be comprehensive dealing
with the causes of crime, dealing with strengthening the
criminal justice system and dealing as well with crime
prevention.
The facts show that after the introduction of gun control
legislation in 1976, indeed the criminal misuse of weapons did
diminish and that is the statistical fact.
We are going to devise, we are going to introduce, we are
going to develop with the support of caucus proposals for further
regulation of firearms that will make this society even safer.
That is only part of the comprehensive agenda of this
government with respect to crime and violence in Canada.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
There are disturbing reports in connection with the trade
agreement being negotiated between the federal government
and the provinces to the effect that plans for cutting
interprovincial trade barriers will create environmental and
social harm.
Can the minister assure this House that the environment is
being taken fully into account in these negotiations and that the
end result will be a trade agreement in which environmental,
social and trade goals will have been integrated?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
will of course pay tribute to the great reputation my colleague
from Davenport has on environmental issues and his concerns.
When he raises concerns on theses issues we know they come
from understanding and heartfelt conviction.
(1200)
In negotiating this internal trade agreement, for the first time
in a trade agreement we are including a chapter dealing with
environmental protection. It is the first time we have done that.
5522
Let me say that among the principles we are including-and
the council of ministers on the environment has been directly
involved in the process and my colleague, the Minister of the
Environment, has consulted on it-the environmental chapter
will include provisions that will prevent provinces from
weakening environmental measures as an inducement for
investment. The chapter will encourage upward harmonization
of environmental measures. Finally, the chapter will allow for
the use of the precautionary principle.
These are key points. I know Reform Party members are not
interested in the environment. They are indicating that by their
response. We think it is important and I think it is important as
well.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the minister of human resources who, along with all Canadians,
was delighted when the United Nations identified Canada out of
185 countries as the best place to live and raise a family.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Riis: We will also realize that one of the main reasons for
that designation was the incredible wide range of social
programs that reflect a caring and compassionate society.
The minister has indicated some dramatic, drastic changes
and, from some of the leaked reports, perhaps even draconian
changes. He has also indicated he will release his proposals in
the middle of July when Parliament is not sitting. To keep in line
with the traditions of the government to announce to Parliament
first-
The Speaker: Order. We had a comment earlier that there
must be a full moon. I suggest the moon is going to be out if we
have long questions like this. Would the hon. member please put
his question.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, when you only get one question a year
you have to take advantage of that.
The Speaker: It surely should not take a year to put it.
Mr. Riis: To keep the tradition of the government of making
major announcements when Parliament sits, would the minister
give some thought to recalling Parliament in the middle of July
so Parliament can receive his report and provide an opportunity
for some immediate debate on this very critical set of changes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
will the hon. member give a cast iron undertaking that he will
definitely be here?
* * *
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order to correct the record.
During my question to the minister and in his response he said
that we refused to meet with the Council of Yukon Indians. In
fact we arranged a meeting with the Council of Yukon Indians.
The Speaker: I just want to make a clarification before I start
getting some letters.
When the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake
rose to make a statement today I mentioned he was from
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing and then I said that was close
enough.
I meant of course not that your ridings were close enough but
that your seatmate was next to you. I just do not want to get any
letters on that and I wanted to clarify it.
(1205)
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday during clause by clause consideration of Bill
C-33 and Bill C-34 in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development the member for Yukon was
present and allowed to vote at the committee.
She was not a legal voting member according to Standing
Order 114(2)(c). The standing order reads as follows:
At any time when no list has been filed with the clerk of the committee
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or when no notice has been received by
the clerk of the committee pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Chief
Whip of any recognized party may effect substitutions by filing notice thereof
with the clerk of the committee, having selected the substitutes from among all
the Members of his or her party and/or the independent members listed as
associate members-pursuant to Standing Order 104(4)-
The relevant phrase is: ``the independent members listed as
associate members''. House of Commons records will indicate
that the member for Yukon was not then and is not now an
associate member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development.
Although a substitution form was filed by the chief opposition
whip with the clerk naming her as a substitute, she did not meet
the requirements as an independent under the standing orders in
order to be a legitimate voting member. Yet the chairman of the
committee allowed her to vote on more than one occasion.
5523
Should you, Mr. Speaker, review the minutes of the
committee meeting you will further note that I raised the matter
as a point of order and it was dismissed by the chair. Even
though the chair, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill
River, was made aware of this irregularity he continued to allow
the member for Yukon to vote and participate as a member of the
committee in good standing.
We are not questioning the presence of the hon. member for
Yukon as the elected representative of Yukon. What we are
questioning is the chair's primary responsibility to ensure that
the committee operates under the rules established by the House
of Commons.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, you rarely rule on proceedings in
committee. However this is a clear breach of the standing
orders. It is not a matter which can or should be left in the
committee where it originated. The rules have been broken
throughout the entire clause by clause consideration of Bill
C-33 and Bill C-34. The report of the committee should be ruled
out of order and the committee should be directed to go back and
reconsider clause by clause Bills C-33 and Bill C-34.
The chairman of the aboriginal affairs committee whose role
it is to uphold the rules of the committee knowingly allowed the
rules to be broken. I suggest the chairman of the aboriginal
affairs committee resign and allow another member to preside
over clause by clause reconsideration of Bill C-33 and Bill
C-34.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I also was a substitute member on that committee for a
portion of last evening and starting at roughly 4.45 a.m. today.
It is well known by you, Mr. Speaker, that committees are
masters of their own business. That is a principle that has long
been accepted by Parliament and in previous rulings. Need I
remind the Chair of the ruling on the Lachance case in the early
1980s as well as the ruling on what is known commonly as the
Blenkarn report on the goods and services tax.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event, Mr. Speaker, that you
were to review the proceedings of the committee you would find
that in no case was any vote in a position whereby one person
would have changed the vote. In fact for virtually all votes we
had scores of 6:2 that were registered; in other words six people
carrying each clause versus two against. The only exceptions I
remember during the whole night were the odd votes on which
one member of the Reform Party voted with the government
making the score 7:1 instead of 6:2.
To review what I said previously, whether or not the vote
deems that it is appropriate for him to review the business of the
committee would not change the outcome of the vote. In any
case, Mr. Speaker, sustaining the precedents I have brought to
your attention I think you would rule that in cases such as these
the Speaker has not interfered with the reports of committees in
the past.
(1210)
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
use this opportunity to point out what I believe is a serious fault
in our system. While you review the committee events of last
evening perhaps a point to keep in mind is the people of Yukon
chose the hon. member for Yukon to represent them as their
member of Parliament, knowing full well she was also a member
of the New Democratic Party.
The issue before the aboriginal affairs committee last night
was dealing exclusively with that territory, Indian land claims
and Indian self-government in the Yukon territory. Being the
only member from that territory it seems not unreasonable that
she would want to play an advisory role, a serious role, in an
issue that dealt explicitly and exclusively with her constituents.
Technically my hon. friend may be correct that it reveals some
of the inappropriateness of some of our standing orders,
particularly as they refer to committee and the role of so-called
independent members. For my friend-and I respect the
technical case that he is making-to suggest for a moment that
the sole representative for the Yukon territory not be allowed to
participate in critical legislation regarding her constituents
surely must point out a major flaw in our system.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to hon. members and
the point is not that the hon. member was allowed to be present
and participate in the committee. The point is that this was a
clear breach of the rules, of the standing orders. The chairman
was in complete breach of his responsibility as chairman by not
recognizing the point of order I raised, which was a very clear
point of order.
As I mentioned, we have no difficulty with the hon. member
for Yukon being present. The difficulty we have which we raised
in the committee meeting last night with the chairman was that
by allowing her to vote the chair was in clear breach of the
standing orders that govern the committee proceedings.
We ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rule on that point.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
the same point of order. I would simply like to advise the House
that I was in attendance at the committee meeting between
midnight and 5 a.m. during the point at which the question was
raised by the hon. member.
The clerk presented the appropriate documents to the Reform
Party for examination and advised the chair of the committee
that the member for Yukon was eligible to vote. The chair
proceeded on the basis of the advice of the clerk appointed by
the House.
5524
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): I would like to speak, if I
may, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that was just raised. In
my mind, the Official Opposition is perfectly entitled to allow
any member of this House it pleases to speak on an issue that not
only concerns a member from a party other than ours but also on
which the hon. member in question had special knowledge.
We think it is an extremely open-minded thing to do to
transcend party boundaries and draw on the parliamentary
expertise of all members of this House so as to improve the bill
under review and ensure it better meets the needs of the people
for whom it is intended.
I do not think it is in the interest of the Reform Party to try and
control or decide beforehand who should or should not be
allowed to speak on this bill. We have willingly agreed to let the
hon. member use speaking time which was ours. I believe there
are precedents in parliamentary law in that regard. I think such a
gesture serves democracy well, as it reflects unselfishness and
care for first-rate legislative action.
(1215)
[English]
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I made it
clear earlier that we had no objection to the presence of the hon.
member for Yukon there and in fact participating in the debate.
The point I raise in this point of order is the fact that she was not
a legal voting member of that committee.
Even though the chief opposition whip had signed the proper
notice with the clerk, the fact is the member for Yukon was not
listed as an associate member and therefore-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I think the member
already made that point earlier. We do not need to hear points
repeated.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I would like one short opportunity to intervene in this
point of order as well.
I am an associate member of that committee. The leader of my
party, the member for Yukon, was sitting on my behalf in the
aboriginal affairs committee.
What this debate points out is that there could be a flaw in our
standing orders that this House now has an opportunity to
correct, knowing the difficulties that it puts in place for
independent, associate or other members of this House who have
an interest in committee work but who are not members of a
specific committee.
On behalf of the member for Yukon and my party I want to
thank the members of the Official Opposition for their
co-operation and assistance in allowing the member for Yukon
to participate in the way she was able to during that committee.
I think the work the members of the Official Opposition have
done in this case should serve as an example of the change that
we need to make in the standing orders so that we will be able to
allow forms to be signed by someone who cannot sign a form, to
allow for participation of other members.
Members realize that an associate member has no way to
transfer his or her place at the table to another member and that
the only means of voting is to take the place of a member who
does have a voting spot which rests with the three major parties.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. colleagues, I wish to thank all the
hon. members who have spoken on this rather sensitive
question.
[English]
We are dealing with Standing Order 114. The matter gets
before the House today because of the fact there will be a report
presented from the relevant committee. The matter will be
considered carefully, taking into mind all of what the members
have said today and the Chair will make a ruling on it
presumably on Monday.
_____________________________________________
5524
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 33(2), I have the pleasure to present to this
House, in both official languages, the first Canadian report to
the United Nations on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to table in this House today, in both official
languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which
were made recently by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred
to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is
attached.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am also pleased to table, in both official languages and pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, on
5525
March 8 of this year the Prime Minister announced a review of
the operation of the administrative flight services.
(1220 )
I am pleased to announce today that the government has
finished its review on how we operate the Challenger air service.
As a result, we are completely revamping the delivery of this
service to save Canada's taxpayers more than $24 million a year.
We are replacing the more costly service that the previous
government ran with a more scaled down version. As the Prime
Minister promised, on March 8 we looked at options that were in
keeping with the government's objectives of frugality and
integrity.
We have delivered on our promise. The costs of the new
service will be nearly 60 per cent less than under the previous
government, dropping from $41.4 million to $17 million a year.
I want to make it clear that a flight service for the royal
family, the Governor General, the Prime Minister, ministers of
this cabinet and foreign dignitaries is essential in a country as
vast as Canada.
The severe time restraints under which these people work
makes this service absolutely necessary.
[Translation]
Each of our major trading partners provides a similar service
to its head of state and ministers.
[English]
Now that we are confident we can deliver the service cost
effectively, I expect that ministers will make use of the fleet for
their official duties when the schedules of commercial air
services cannot meet their needs.
Variable costs for flying now are expected to decline from
about $4,600 an hour to $2,200 an hour. The cost per flying hour,
if you add in capital costs, is estimated to decrease from about
$17,000 to $6,800. This is only one example of the kind of
specific measures which I will be implementing and this
government will be implementing with a view to reducing
expenditures of the federal government.
We have cut back the number of Challenger planes from six to
four. We have cut the flight crews from eleven to six. We have
re-engineered maintenance arrangements and we have lowered
training costs without sacrificing any safety.
From now on the Department of National Defence will
continue to provide the Challenger aircraft and crews, but
Transport Canada will provide service and maintenance, with
the private sector providing many of the other support services,
the baggage handling, the meals and the lounge services.
[Translation]
We involved the Auditor General in the review, addressing
concerns he raised in his 1993 report. In a recent exchange of
correspondence with the Prime Minister, the Auditor General
has generally expressed support for the renewal of the service.
[English]
The government's decision to revamp the administrative
flight service puts the Challenger service on a sound footing. It
is a reliable, cost effective secure transportation service for the
government and fits in well with the government's commitment
to operate as cost effectively as it can.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There has
been a very slight pressure of time issue that needs to be dealt
with. I wonder if the House would give its unanimous consent to
interrupt the statements by ministers for just a moment to allow
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to introduce a bill.
I think you would find there is consent to do that. I apologize
for this interruption, particularly to members of the opposition
who are going to make their responses. It will only take a
second.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-44, an act to
amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make
a consequential amendment to the Customs Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1225)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is moderately satisfied with the statement by the
President of the Treasury Board on the review of the operation of
the Canadian government's Challenger air service. The
circumstances of this review recall a less than glorious episode
in this government's history and the use of government aircraft
by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
5526
After the public outrage at the federal government's undue
expenditures, the obvious step was to rationalize the expenses of
members of cabinet. I want to point out that the government
could have avoided taking the blame for this widespread
practice of wasting public funds if it had agreed, as the Bloc
Quebecois requested and still requests, to set up a public
spending review committee that would scrutinize every
government expenditure. By refusing to allow this exercise and
by resisting change until public opinion forces it to act, the
Liberal government has shown that its approach to public
administration is largely improvised.
How many mini-scandals will it take for this government to
finally decide to change its expensive practices? How many
scandalous episodes will it take for this government to stop
wasting public funds? Is there any justification for this
government's excessive spending, when millions of Canadians
and Quebecers are living on welfare because the government
lacks the courage and the political will to promote a genuine and
pro-active full employment policy?
In an article published on February 1 in La Presse, journalist
Claude Picher said we can never criticize enough the kind of
mistakes made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if
we want the government to manage public funds in a vigilant
and responsible way. I agree.
At a time when the number of unemployed is increasing daily,
at a time when the national debt puts Canada among the most
indebted Western countries when the federal government's
spending power flies defies rationalization of government
spending, the government must not be allowed to forget these
incidents so that government waste in all its forms can be
eliminated.
The presentation by the President of the Treasury Board
reflects confidence in the government's new system for
managing air transportation for its ministers. I wish I could
share that confidence, but I must say that it is not easy. This
government has so far failed to show the political will to cut
unnecessary spending. It continues to encroach on provincial
jurisdiction, it continues to make partisan political
appointments and to attack social programs while maintaining
tax shelters for the wealthiest people in this country. In other
words, today's announcement is no guarantee that the
government will immediately win the trust of the Official
Opposition.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, we in the
Reform Party applaud the statement by the President of the
Treasury Board regarding the completed review of the operation
of the administrative flight services. The saving of some $24
million of taxpayers' dollars is indeed good news to all
Canadians.
While we acknowledge that some use by the royal family, the
Governor General and the Prime Minister may be required, the
important change in direction is the directive to ministers to use
commercial air service as a first priority. With the Auditor
General's being involved in this review, we trust an agreement
has been reached on the cost per flying hour.
I would further request that this government keep Parliament
informed by providing it with complete and accurate
information about the flight services, as the Auditor General
recommended in his 1993 report. In this way Parliament would
be better able to monitor any wasteful spending and perhaps
locate new areas of savings as they relate to this service.
(1230 )
I would also request that the minister table the review it
conducted of the flight service. The government is finally doing
what the private sector started doing three and four years ago,
cutting costs in order to survive in these difficult times.
While we in Reform recognize this reduction in government
spending, we suggest it is only the tip of the iceberg. There are
millions more taxpayers' dollars to be saved by further cuts in
government spending.
We encourage the government to keep looking. It is on the
right track.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 30th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is a procedural
report dealing with special debates in the House and will be of
interest to all hon. members.
I also have the honour to present the 31st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
membership on committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 31st report later this day.
The Deputy Speaker: A point of order, the member for
Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, you said that you would be ruling on my previous point
5527
of order at a later date. How can these bills be reported back to
the House before we have heard the Chair's ruling?
The Deputy Speaker: The point of order is an interesting
one. The member may not realize it but the only way the Chair
can deal with the matter, I am told, is if a report is filed today.
There is nothing the Chair can do to stop the report from being
presented to the House. Before anything is done with respect to
the bills at issue, the Chair could rule that the bills had not been
properly dealt with and therefore the matter would not go
further.
I very much appreciate the concern of the member. I hope my
explanation has made it clear what is happening.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I present, in both official
languages, the third and fourth reports of the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
regarding Bill C-33, the Yukon First Nations Land Claim
Settlement Act, and Bill C-34, Yukon First Nations
Self-Government Act.
I would like to commend the work that was done throughout
the night by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois and the
government and the great patience they showed while dealing
with these two bills.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill
C-35, an act to establish the department of citizenship and
immigration and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, with an amendment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
with leave of the House, I move that the 31st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled in
the House today, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1235)
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of
39 constituents.
The petition calls for the government to not repeal or amend
section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the
Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993, to
disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
It is my pleasure to present this petition to the House today.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present, without
prejudice, a petition signed by over 200 Canadians from across
Canada on the situation in Kashmir.
They claim that gross human rights violations are being
committed against the Kashmiri people and that the Indian
government is not allowing any humanitarian aid, human rights
activists or foreign journalists to operate or enter into Kashmir.
The petition calls on the Government of Canada to bring
pressure on the Indian government to end its human rights
violations against the Kashmiri people, to implement UN
resolutions which include an impartial plebiscite under UN
control whereby the Kashmiris can freely choose their own
destiny, and finally, the Canadian government is called on to
bring economic sanctions and an arms embargo against India
until the above two objectives have been achieved.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions
requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the human
rights act to include the phrase sexual orientation.
The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would indicate
societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The petitioners
believe that the government should not legitimize this behaviour
against the clear wishes of the majority.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, I too have
a petition from just about every community in my riding of
Leeds-Grenville expressing concern for the family.
They ask that Parliament not amend the human rights code,
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same-sex relationships or homosexuality, including
amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited
grounds for discrimination the undefined phrase sexual
orientation.
5528
It is a great pleasure to present these petitions on behalf of my
constituents.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 46 people from the riding of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who ask that Parliament uphold
the present section of the Criminal Code forbidding the aiding in
the commission of a suicide.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I also have 962 signatures to be tabled today from
people calling for the ban on the serial killer board game first
edition.
These names are in addition to the 111,638 names I have
tabled already for a grand total of 112,600.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the duty to present a petition signed by
a number of constituents from the riding of Oxford.
The petitioners ask the government to uphold section 241 of
the Criminal Code which disallows doctor assisted suicide.
The petitioners further ask the government to uphold the
Supreme Court decision made last September 30 to disallow
doctor assisted suicide.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by numerous residents of
Kingston and the Islands, particularly of the city of Kingston,
who request that Parliament ensure that the present provisions
of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
retained without changes and enforced in order that Parliament
not sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
euthanasia.
I am pleased to present this petition to the House.
* * *
(1240 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
question No. 25 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 25-Mrs. Wayne:
Will the government establish a national environmental technology
advancement centre in Atlantic Canada following the release of a report entitled:
``Environmental Industry Strategy for Canada''?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): The federal government has provided
start-up funding for three National Environmental Technology
Advancement Centres (NETACs) as non-profit corporations
operating at arm's length from government, offering technology
commercialization services to small and medium sized
enterprises throughout Canada. The centres have so far obtained
support from the private sector and other levels of government
that exceeds the federal government's $12 million contribution
over four years.
The competitive process to establish the NETACs included an
extensive consultation with the environmental industry and
other interested parties. Proposals to establish centres were
subjected to a comprehensive and independent evaluation
resulting in the announcement of three NETACs during the
summer of 1993. No proposals to establish centres were
received from Atlantic Canada.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that,
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).
_____________________________________________
5528
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When the debate was
interrupted the member for Madawaska-Victoria had five
minutes' time remaining in her speech but I believe she
completed it.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on Bill C-43.
Today in the House of Commons we sit among seats held by
over 200 newly elected representatives from all across Canada,
most of whom, like me, are novices. There is no doubt that in the
federal election of October 25, 1993, Canadians sent a clear
message that they wanted back control of what they see as a
decaying democracy, a political environment increasingly based
on who you know, not what you know your constituents want.
5529
The whole issue of elected officials being more accountable
to the people they represent has increasingly become a pressing
and troubling issue for Canadians and they are demanding
action.
Who could forget the now famous quote from the former
leader of the Liberal Party during the election campaign. When
accused of handing out patronage appointments to senior
Liberal supporters he declared on national TV, ``I had no
choice''. Who will forget the legacy of the man who accused Mr.
Turner?
The last 10 years have seen more scandal, more patronage,
more impropriety by elected public officials and more PR
campaigns to cover up the scandals than I believe Canadian
society has ever experienced. It all climaxed during the last
election. Politically conscious Canadians once and for all
proved that they had had enough, throwing out 75 per cent of the
incumbents.
The issue behind today's debate is not simply private interests
cajoling public officials. The issue transcends the question of
how to control and make more transparent the access these
private interests have with public officials. The issue was
articulated by the Prime Minister during his speech in this
House. The Prime Minister talked about trust. In this vein the
Prime Minister said that in a democracy, elected officials must
be accountable to the interests of all Canadians, not just the
privileged few.
Such words are music to my ears. If the Prime Minister was
fully aware of what he was saying, and I think he was, and if he
fully intends to put into practice this populist ideology, then I
am half way to returning home to my family and my medical
practice.
However, as Canadians saw with the previous government,
actions speak louder than words. It is one thing for politicians to
accuse others of improprieties and to preach about patronage,
conflict of interest and ethics. Canadians demand action, not
PR.
The actions of the government, of the Prime Minister are to
appoint, and I underline the word appoint, an ethics counsellor.
Oh, they tell us we will review and study the legislation. This
actually is Tory legislation from the previous government
dealing with registering lobbyists.
(1245 )
Note that although the Prime Minister says the interests of all
must be considered, only the Prime Minister and not the duly
elected representatives of the people through Parliament will
decide who is the ethics watchdog. Only to the Prime Minister,
not the duly elected representatives of the people through
Parliament, will the ethics counsellor be accountable.
Given all of the public attention and the humble, trust us kind
of speeches made by the government on public trust and
accountability, together with the Prime Minister's
announcement yesterday on appointing an ethics counsellor, I
must say I am little saddened.
Canadians demand action on this issue. Can hon. members not
sense and understand that? Canadians are sick and tired of slick
rhetoric and public relations. They see right through it and no
wonder. They certainly have had enough experience with that
type of activity over the last 15 years. Action is what they want.
Action.
Canadians are no longer willing to stand idly by as outsiders
while politicians line their own pockets and promote their own
interests or those of their friends and relatives. If we as elected
officials really and truly want to clean up this place, if we really
and truly want to dispose of shady, sleazy politics which cast
shadows not only over this fine city, but the quality and degree
of democracy in this entire country, all of us can do it.
The vast majority of members know on any given day for any
given subject what the consensus majority of their constituents
believe and want. As a non-professional politician I would say
that is one of our most important jobs. The other even more
important job as publicly elected representatives is to represent
our constituents' views.
This indeed is how I interpreted the Prime Minister's remarks.
I will repeat what he said: ``We must take into account the
interests of all Canadians, not just the privileged few''. Yet the
Prime Minister is against allowing MPs in the Liberal Party to
vote freely according to their constituents' views. The Prime
Minister is against the idea of allowing constituents to recall
their representatives if they do wrong. Are such policies not
contradictory to the humble power to the people statements he
made yesterday and which are printed in the Liberal red book?
I leave the answers to these questions to the existing seat
holders in this Parliament. We who occupy these privileged
places must eventually reconcile our consciences. As long as we
represent to the very best of our abilities on each and every issue
the consensus views of those individuals who are paying for us
to be here, the many thousands of people in our constituencies
and our parliamentary raison d'être, we should have no
difficulties whatsoever at the end of the day saying to our
constituents, our families, our children and our grandchildren
that we did the best we could.
Should anything we do in whatever way cause us to contradict
the consensus views of our constituents, then we must ask
ourselves: Who are we doing this for? Is it for ourselves to
promote our narrow self-interests? Is it for our friends or
relatives to promote their narrow self-interests? Perhaps we
could justify our representation in the interests of Canada,
maybe Alberta, or maybe Quebec. Perhaps we could justify
voting a particular way on certain issues simply in the interests
5530
of our party. Of course that would be good for Canada, whether
Canadians know it or not.
As a parliamentarian I believe there is no cause which should
take greater precedence than to do things that in our hearts we
know it is what our constituents would want us to do. They know
what they want. We just have to ask them more often.
What about those other noble causes: our friends, our
relatives, Alberta, Quebec, Canada, our parties? I believe our
constituents would tell us that by simply representing their
views accurately on every issue we would automatically
collectively represent what is best for Canada, our political
parties, our true friends, our families, our children and our
grandchildren.
(1250 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech. I
still cannot figure out whether the member is for or against the
bill. It is indeed most difficult to do so. I know the hon. member
is in favour of families and that is very good. He is probably in
favour of wholesomeness as well and that is good too.
We are dealing with a bill today as proposed by the right hon.
Prime Minister and as presented in the House by the Minister of
Industry. I have waited a long time for this bill.
In 1987 I was a member of the Cooper committee, the original
parliamentary committee which produced the legislation that
exists today. The legislation was less than perfect. It did not
include the major recommendations of the committee at the
time.
One of the highlights of the Cooper bill was that after three
years of coming into force the legislation would be up for
review. The Holtmann committee did that review. I also was a
member of that committee. If members have not guessed
because of the defeats last year of course I am the only survivor
of either committee and a survivor of both. Therefore, I have had
the opportunity to work on this issue on several occasions in the
past.
The report presented last year by the Holtmann committee
was not a Tory bill as the member across the way said. It was a
unanimous decision of the committee which was presented and
received the broad support of the House. Maybe it was not the
Reform bill but I do not apologize for that. It was a report
produced by the duly elected people. Maybe that concept is alien
to the member who just spoke as well, but it was produced by all
of us in the last Parliament and it was unanimous.
Today I stand proud because the Prime Minister in producing
this legislation included most of what we asked for. Ninety per
cent of what was in our report has ended up in this legislation.
Furthermore, there were things I was looking for as an
individual member and the rest of the committee was not willing
to put in the report last year. This Prime Minister has addressed
those issues as well.
For example, last year the committee recommended in
recommendation 22: ``That lobbyists proceed immediately to
establish a professional association with an industry-wide code
of ethics''. I wanted that to go a lot further. I produced an
amendment to that at the committee saying that in addition to
what was in recommendation 22 we should also have a measure
whereby if lobbyists failed to produce their own code of ethics
the government would impose one on them. That is what I
wanted last year.
Guess what is in the bill now? The Prime Minister said that we
will impose a code of ethics through the new independent officer
who will overview this system. He will develop a code and he
will impose it on the lobbyists. They have no choice. The
lobbyists have had years to produce such a code but have failed
to do so.
I recognize some of the difficulties that industry has. A few
players in there were less than desirable characters but that is
not true for the majority of them. Some very honourable people
are lobbyists. No one can tell me that the representation from the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture to my office is less than
honourable.
[Translation]
Nobody can tell me that when people from the UPA call their
MPs they do not have the best interest of their members in mind.
Being a lobbyist is not in itself an undesirable activity. They are
not all mean bastards. But a few rotten apples have spoiled it for
everybody else.
And that is the truth. I say to the member who spoke before me
that after being in Parliament for a while, he will realize that
most lobbyists are honest, but a few of them have done rather
suspicious things, to say the least.
(1255)
[English]
Where does that bring us? Last year and the year before we
were studying lobbying legislation. We were studying a new
conflict of interest code. The Prime Minister has found a way,
through this ethics counsellor, an independent officer, to impose
rules that are even stronger than what we have now on the
registration of lobbyists. He has addressed the issue of conflict
of interest: one for ministers, their spouses and families; on the
other side for members of Parliament, once we develop a code
for ourselves. That is a very important consideration. It has been
done. It has been addressed.
5531
I want to speak briefly about the independence of the ethics
counsellor. I have heard one or two members make allegations
that the ethics counsellor is not independent because he reports
through a minister to the House. That is not necessarily true. The
assistant deputy registrar general, which is the position this
officeholder holds right now, operates in a quasi-judicial
manner.
The Competition Tribunal and other bodies like it report
through ministers but they operate independently,
quasi-independently, or at arm's length from the government.
The Director of Investigations is another one. That is probably a
better example of someone who operates very much in an
independent manner, yet the estimates and so on report
nominally through a minister. There are plenty of cases like that.
In this case the Prime Minister looked at a person who was
holding an independent office of the kind I just described. He
was chosen to do the job, after consultations with both
opposition leaders.
Finally, once the person is appointed, the appointment has to
be reviewed by a parliamentary committee under our present
standing orders. Need I remind members of that. Therefore it is
an independent position.
Yes, the reports as to whether or not a lobbyist breached a
code will be made through the Minister of Industry, who must
report to the House within 15 days of having received that
report. It is not optional. That report is automatically tabled in
the House.
[Translation]
What will be in this report? It could, for instance, tell the
House about lobbyists who charged fees that were too high, and
therefore suspicious. I believe it is a good initiative. It goes very
far in the sense that lobbyists will be identified publicly and
individually.
I am one of those who thought that lobbyists' fees should
automatically be made public. It is one approach and it is the one
I put forward. Today, I recognize that this information would be
buried under the mountain of data released.
[English]
We call that the paper blizzard. If you provide enough
information it is about the same as not providing any.
The Prime Minister has very cleverly designed this plan so
that only those lobbyists who do controversial things will be
reported to Parliament through the registrar general. This would
include the fees of those lobbyists. Therefore, if lobbyists-and
I assume they would generally be tier ones-do something
questionable, it would be reported to Parliament.
The rules in themselves do not change parliamentarians and
they do not change people. We do need good rules and we will
have good rules. These proposals will be reviewed by a
parliamentary committee. I hope to have the honour of
representing my party on that committee.
I will conclude by saying that what is most important is good
ethical and moral behaviour by all of us in Parliament. I think
that will then filter down to people in the public service and
everywhere else and we will regain the confidence of the people
as we have started to do over the months since our party has been
in office.
(1300)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
for me to speak to this bill to amend the Lobbyists Registration
Act. This legislation will regulate the work of those who lobby
government departments and agencies on behalf of their clients'
interests.
I have read the bill and support a number of its provisions.
Naturally, I support the fact that the bill requires lobbyists to
disclose the nature of their activities. I also agree that the
departments and agencies who are being lobbied must be
identified. I also believe it is a good idea that the identity of
individuals or corporations involved in lobbying be clearly
disclosed.
These are the main provisions I see in this bill. Basically, we
expected these provisions.
Other positive aspects of the bill, to my mind, are the fact that
it calls for the establishment of a code of ethics governing
lobbying activities and the appointment of an ethics counsellor
to oversee the application of the legislation.
Generally speaking, these are the positive sides to this bill. It
would be rather ridiculous if we only had negative things to say.
However, if we examine the bill in relation to what has now
come to be known as the Pearson Airport scandal, we see that as
it is now worded, the bill would not have prevented this scandal
from occurring. We would not have received any new
information besides what we already have.
With this bill, we would have learned that some lobbying took
place with respect to the privatization of part of Pearson Airport.
That is nothing new. We would have learned that the Department
of Transport was also lobbied. But we knew that already.
Perhaps an inquiry would have been called by the person
responsible for the application of the legislation. Well, an
inquiry was held into the Pearson Airport deal. The Prime
Minister appointed a special investigator who looked into the
deal and released a report, which explains why certain facts
came to our attention. We have learned in particular that there
was something in the wind because the investigator did not have
the power to force people to testify, so that we could find out
what really happened.
The bill before us provides for a code of conduct which is not
a statutory instrument and cannot force people to testify.
5532
Having reviewed the bill before us, I submit that this bill
would have been of no use to us in getting to the bottom of the
Pearson Airport scandal.
As you can see, this bill is seriously flawed. I will try to
describe briefly the flaws I see in this bill and explain how I
would like to contribute to future debates on this bill.
Flaw number one: the ethics counsellor is appointed by the
Governor in Council, in other words, the government, the Prime
Minister, the Cabinet, as in the case of Mr. Nixon, who was
appointed to investigate the Pearson Airport deal. I would say
his being appointed by the government undermines his
authority. As I see it, he should have been appointed by the
House of Commons, just like the Chief Electoral Officer of
Canada. This gives him unquestioned prestige and authority.
(1305)
Flaw number two: the code of conduct is not a statutory
instrument. This code, as described in the bill, seems to be little
more than a pious wish list. Lobbyists are advised to behave in a
certain way, but the code is not a statutory instrument. This is
going to make it difficult for the person responsible for its
application to summon witnesses, to question their statements,
to shed light on suspicious deals. I think the non-regulatory
status of the ethics code is a major weakness of the bill before
us.
Another shortcoming is that lobbyists are not required to
make public the amounts involved. When a lobbyist receives
$10,000 for his services, I think he is not in the same situation as
if he received $1 million or $2 million.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who
spoke before me, said that he thought of disclosing the amounts
paid to lobbyists. The argument he just put forward to justify his
change of mind is that there would be so much information that
it would be impractical for potential lobbying researchers to dig
out the figures. I think the hon. member changed his mind a little
too fast because of an apparently flimsy justification. Whether
there are 5,000 or 10,000 reports, Canadians interested in
democracy will make an effort to look at them. Whether there
are 10 or 20 people looking, if they see problems, they will be
able to warn the population, and I think journalists will be smart
enough to use this information. I think it would be important to
know how much lobbyists received for their services.
Another element of the bill that has not been pointed out but
should be in my opinion-I will be told, I am sure, that it has to
do with the Income Tax Act or with other tax laws-is that the
government has kept the tax deduction for lobbyists' fees. It is
somewhat ironic that, on the one hand, the public is denied this
information and that, on the other hand, since the people who
hire lobbyists benefit by being allowed to claim a tax deduction,
this information is provided to the Department of Revenue.
It could be said that lobbyists want to have their cake and eat it
too. It means that when things are not favourable, they want to
keep it a secret, but when they can benefit financially, there is no
problem as long as tax confidentiality is preserved. I think that
this tax deduction is very questionable, especially since
President Clinton of the United States, who wants to regulate
lobbying, is thinking of eliminating it.
The bill also makes a dubious distinction between two types
of lobbyists: consultant lobbyists paid to make representations
on behalf of their clients and in-house corporate lobbyists
whose main duty is to lobby departments and governments in
order to obtain benefits for their companies. The bill is tougher
on consultant lobbyists than on in-house lobbyists.
(1310)
But we must say that in-house lobbyists are often employed
by large corporations which can afford their services and which
must be accountable to the public. So I think that the lack of
uniformity in the way this bill treats the various lobbyists is a
major weakness which may bring the public to question the
effectiveness of this bill.
Another feature I find particularly surprising is that lobbyists
are not required to name the people they contacted in the
agencies concerned. A report might say: ``So-and-so contacted
the Department of Transport, the Department of Human
Resources or the Department of Justice''. But we would like to
know whom this person contacted. Was it the minister or a
senior official? I think that it is important to find out what went
on and to shed light on lobbying activities.
I shall conclude because my time is almost up. Basically,
Quebecers and Canadians want to know who is lobbying. They
want to know for whom the lobbying is done. They want to know
how the lobbying is done. They want to know why the lobbying
is done and how much it costs. I think that it is important and
when the principle of this bill is considered, my party will seek
to ensure that this law has all the necessary provisions so that the
people of Canada and Quebec are kept informed of lobbyists'
activities.
[English]
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
support the government's motion to send this bill, an act to
amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, to the committee prior to
second reading.
No Canadian requires the services of a lobbyist to approach
this government. I am sure that all members of this House would
agree that our doors are always open to our constituents and we
5533
do our best to ensure that the views of those constituents are well
represented in government decision making.
Moreover, all Canadians have a right to make their own views
known to ministers of the crown. Every day ministers receive
hundreds of letters from Canadians expressing their opinion on
matters within their jurisdiction. Many Canadians make their
views known directly to the department or agency of the crown
that handles the issue under consideration.
I refer particularly to the farm organizations in the
constituency that I represent which deal with matters such as
cattle, hogs, chickens, wheat and a number of agricultural
commodities that have had representatives here in Ottawa for 20
or 50 years. They have a right to do so.
This government upholds the right of Canadian citizens to
deal with public officials but as we know, some Canadians do
hire lobbyists. At the same time, government sometimes seeks
the advice of groups and organizations in order to find out what
impact its actions will have on Canadians. Our challenge is to
ensure that lobbying does not discredit the democratic process.
I would like to outline why this legislation does not follow the
recommendations of the Standing Committee on Consumer and
Corporate Affairs and Government Operations to eliminate the
distinctions between tier one and tier two lobbyists.
The committee had concluded that tier one and tier two
lobbyists perform similar functions and recommended one
definition and the same reporting and disclosure requirements
for all lobbyists. This legislation on the other hand is based on
the premise that lobbying performed by consultant lobbyists is
different from that done by in-house lobbyists.
It has named three different categories: consultant, corporate
in-house and organization in-house lobbyists. I believe that this
accurately reflects the kind of lobbying activities that are going
on out there and in fact prevents any kind of confusion of the
issues in terms of those who are writing reports or consultant
reports for individual organizations and non-profit
organizations. Those are the so-called big guns, the Canadian
Bankers Association for example. Those two types of activities
are different.
(1315)
In other respects the legislation follows the committee's
recommendations closely. It implements more detailed
disclosure of all lobbyists. The question of whether increased
disclosure requires the elimination of two tiers was one that the
government had to examine very carefully. All organizations
have told us that they agree with the need to make lobbying more
transparent. No one is disputing that. They accept the need to
provide more specific disclosure. They recognize that
information filed under the existing Lobbyists Registration Act
is not adequate.
When it comes to the question of removing the distinction
between the two tiers, representatives of corporations and
organizations say that there are significant differences between
their work and responsibilities and those of, as I pointed out, the
consultant lobbyists in the tier one category. Corporate and
organization in house lobbyists are by nature and status very
substantively, fundamentally different from consultant
lobbyists who operate under contract on behalf of clients.
To begin with, the activities of the in house lobbyists are
already well publicized. Further, associations are informed by
their members to pursue their common objectives on an ongoing
basis. That is why we are requiring the association rather than
the individual to file on an annual basis. Non-profit
organizations will also have to disclose substantially more
information, but this will not create administrative demands
beyond their ability to comply.
These organizations recognize the value of greater
transparency in their activities. All in house lobbyists will be
required to provide annual listings of issues or specific subjects
of concern, the departments or agencies they expect to contact,
and in addition the communication techniques they plan to use.
They will also have to provide updates as changes or new
information arises or if the project is terminated. They must also
provide annually a description of the organization's goals and
objectives or their business activities. Corporate in house
lobbyists must give the name of the parent company and any
subsidiaries with a direct interest. Organization lobbyists must
describe their membership.
The government wants to continue the valuable dialogue and
discussions with associations and organizations in order to find
out how the government's actions might affect Canadians. At
the same time the bill will improve transparency of these
processes by requiring again all lobbyists to disclose
substantially more information. That is why I support the
legislation.
The subcommittee on industry will want to look at these
issues once more when it studies the legislation prior to second
reading. The government assures us that it will maintain an open
mind on the amendments the committee might recommend.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to the motion to refer Bill C-43 to
committee prior to second reading. That is significant in that a
broader discussion regarding the transparency of the political
process and the accountability of politicians to the Canadian
public may take place before coming to the House for full
debate. Therefore I am pleased to endorse the motion referring
the bill to committee prior to second reading. In my support for
5534
the motion I will explain what I believe to be the strengths and
the weaknesses of the bill and then I will suggest some changes.
There is an attempt here to make the political process more
open. This is a necessary move, given that there are today few
professions despised more than a political career. There is a
good reason for this sorry fact. Constituents in my riding of
Calgary Southeast have told me time and time again that they
want to be included in the governance of their country. They
want to have decisions made that reflect their wishes and that
benefit their best interests. These Canadians are tired of a
government that ignores them and succumbs to the special
interests of powerful lobbyists. Part of the mandate that
members of my party have received is to put an end to this
disempowerment.
In my last town hall meeting we were discussing the issue of
criminal justice reform when a man rose to express his concerns.
He challenged me when he said to all in attendance that their
input would not make any difference, that politicians were not
interested in hearing what constituents had to say, and that if
politicians did hear the message was ultimately ignored. That
was pretty harsh criticism. All of us here should take note that
Canadians remain frustrated and worried about where their
country is going.
(1320)
It is often said that perception is reality. In the case of
disempowered Canadians the opposite is true. In fact reality was
perceived. My colleagues on this side of the House in the
Reform Party have a comprehensive package of policy
proposals that will change that cynical reality. Our proposals
will give the power back to the constituents where it rightfully
belongs.
The government has borrowed another idea from the Reform
Party by allowing Bill C-43 to go to committee prior to second
reading. It is easy therefore for me to support the motion when it
has come so clearly right out of our blue book.
The motion engenders everything that Reform stands for
when we speak of opening up the political system and making
access to the political process more transparent. As well, the
intent of the government to make amendments to the Lobbyists
Registration Act, the LRA, is to require lobbyists to disclose
more information to the public. I applaud some of these changes
for they too are right out of the Reform blue book.
Maybe I should send a copy of the blue book to the other side
of the House because we hear there is confusion among Liberal
backbenches as to what legislation will be brought forward next
in the House. We can end their guesswork. They need only check
our blue book to find out what the government plans to do next.
What is happening in the House this session is quite
interesting. We have Liberals trying to pretend that they are
Reformers. They recognize that our policies are those Canadians
want to see enacted in legislation. However and unfortunately
we see what happens when Liberals try to be Reformers. They
cannot get things quite right. They tried for criminal justice
reform but because they are not Reformers they miss the big
picture. The same thing is happening with Bill C-43. The
Liberals are missing the big picture. Making changes to the LRA
and appointing an ethics counsellor are fine as far as they go, but
typically they go off track in some important respects and they
definitely do not go far enough.
Bill C-43 will give the ethics counsellor the power to require
lobbyists to report lobbying fees with respect to government
contracts. In giving the ethics counsellor this power the bill fails
to define clearly his authority. A question comes immediately to
mind such as: Under what circumstances will the ethics
counsellor require a lobbyist to disclose this information? The
circumstances appear to be discretionary and given that the
counsellor reports directly to the Prime Minister he may be
subject to undue influence.
Bill C-43 is a classic example of a bill with much bark but no
bite. There is a simple solution to the problem. The bill should
require all lobbyists to disclose all donations and fees received
over $500 and expenditures over $10. They should be required
to file quarterly reports and to file year to date information as
well. This process is currently used in the United States. It
appears to be an appropriate and adequate model.
In the last Parliament another bill on the same topic died on
the Order Paper. It was coincidentally also labelled Bill C-43.
The reason that bill did not go anywhere was that it created
another layer of bureaucracy. We were assured during the
briefing on the bill yesterday that Bill C-43 would not do that.
We have yet again more verbal assurance from the government.
We know what happens when we get verbal assurances, do we
not? We need only to look to the Ministry of Canadian Heritage
to confirm that.
Bill C-43 would appoint the existing assistant deputy
registrar general as the ethics counsellor. However we are told
that he will keep his old job as the ADRG. Now I ask: Will he
receive two salaries? He presently requires a staff of 25 to fulfil
his responsibilities as ADRG. Now that he has two jobs it would
seem that his staff will have a lot more work to do. There are
only three possibilities here. He could do one job terribly. He
could do both jobs poorly. Or, he could hire more staff in order to
do both jobs well. I suspect he will want to do both jobs well. At
least I hope he will.
(1325)
How much more money will his office require to fulfil his new
responsibilities? Can the government tell us how much this new
ethics counsellor will cost the Canadian taxpayer? Despite the
5535
assurances the government has given us that it will cost nothing
to implement the bill I remain highly sceptical.
The Liberal government talks the good talk of opening up the
political process but it does not understand what that really
means. When it states that it wants to facilitate better action to
the political system it demonstrates through legislation like this
that it does not fully understand the magnitude of the problem.
Tinkering with the LRA will only take us one small step toward
regaining the confidence of Canadians. The focus of this
discussion for me is the confidence of Canadians. Tinkering
with the lobbyists act demonstrates that the government
recognizes special interest groups, endorses special interest
groups, listens to special interests, funds special interest groups,
and enacts legislation to satisfy special interest groups.
The Prime Minister speaks often of restoring the trust of
Canadians. Neither the bill nor the motion will allow Canadians
to control the government's overspending or to control its
deficit of some $40 billion and its debt of some $519 billion. If
the government were serious about winning the trust of
Canadians it would get its fiscal house in order. Let me remind
members opposite who have forgotten what real access to the
political process means that the last government did not know
what it meant. We all know where its members are buried. It
appears that this one does not either.
Real access to the political process means giving real power
back to Canadians as individual constituents. Let me share with
the House, as I conclude, some beliefs that will demonstrate
this. The government should be guided by stated values and
principles shared by Canadians in their political beliefs. We
believe public policy and democratic society should reflect the
will the majority of the citizens as determined by free and fair
elections, referendums, and the decisions of legally constituted
and representative parliaments and assemblies elected by the
people. This does not include buckling to undue pressure from
lobbyists.
We believe in the common sense of the common people, their
right to be consulted on policy matters that are public ones
before major decisions are made, their right to choose and recall
their own representatives and to govern themselves through
truly representative and responsive institutions, and their right
to directly initiate legislation for which substantial public
support is demonstrated.
Unlike the hon. member for Saint-Denis we do not believe the
average voter is illiterate and cannot print his or her name on a
voting list. We believe in the accountability of elected
representatives to the people who elect them and that the duty of
elected members to their constituents should outweigh pressure
from lobbyists and special interests.
Above all else, we must listen to the voices of our
constituents. We will not permit the lobby of special interest
groups to narrow our agenda.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, it is my great
pleasure to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-43. We
cannot represent others if we cannot control ourselves. I think
that is the essence of the bill. It is very important members of
Parliament, parliamentary secretaries and cabinet ministers be
able to control themselves.
The essence of the bill is basically to restore integrity to our
system. We can all remember going through the last election that
one of the big issues was respect for members of Parliament.
Clearly members of Parliament were not well respected. They
were held in contempt in some cases. Some of this issue has not
gone away by the mere exercise of an election. There is still a
great deal of mistrust out there. It is a very good move our Prime
Minister is so concerned about the issue that he personally
brought the bill to the House.
I would like to discuss two specific aspects of the bill into
which it is basically divided. First are changes under the
Lobbyists Registration Act and second is the establishment of
conflict of interest guidelines.
(1330 )
Why would we need a lobbyist in the first place? Companies
do have the right to have lobbyists. I know we talk about tier one
and tier two lobbyists. Essentially companies would have the
right to be represented to their governments.
I think the real essence of it is that this representation needs to
be tempered. There must be a balance. What do I mean by a
balance?
In my riding this week I dealt with a Mrs. Elizabeth Wardell of
Bowmanville. She was trying to live on a disability income of
$850 while at the same time paying $350 a month for drugs. She
gets no support from our system.
I would like to argue that Mrs. Wardell has just as much right
to consideration under drug patent legislation as the largest drug
companies of this country. Indeed many of us may argue that she
has more of a right. I will repeat again, influence must be
tempered.
The most important views of this country are not those of Bay
Street, James Street or Howe Street, but of Main Street, Main
Street Canada. The new legislation will increase the visibility of
the lobbying process.
I would like to refer to those areas of changes to the existing
lobbying registration act. Lobbyists will now be required to
disclose what departments and government agencies they will
contact, disclose communication methods to be used and
register the name of the departments and governmental agencies
to be contacted.
5536
In essence when all is said and done the ethics counsellor will
be able to decide what areas these particular lobbyists are
interested in focusing in government. This will give us a concept
from where this kind of activity is coming from and where it is
directed at government.
Many people have argued in the House that it does not have
any teeth, that it is a waste of time and it is a media show. I have
discovered that here are some of the teeth in the legislation. For
those who do not adhere to this process there are fines of up
$25,000, the role of the RCMP is being strengthened by
increasing the limitation period for laying charges in summary
proceedings from six months to two years. If lobbyists
knowingly make false or misleading statements they could be
liable to a fine of up to $100,000 and a prison term of two years.
These are very serious charges. These are very serious results
of not abiding by this legislation. I think very clearly the
government is very interested in cleaning up our act.
Through these changes I believe that we will start to temper
the views of lobbyists and special interest groups but, more
important, give government back to the people.
I would like to discuss a second aspect of this legislation
which is conflict of interest. I am a chartered accountant. I have
been enrolled in the Institute of Chartered Accountancy since
1974. We have a code of ethics. Most professional organizations
have a code of ethics. If you break it you are out.
Why not in this House have a code of ethics? That would
assume we are professionals. I will give a quick definition of
professional. It is one who values the interest of their clients
over those of their own personal interest.
In reality what conflict of interest guidelines and ethics
counsellor are attempting to do is make the people of Canada our
clients, to put the importance of our clients way above our own
personal interests.
This is what the Prime Minister means when he is clear to the
commitment of duty, but the interest of the electorate must come
before those of ourselves.
I am sure many members of Parliament have had the same
kind of problem from being a respected professional to going
out and being a politician. I remember an incident at a spring fair
in the last election. People would come up to me and say: ``So,
you are a crook too''. Nobody has ever in my life referred to me
as a crook. Because I had changed my cloak, if you will, and had
suddenly become a ``politician'' aspiring to be a member of this
House, I was thought of as a crook. In some ways that kind of
spirit is still out there. We have to address the root causes of that.
We have to set standards in this good House.
(1335)
This section has teeth as well. I would like to refer to section
20 of the guidelines. This refers to parliamentary secretaries and
cabinet ministers: ``Guest hospitality, other benefits, including
those described in section 21, that could influence public office
holders in their judgement and performance of official duties
and responsibilities shall be declined''.
I just picked that out of interest. I wonder how many of our
parliamentary secretaries and the cabinet ministers are going to
be looking under their Christmas tree this year, wondering
whether these things have to be returned based on this
legislation. I think it is very real. It is a very real influence.
To bring the two aspects together, one being the conflict of
interest aspect and the second being the reform to the Lobbyists
Registration Act, the ethics counsellor basically has a number of
functions. One is to develop a code of conduct in consultation
with interested parties. A second is to have the powers to
investigate possible breaches of the code of conduct.
The most important aspect of all is to make a public report as a
result of this investigation. This will be done once a year. When
I saw this I immediately thought of the Auditor General. I
thought of the great opportunity for the opposition parties to
make political hay from this. That is a possibility, a good
possibility.
Imagine a government dedicated to integrity and changing the
system that would invoke legislation of this kind which will
only serve to possibly embarrass it. We can clearly see the
strong commitment our party has to changing the integrity and
the office of elected officials.
In conclusion, under these revised, specific codes of ethics,
they will clean up our system. The only problem with these
things is some people will say they do not go far enough, that we
could have extended it more specifically to all members of
Parliament.
The people who are exempted from this legislation are the
opposition parties. There is no code of ethics for them. There is
no commitment to a higher standard for them. There is no
professional enrolment or engagement for them. Maybe they
would like to bring forward their own code of ethics.
In any case, this is a tremendous move in the right direction
for the people of Canada, empowering the people of Canada to
bring back government and the voices of the people of Canada to
this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?
The Deputy Speaker: Three minutes, unfortunately.
Mr. Bergeron: Three minutes.
5537
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There has been
some consultation. I am not sure whether it is a conclusion yet.
Perhaps while I am making this proposal, it will give further
time for the House to consider it.
I would like to seek agreement that consideration for this
particular bill be extended. In other words, that government
business be extended by one-half hour, and that at the
conclusion of the half hour the issue be disposed of, this
particular item be disposed of at that time.
Second, that in exchange for doing that, so as to not
inconvenience any members, we would agree by unanimous
consent to have only two speakers at Private Members' Hour,
dealing with the item put on the Order Paper by the hon. member
for Kamloops. Only he and one member for the Reform would
speak on that particular private members' item.
(1340 )
At the conclusion of that debate, the initiative of the member
for Kamloops would be withdrawn and referred to a
parliamentary committee. I do not know whether there is
consent for the parliamentary committee on agriculture to be
more specific. I know this is a lot to digest in a very few seconds.
It is done to accommodate members of one party who would
prefer to speak on this bill and forgo the time for speaking on the
other one. The ultimate effect essentially is not to lengthen the
time of the sitting, that the House would terminate at exactly the
same time. I do not know whether that suits hon. members.
Perhaps there is a request to repeat all of that. Of course I am
willing to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could split that in half. Is
there unanimous consent to extend debate for half an hour?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to the
second part of the deputy whip's motion that only two members
speak and that the matter be referred to the standing committee
on agriculture?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you have listed the first
and third items. There was one in the centre that was not
addressed. It was the issue that this government order be
disposed of at the conclusion of the 30 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: I sort of assumed that was the case. Is it
also agreed that it would be disposed of?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Stephane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, unless I
am mistaken, I do have ten minutes to make my speech. Thank
you very much. I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill
C-43.
When we looked at the Pearson Airport deal, I think we were
all hoping that a bill would be tabled to tighten up the Lobbyists
Registration Act, and are pleased that the government decided to
propose this legislation, even though it is, in our opinion, far
from being enough.
I have rather mixed feelings about this bill. On the one hand, I
agree that it is a first step in tightening up the provisions
concerning lobbyists but, on the other hand, I feel that the
proposed measures are not enough. I will discuss this more in
detail later on.
Earlier this morning, the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria said that lobbies were an essential
component of our democratic system. She may be right, but we
must ensure that lobbying does not corrupt the democratic
process, and I think this is the goal of a bill designed to better
monitor the role and the work of lobbyists.
The hon. member for Jonquière was quite right when he said
that the bill, in its present form, would not have prevented what
we refer to as the Pearson Airport scandal. In fact, it is very
symptomatic to see that the government waited until the
conclusion of the debate on the bill concerning compensation to
those involved in the Pearson Airport deal, before finally tabling
its legislation on lobbyists.
This bill is essential because, if we look at the American
experience-which we can observe from up close-we see that
lobbyists in the United States have gained such power that, in a
way, they control several decisions made by the White House
and the Congress. A number of positive points must be
emphasized in Bill C-43. First of all, the appointment of an
Ethics Counsellor. I think the principle is fully justified and that
there was an obvious need to appoint an Ethics Counsellor. We
also find it very positive that this Ethics Counsellor is being
given investigative powers.
(1345)
As the Leader of the Official Opposition said yesterday, we
fully support Mr. Wilson's appointment to the position of Ethics
Counsellor. Mr. Wilson has had a highly respected career; he is a
very honourable man, and we think he is fully qualified for this
position.
We note the government's intention to establish a
parliamentary committee whose mandate would be to develop a
code of ethics for senators and members of Parliament. We also
note its intention to expand and tighten the code of ethics for
public
5538
office holders, namely ministers and senior public servants;
also, its intention to establish a code of ethics for lobbyists.
I personally feel it is entirely appropriate that the Ethics
Counsellor be responsible for administering these three codes of
ethics. This will eliminate the scattering of responsibilities. I do
feel, however, that there are a number of shortcomings in the
bill. First of all, the Ethics Counsellor will not be appointed by
and accountable to Parliament, but rather by the Governor in
Council.
While the Ethics Counsellor is required to present an annual
report to Parliament, and while Parliament must periodically
review this legislation, the fact remains that, because he is
appointed by the Governor in Council-therefore by Cabinet
and the Prime Minister-it is difficult to establish a clear
administrative link and reporting relationship; in my opinion,
this is all the more incongruous in that the registrar will continue
to report to the Department of Industry. I think we should ask
why the Ethics Counsellor is appointed by the Governor in
Council, therefore, by the Prime Minister. If we want the Ethics
Counsellor to be entirely credible and as unbiased as possible
for this work, which would include dealing with possible
conflicts of interest involving Cabinet members, I think this
appointment should not be made by the Governor-in-Council,
representing the wishes of Cabinet, but rather by Parliament
itself.
According to the red book, and I quote, ``the Ethics
Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders
of all parties in the House of Commons''.
I cannot deny that the Leader of the Official Opposition and
the leader of the Reform Party were informed of Mr. Wilson's
appointment, and I do not deny that we are entirely in favour of
this appointment, as I noted earlier. But, given the measures
provided for in this bill, we must wonder about the attitude
subsequent governments might take. Would subsequent
governments pay just as much attention to the opposition's point
of view on the appointment of an ethics counsellor? This is what
we are questioning with respect to the prospect of designation by
the Governor in Council.
We must also deplore the fact that the distinction between the
two types of lobbyists is maintained. I will, with your
permission, refer again to the red book that has been quoted so
many times since the beginning of this session because, of
course, the government boasts about this process of
transparency in parliamentary and government institutions it
will undertake in order to restore public trust in our
parliamentary institutions and our government.
So the red book says, among other things, and I quote: ``To
increase the transparency of the government's relations with
lobbyists, and to give effect to some of the measures described
here, a Liberal government will implement the unanimous June
1993 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Consumer and Corporate Affairs respecting the Lobbyists
Registration Act''.
Well, the first recommendation of the Holtmann report
suggests that, and I quote ``The distinction between Tier I and
Tier II lobbyists be eliminated''. But it is maintained. How do
you explain that a lobbyist working for a large corporation can
have two months to file a return while consultant lobbyists have
only ten days? What is the basis for such different treatment?
(1350)
We should not differentiate on the basis of status, but rather
according to the type of activity. Someone who plays the piano
is a pianist; someone who lobbies is a lobbyist. Whatever status
they have, all lobbyists perform the same activity and we should
not keep this artificial difference.
I also believe that we should have done away with the fiscal
exemptions for lobbying expenses, something which, by the
way, was suggested by the Minister of Transport. These
exemptions mean that the government is subsidizing the work
undertaken by private interests to influence the
decision-making process.
I believe that direct referral to committee, which virtually
does away with second reading, something we regret a little, has
a positive aspect in that it allows members to voice their opinion
on the principle of the bill. In committee, the Bloc Quebecois
will try to prevent this bill from becoming an empty shell, a
mere cosmetic operation. The Bloc Quebecois will co-operate
with the government, but it also expects the government to be
open and receptive to the constructive suggestions that might be
made by the various political parties in the House.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, it
is a great pleasure to speak to this motion to send Bill C-43 to
committee.
I cannot think of a type of legislation that is more important to
all members of the House of Commons. I like to think that this is
the kind of thing I was sent by the people in my riding, to do in
the House.
I took notes of two things as this debate progressed. One is the
tremendous co-operation that has been shown by members of
the opposition parties to examine this bill very candidly and to
look for ways to improve the bill and to find deficiencies. I also
took note of the minister's statement this morning that he is
willing to entertain any kind of bona fide, progressive
suggestion, any kind of amendment.
I do have something I would like to add to this bill as an
amendment. It has to do with a subject that is of great interest to
me and to other members of the House and that is special interest
groups.
5539
For the last three months I have made it my particular interest
to examine the past practices of governments funding special
interest groups, particularly government funded advocacy
groups. These are really another type of lobby as we have heard
already in the House.
I have looked very carefully into these groups. They are
usually non-profit organizations. They are usually umbrella
organizations that claim to represent hundreds of thousands of
Canadians and hundreds of other organizations.
One of the very great difficulties with this situation where
organizations like this are funded is that the nature of the law,
both the Access to Information Act and the laws governing
Revenue Canada make it impossible for a member of Parliament
or a member of the press to independently examine the books of
these special interest groups. Even their applications are
protected under the Access to Information Act. The balance
sheets they present annually are as they choose to present them.
They are not subject to close examination unless by chance
government audit. We have no control in that respect.
Even if these special interest groups, be they advocacy groups
or other special interest groups are audited, it would be found
that the majority of them are incorporated companies. It means
that the principals of those companies which are not accountable
for how they spend government money, are not accountable
when the auditor comes by and perhaps finds something very
much amiss.
(1355 )
I do not want to name any particular groups. I am deliberately
being general. This goes even beyond that. In my research I have
looked at many government funded advocacy groups that are up
front, but among the special interest groups there are many
groups that ostensibly are using the money for charitable or
non-profit purposes. Because we cannot independently examine
their books, we do not know whether they are using some of this
money for lobbying purposes. We have no control. We may have
lobbying with government money under the table, shall we say,
and this is a very serious concern.
I would like to address this problem with two amendments to
Bill C-43. We are talking about special interest advocacy
groups, probably over 100, and we are talking about millions of
taxpayers' dollars. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give your due
attention to the wording of these two proposed amendments. I
have worked very hard on them. I have to say I am not skilled in
preparing amendments and I am sure the staff can do better than
I.
The first amendment I would suggest is that for individuals or
organizations defined in the act as lobbyists it shall be an
offence to use money received from government to lobby
government. That is the first amendment and would take care
across the board of all these umbrella groups that are taking
money from the taxpayer and using it to lobby government,
which at the very least is a conflict of interest.
On the other hand, we do not want to discourage legitimate
charities or legitimate non-profit organizations from lobbying
government when situations arise that affect them very closely. I
would suggest that the Canadian Cancer Society certainly would
want to speak to the government on the issue of the price of
cigarettes and similar health issues. We have to provide that they
can still lobby to some degree while shutting off those special
interest groups that are secretly lobbying.
The second amendment I propose is this. For individuals or
organizations that are not lobbyists as defined in the act it shall
be an offence to use more than 10 per cent of money received
from the government to lobby government. In this way we have
taken care of the legitimate concerns of charities while actually
putting teeth in the law for those who would abuse the privilege
of receiving government money for acts of charity and use it
instead to lobby for special interest purposes.
I hope that when the committee considers Bill C-43 they will
also consider these two proposals.
I would like to just touch very quickly on a few deficiencies in
the act. Some members of the Bloc have mentioned them. I have
difficulty with the one tier, two tier system, but for different
reasons than I have heard here. The one tier system is defined as
an individual, whereas the two tier system is basically
organizations and corporations. The one tier individual actually
is required to declare more than the tier two organization.
The difficulty is many lobbyists incorporate themselves as
companies so rather than being individuals they can incorporate
and become tier two. We need to very carefully plug up that
problem because we want to make sure that the individual
consultant type lobbyist is fully governed by the restrictions and
limitations that we wish to put him under.
I have one other difficulty. I have a problem with the ethics
counsellor and the concept of an ethics counsellor in one
respect. He is empowered to investigate and bring forward the
results of his investigation to Parliament.
The problem is that nothing in the act indicates whether the
ethics counsellor, when he gets his evidence, whether that
evidence is going to be subject to the restrictions of the Access
to Information Act and Privacy Act.
In other words, you could have a situation where the ethics
counsellor gets third party information which he is not allowed
to disclose as a result of the Access to Information Act and
Privacy Act.
5540
(1400 )
You would have a situation in which he would be investigating
but we, the parliamentarians, would not be able to see a full and
candid report.
Therefore I really urge the committee to look very carefully at
the implications of these two acts, the Access to Information Act
and the Privacy Act, and make sure that however it is done the
ethics counsellor is able to report as fully as possible on his
findings before this House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset, I want to acknowledge that the bill
entitled An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act is a step
in the right direction. It imposes additional requirements on
lobbyists and provides the public with a better understanding of
the role they play.
This bill is, however, nothing but a watered-down version of
the red book commitment to implement the June 1993 report of
the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs
and Government Operations respecting the review of the
Lobbyists Registration Act.
What kind of promises were contained in the red book? The
first commitment made was to eliminate the distinction between
Tier I and Tier II lobbyists. The government has not followed up
on this undertaking, which means that there will continue to be
two categories of lobbyists to whom different rules apply. Yet,
the Liberal members were the ones who demanded that the
distinction be dropped during the discussions on the registration
of lobbyists in the Standing Committee on Consumer and
Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
Here is what the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
had to say about this matter on February 2, 1993: ``There is a
concern about the in-house lobbyists, about the fact that we are
not asking as much information from them as from others;
namely, we are not asking the topic about which they are
lobbying. Does this not make it easy for someone to hire a Tier I
lobbyist and merely put him on the payroll? In other words, you
convert him into a Tier II and you put him on the payroll for a
year because you know this person will be lobbying for the drug
patents act or some other controversial topic, for example. By
putting him or her on the payroll, you effectively reduce the
information that you have to divulge''.
The second commitment made was to establish a code of
ethics governing conflict-of-interest situations involving
public figures, for example, members of Parliament or Cabinet
and senior officials. The government has only partly fulfilled
this particular commitment since it has not given this future
code regulatory status, which would have made it more legally
binding. Therefore, any attempt to deceive will be met merely
with a reprimand, not with legal or criminal sanctions. This
government is harder on young offenders than on friends of the
system and the parliamentarians who are at their beck and call.
A third promise made in the red book was to eliminate tax
deductions for lobbying expenses. Canadians must realize that
they have elected 295 members of Parliament to represent them
and that day after day, opposition members question the
government in the hope of getting answers which, when they do
come, are only partial, while Parliament Hill bustles with 2,800
lobbyists who call the shots with taxpayers' money. Let us recall
the role played by lobbyists in what has come to be known as the
Ginn Publishing and Pearson Airport scandals. In his report on
the latter scandal, Mr. Nixon noted that the lobbyists played a
prominent part in attempting to affect the decisions that were
reached, going far beyond the acceptable norms of
``consulting''. That is totally unacceptable.
Also, nothing in this bill provides for lobbying expenses to be
made public, even as part of an inquiry. Yet, such information is
extremely useful in assessing the activities of lobbyists. On that
subject, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
stated on February 23, 1993: ``I do not agree that knowing how
much is spent on lobbying is of interest neither to those involved
nor to the public''. In the case of the Pearson scandal, it is in the
public interest to know who are the lobbyists who worked on
that deal and how much they were paid to do it. It is even more
important because in this case as in many others, former
high-ranking government officials are now selling their
knowledge of the inner workings of government and using their
former contacts. It is the revolving door approach.
(1405)
In the case of Pearson Airport, the scandal is overwhelming.
On the one hand, lobbying fees were deducted from the taxes
paid by the corporations involved in the attempted privatization
of Pearson Airport, and on the other, taxpayers will be hit a
second time since, under clause 10 of Bill C-22, those
corporations will be compensated.
Still on the issue of lobbying fees, the government allows
conditional fees to be paid by people who hire lobbyists if and
when they succeed in getting certain favours from the
government for their client, such as a contract, for instance. On
February 16, 1993, the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated very clearly, and I quote:
``I believe that conditional fees should be banned''.
The fourth undertaking in the red book was to reveal the
players in the government decision-making process by asking
various questions, for example: Who could be influenced?
Which lobbyist requested a meeting with which minister?
Which public servant met with which lobbyist to discuss which
issue? What was the particular item on the agenda, or what issue
did the parties discuss? Was it a bill, an amendment, a subsidy, a
5541
regulation, a policy, a program, or the awarding of a contract?
Here again, the promise has not been kept.
This is probably the most disappointing aspect of the bill.
Indeed, merely requiring that all lobbyists disclose the
government department or agency contacted is clearly
unsatisfactory. Real reform should help us find out the names of
the people lobbyists are trying to influence. While in opposition,
a lot of the current ministers, cabinet and government members
were very harsh with lobbyists, but now they seem to have
changed their minds. Maybe because lobbyists are hanging
around their offices all the time.
For example, in June of 1993, the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said that the public had the right
to know who is doing what to whom and for how much money.
At the time, he thought it was unfortunate that these
considerations were not included in the legislation.
He also said, on February 16, 1993, that he was one of those
who favoured a registration system as long as loopholes were
eliminated and the parties concerned required to provide useful
information. He went on to say that the system could be
improved by providing accurate, concise and valuable
information.
In conclusion, the Liberal government was obviously under
pressure from the lobbyists and from friends who hire them.
This shows, I think, that we probably should have started by
amending the political party financing legislation in order to be
able to examine quietly and without undue pressure the issue of
lobbyists, unlike what seems to have happened with this bill. I
hope that the working committee will take note of these
recommendations.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.10 p.m. and pursuant to a
special order made earlier today, it is my duty to put the question
on the motion to the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.