CONTENTS
Friday, April 28, 1995
Bill C-43. Motion for third reading 11923
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11931
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11937
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11937
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11937
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11938
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11939
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11941
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11941
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 11941
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 11942
Bill C-85. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 11944
Bill C-86. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 11944
(Motion agreed to.) 11944
Bill C-43. Consideration resumed of the motion 11945
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 11955
11923
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 28, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to
make related amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today at the third
reading stage of Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists
Registration Act. As the House knows, the government made
this bill an important part of its broader strategy aimed at
restoring confidence in its integrity.
Bill C-43 was one of the measures proposed by the Prime
Minister last June so we could keep our red book promises. Hon.
members will remember that, on the very day this bill was read
the first time, the Prime Minister announced in the House the
appointment of the first ethics counsellor in Canada, whose
mandate is to administer a revised, more comprehensive
conflict of interest code.
The Prime Minister also announced that he wanted someone
he could consult on conflicts of interest and ethics. The ethics
counsellor deals with ethics issues within the government. Bill
C-43 proposes that the ethics counsellor be entrusted with more
responsibilities. He would be responsible, among other things,
for developing a lobbyists' code of conduct and would be given
considerable powers to investigate alleged breaches. In other
words, this code would provide for outside supervision of
lobbyists' activities.
As the Prime Minister stated, by combining these functions,
the ethics counsellor would be better able to monitor the
situation, because he would have real powers allowing him to
conduct in-depth investigations.
[English]
Another measure introduced last June dealt with federal
contracting policy. This was modified to prohibit the use of
contingency fees for lobbying on all government contracts,
grants and contributions.
The Prime Minister told the House that a code of conduct for
members of Parliament and senators would be created. It is the
intention of the government to soon strike a special joint
committee to begin this important work. As recently indicated
by the House leader, a motion to establish a special joint
committee will be presented within the next several days.
These steps are in keeping with the promises the Liberal Party
made to Canadians in the general election of 1993. We told
Canadians that we would restore trust and confidence in the
decision making process. What is more, we promised in the red
book that a Liberal government would give members of
Parliament a greater role in drafting legislation through House
of Commons committees.
That is why I am doubly proud of the legislation before us
today. It represents a fulfilment of our promise to Canadians not
only with respect to the content of the bill but also to the process
by which these amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act
were brought about. I would particularly like to congratulate the
hon. member for Fundy-Royal for the leadership he
demonstrated as chairman of the industry subcommittee that
dealt with the bill.
The bill before us provides Canada with the most far reaching
lobbyist registration laws in the world. For example, the U.S.
federal law on lobbying disclosure dates from 1946 and covers
only senators and members of the House of Representatives.
Congress unsuccessfully attempted last year to bring the
legislation up to date, to include the executive branch and
congressional staff.
(1010 )
No legislative provisions for lobbying disclosure exist in the
U.K. or in the European Parliament. There is only a listing of
association representatives who lobby the German government.
11924
The legislation was referred to the subcommittee before
second reading, before the House voted to approve the bill in
principle. Therefore, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and
his colleagues had a very real say in amending the bill. They
enjoyed a flexibility that I believe will become a hallmark of
many committees studying legislation in the years to come.
[Translation]
All in all, committee members made 13 improvements. I want
to congratulate them on the great precedent they created by
working under the new system. Their work has resulted in a
much better bill and a committee report which is a first, just like
the parliamentary process it stemmed from.
This report describes the process that led to the amendments
being made. It also contains minority reports stating dissenting
opinions on certain issues.
[English]
I am very pleased to announce that under Standing Order 109
of the House of Commons, the government will be tabling today
its comprehensive response to the committee's report
``Rebuilding Trust''. The government was pleased to be able to
accept all of the amendments proposed by the committee as well
as its recommendations. I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate the committee and its members on the excellent
work they have done.
The committee made important improvements to all parts of
the bill: the disclosure requirements, the lobbyists code of
conduct, the ethics counsellor's reports, the registration system
and enforcement. Let me provide the House with a few examples
from each category.
[Translation]
With respect to the first broad area, namely information to be
disclosed in returns, the committee considered thoroughly and
at length the issue of grassroots lobbying campaigns, where a
large number of members of the public may be persuaded to send
letters or make telephone calls.
Such campaigns are sometimes organized by lobbyists. Under
Bill C-43 as amended, lobbyists will be required to indicate if
they used or expect to use grassroots communication in an
attempt to influence the government.
[English]
As I mentioned a few moments ago, under changes made to
federal procurement rules last spring, lobbyists are not
permitted to charge contingency fees when lobbying for federal
government contracts, grants and and contributions. Under Bill
C-43 amendments, consultant lobbyists will have to indicate if
they are paid on a contingency fee basis for all other types of
lobbying. As well, any organization that lobbies the government
will have to reveal the sources and amounts of funding from any
government.
Two further amendments proposed by the Reform Party were
made to the bill at report stage. The hon. member for Elk Island
moved that government funding of clients of consultant
lobbyists as well as corporations also be disclosed. I am
personally very pleased to see these additional improvements to
the bill.
The second broad area of amendments made by the committee
involves the lobbyists' code of conduct. Bill C-43 mandates the
ethics counsellor to develop a code for those who deal with the
government. Under the amended bill, the code of conduct will be
reviewed by a committee of the House before it becomes
effective.
As well, it will now be mandatory for lobbyists to comply
with the code. The ethics counsellor will be required, rather than
just empowered, to investigate breaches of the code. He will act
independently in deciding whether to investigate and his report
will be tabled in Parliament.
(1015 )
The ethics counsellor's reports are the third broad area where
improvements have been made to the bill. In the report of an
investigation into a breach of the code of conduct the ethics
counsellor will have the power to disclose information on fees
and disbursements associated with any lobbying activity, not
just government contracts.
A further amendment requires that the ethics counsellor's
report of an investigation include his findings, conclusions and
reasons.
[Translation]
The ethics counsellor will submit to the House a separate
annual report on his or her activities regarding lobbying.
[English]
I would like to take a moment to clear up what appears to be
some confusion about the ethics counsellor's reports. The ethics
counsellor must report on every investigation and must also
make an annual report. These reports must be submitted to the
registrar general. Then the registrar general must, and I quote
from the bill, cause a copy to be laid before each House of
Parliament on any of the first 15 sitting days after it is received.
There is no discretion in the tabling of the report whatsoever. All
of the ethics counsellor's reports will be submitted in their
entirety to both Houses of Parliament and those concerning
investigations must provide details on the findings, conclusions
and reasons.
The fourth broad area involves improvements to the
registration process. Bill C-43 recognizes the importance of
maintaining an active exchange and dialogue between
Canadians and their government. Formal government initiated
consultations will be exempted from the activities triggering the
need to register as a lobbyist. This exemption responds to many
associations' concerns that if they had to register each time they
were consulted by government they would spend all their time
on paperwork. The committee was aware that the exemption
should
11925
not be so wide that it defeats the very purpose of the Lobbyists
Registration Act.
I have heard some fairly ridiculous comments from the
opposition on this point. What needs to be understood is that we
need to strike the appropriate balance. The notion proposed by
some members opposite that this meant a phone call returned by
a public official was not lobbying is ridiculous and simply is not
sustainable by the wording of the bill. The exemption applies to
those consultations frequently initiated by government to ensure
that in proceeding on legislation it has received the views of
stakeholders from all parts of Canadian society, a practice which
is not only normal but which should be welcomed by members
of Parliament, opposition and government alike.
Its report says the registrar should issue an interpretation
bulletin to precisely define these circumstances. As well, the
registrar will have the authority to issue interpretation bulletins
to clear up any other questions as they arise. Therefore the more
extreme examples proposed by the opposition, which might lead
to the act not being applied as it was intended, can be taken care
of through the simple administrative exercise of issuing
interpretation bulletins to cover the cases in point.
The 30-day updating requirement has been changed to
six-month filings for associations. This will reduce the
paperwork for these organizations, given their lobbying goals do
not change much over the course of a year. Furthermore,
electronic filing will be available and will improve the
efficiency of the registration process both for lobbyists and the
registrar.
Finally, changes have been made to improve the enforcement
of the act. The registrar will have the authority to conduct
random checks of the information in the registry, and the
limitation of proceedings under the act has been extended from
six months to two years.
[Translation]
I am sure that all the hon. members will agree with the Prime
Minister and myself that we need to restore public confidence in
our institution.
This confidence is essential, if we want our efforts to redirect
and redesign the role of government to be successful.
(1020)
[English]
In all of these matters what I think Canadians and
parliamentarians need to preoccupy themselves with is the
existence of due process and rule of law.
If we are truly concerned about the maintenance of respect for
our institutions, parliamentary, judicial or otherwise, what we
need to ensure is that the processes pursued respecting them are
at once transparent and subject to due process.
It is the easiest thing in the world to stand in the House of
Commons, protected against the laws of defamation, and
impugn the integrity of other individuals, whether members of
Parliament, public officials or otherwise. It is impossible to ever
remove the doubt that aspersions cast impose on the integrity of
an individual.
I say to members opposite that when they tread on the grounds
of issues of ethics they look to the questions of process, to the
rule of law, because anyone of us at any time may stand accused
wrongly. To stand in the House, as we have seen members do in
the last few days, and make accusations without foundation,
without fact, based on innuendo and circumstance, is to at once
impugn the integrity of the people involved as well as to impugn
the integrity of these institutions.
Process, rule of law, these are the things that have made this
country one in which we are all pleased to live, safe from abuse.
This is a case surely we ought to be able to debate. I refer
directly here to the issue of satellite broadcasting and the DTH
panel report. We surely ought to be able to debate in the House
the substance of an issue.
Over the last few days I have seen members opposite try to
make this into a case of ethics. Why? For nothing but sheer
political expediency without a single fact, without a single issue
being raised of any substance whatsoever; shameless casting of
aspersions. That is the old politics and that is the way it is has
been practised in the House by the Reform Party and the Bloc
Quebecois in the last few days.
I want to refer exactly to this case. It is a demonstration of
why process is so important. In the case of DTH satellite
broadcasting the government was put in the position that many
interested parties were looking for a review of an exemption
order issued by the CRTC on August 30 of last year.
Let it be understood the initiation of the review of the policy
was a response to clearly articulated interests quite outside
those of parties that may or may not benefit. It was made clear to
the government by many parties, and events since then have
borne that out, that the effect of the August 30 order was the
creation of an effective monopoly in this service in Canada.
What was the government to do about that? Within days we
announced the policy was subject to review. The order was
issued August 30. By September 12 that had been made clear
publicly. Major policy is made by government. That is the
reason people elect governments, to make policy decisions. It is
the responsibility of government to make policy decisions. We
would have abrogated our responsibility if we had refused to act,
so we did act.
11926
(1025)
We established a transparent process. We chose three former
deputy ministers, non-partisan appointments but truly people
whose opinions we would respect; whose capabilities, honesty
and integrity had never been questioned. However, members in
the House were free to stand and impugn the integrity of persons
who were providing a service to the government and to the
people of Canada. Without fact and without any information
they could stand up and say these people, because they were
named to the panel, there is something wrong with them. That
should not happen in a democratic society. If it can happen to
those three individuals it can happen to me, to you, Mr. Speaker,
and to members opposite without facts.
They made a report and nobody on the opposite side of the
House has yet offered me a single substantive criticism of the
recommendations made. On the contrary, ACTRA, the Canadian
conference of the arts, the Canadian Consumers' Association,
the Globe and Mail, the Ottawa Citizen, the Toronto Star have
all said to adopt the recommendations of the report.
Mr. Epp: How does C-43 fix this?
Mr. Manley: The hon. member for Elk Island cannot wait for
his chance so he is talking away over there. I am trying to answer
his questions.
We put this direction on the table in the House of Commons on
Wednesday. It launches a process. Throughout this every step of
the way we have followed the principles of transparency and
legislated authority. The authority to issue a direction is clearly
established in the Broadcasting Act. It has a process attached to
it. That is the rule of law. It is open and transparent.
I invite members opposite to criticize the content of the
direction and the expert panel report. Instead, repeatedly they
choose to cast aspersions and raise innuendo about integrity.
This bill is about ethics, lobbyists and transparency. It creates
principles by which government can function in a real world. I
do not understand the notion that governments should exclude
all outside influences.
Some of the proposals put before us both in committee and in
the House would have the effect of ensuring that no official or
minister would ever talk to anyone outside government. It would
create a freeze in the kind of dialogue and openness that ought to
exist in a free and democratic society.
The bill is about creating the appropriate balance. If we start
from the presumption, as I believe some members opposite have
done, that all officials, all elected representatives and all
ministers are likely to be dishonest then the bill will surely
prove inadequate. The government does not start with that
assumption.
The government starts with the assumption that virtually all
public officials are honest and motivated to do the things in the
best interest of the country.
One of the things Canadians sometimes fail to appreciate
enough is that many businesses that speak to me about their
efforts to trade around the world tell me that throughout the
world countries like Canada which have a political and
bureaucratic system almost entirely free of corruption are very
rare. This is something we have for which we should be
eminently grateful. The purpose of this bill is to try to ensure
that at the same time as preserving and protecting the
fundamental honesty of our government system, we are also
recognizing the fact that government needs to be open in a
democratic society. People need to be able to consult and to
contact their government.
(1030)
It also operates on the assumption that all lobbying is
therefore not bad, that lobbyists are not evil people. Some
members opposite think that word just by its very nature has a
negative connotation. In listening to some of the debate, I think
in some cases they would like to eliminate lobbyists. That is fine
and dandy for the large corporations, because they can always
find other ways to get their messages across. But for the small
firm, say in Saskatoon, that cannot have ready access to
government in Ottawa or wherever, it is sometimes necessary to
get professional advice and assistance. It is a useful function. As
I said, often governments need to consult.
Having an open system requires achieving the right balance.
This bill is about balance. It is about achieving the proper
equilibrium. If we do not want any lobbyists at all, I am quite
prepared to admit that the bill does not go far enough, because it
does not outlaw lobbying. But it is intended to ensure that the
activities of lobbyists are sufficiently transparent to assure the
integrity of our system and yet do not impose upon officials or
bureaucrats obligations that are so onerous that they would
rather not talk to anybody in the outside world, but just stay in
their glass towers here in the city of Ottawa.
Striking a balance is open to debate. Have we erred too far one
way or the other? That is a point of legitimate debate. But to
suggest at the extreme that we need a process that shuts the
system down I think is wrong. I believe we have struck the
appropriate balance in this bill.
I think that also pertains to the issues of integrity and honesty.
The system must speak for itself. We ought to be trying for
transparency and then when issues of integrity or ethics are
raised we will have the facts to deal with that.
I implore members of the House of Commons to remember
always that today's accuser may tomorrow stand accused. To
make accusation without fact, on the basis of circumstance or
innuendo, and thereby impugn a person's reputation-which in
the final analysis is all that any of us have that is worth
11927
preserving, our reputations-is something members of the
House should be reluctant to do.
[Translation]
I am convinced that members from all parties represented in
this House will welcome the legislation before us, which is
about to be read the third time.
Bill C-43 is the result of the work of previous committees and
the testimony of all the stakeholders. Bill C-43 will improve
government transparency.
[English]
It will significantly strengthen the powers of the ethics
counsellor. But perhaps most important, we have given the
elected representatives of Canadians more say in creating the
laws that will restore the people's trust and confidence in
government.
I hope all members will join me in voting in favour of Bill
C-43.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when the government announced its intention to amend
the Lobbyists Registration Act, we thought that it was sincere.
We thought that those who, for almost ten years, took the
Conservatives to task about their integrity, their way of doing
things and their decision-making processes, would table a bill
that would shed some light on what goes on behind the scene in
this Parliament.
(1035)
Yet, on June 16, 1994, when Bill C-43, an Act to amend the
Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to
other Acts, was tabled, we were forced to change our thinking.
The Liberal government, that is those same Liberal members
who, in opposition, denounced the cosy deals being hatched in
the inner circles of the Conservative regime, now seemed
prepared to condone such practices by tabling legislation which
contains nothing but good intentions.
We figure that, once the Liberals gained access to the pork
barrel, they forgot what they were saying during their days in
opposition. This bill has neither teeth nor substance; it is exactly
the opposite of what we expected. The credibility of our
democratic institutions is currently being questioned by the
public. Never, in the short history of our democracy, have public
officials been looked upon with such cynicism by voters.
Everyone agrees that a climate of confidence must be restored
between the governments and the public.
During the last federal election campaign, the Liberal Party of
Canada pledged to reform our institutions and make their
operations more transparent. In fact, the Liberals' red book,
which we hear so much about, contains the following on page
94: ``The integrity of government is put into question when there
is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists
exercising undue influence away from public view''.
Unfortunately, once it took office, the Liberal Party
considerably watered down its commitments. Such an about
face makes the population wonder, and rightly so, how
committed the Liberal government really is to bringing in
legislation to control influence peddling. When we compare the
campaign promises and how they translate into legislation, we
can only conclude that the lobbyists undoubtedly determined the
final version of Bill C-43 and the resulting reversal of the
Liberals' position.
I believe that the first thing a government has to do to restore
the integrity of our democratic institutions is to stop buying
votes with empty promises. It must also make the administration
of the state's affairs more transparent, above all so that we can
clear up all grey areas and reassure the population that public
policy decisions are made in the public interest and not in the
interest of powerful lobbies.
Everybody recognizes the need to restore the public's
confidence in our institutions. Unfortunately, after only 18
months in power, the Chrétien government's track record on
transparency is dismal. For example, on September 26, 1994,
the Canadian press reported that documents obtained under the
Access to Information Act showed that, in the months preceding
the introduction of Bill C-43, there was a marked increase in the
number of meetings with lobbyists and that some of them had
threatened to take the government to court if the new legislation
forced them to disclose their political ties.
As has often been the case, the lack of transparency in the
process kept the public in the dark regarding the scope and the
nature of the lobbyists' workings on Bill C-43 until the news hit
the press. The daily newspaper La Presse eloquently summed up
the situation in its headline on the issue: ``Ottawa's plans to
shackle lobbies foiled''. Bizarre situation-lobbyists
influencing the very legislation that was supposed to reduce
their influence. Given this situation, the need for transparency
has never been greater.
One cannot treat the public like a doormat, Mr. Speaker. The
public remembers quite clearly the promises made by the
Liberals in the red book and elsewhere. Duff Conacher,
co-ordinator of the organization Démocratie en surveillance,
appeared before the committee to refresh the Liberals' memory
regarding their statements on this issue. I know that the
members opposite do not like being reminded of some of the
things they have said, especially when they are being
hypocritical on such an important issue, but I will nevertheless
subject them to a quote from this person, who has studied the
issue in depth and monitored the government. Mr. Conacher
said: ``We would like to remind you of those promises and the
requirement. We hope you will not
11928
only take the opportunity but also keep those promises and fulfil
that requirement in your deliberations on Bill C-43.''
(1040)
There is also a legislative history to be acknowledged. The
Cooper committee and the Holtmann committee have preceded
you. Both proposed measures that go beyond the provisions in
Bill C-43. And now the Liberals are going to brag that they went
further than anyone else.
Nevertheless, Bill C-43 does make certain improvements to
the system for providing a framework for lobbyists. Of course it
was not that difficult to improve the present legislation, since it
was so permissive, smart lobbyists could easily get around it.
Government members, however, will have to admit that the
commitments of the red book have been vastly watered down
and that Bill C-43, in its present form, will be unlikely to
prevent such troubling events as those surrounding the
privatization of Pearson airport or the ``Dupuy affair'', both the
first and the latest version. We will not be able to find out more
with Bill C-43 than we can under the current legislation.
What is worse, Mitchell Sharp-Who is this guy? The senior
advisor to the Prime Minister on ethical issues-admitted
before the committee that, even if the statute arising from Bill
C-43 had been in effect at the time of the negotiations for the
privatization of Pearson airport's terminals I and 2, the public
would have learned nothing more.
So what use will Bill C-43 be? What use is the statute arising
from this bill if we cannot even find out about the administrative
irregularities and the scandals around all this? The government
drafted Bill C-43 because of certain events, including the
Pearson affair. It has drafted a bill that will not give us any
additional information. What are they doing? Why do they
bother?
What the public has a right to know, legislators and members
of this House are unable to tell them because of the
government's attitude and the attitude of the Minister of
Industry.
The public has the right to know, for instance, who influences
the government, who in government is being influenced, why,
and especially, for how much. The Liberals are denying the
people's, the taxpayers' legitimate and democratic right to
know.
The official opposition has been diligent. We were on the
alert. The opposition was quick to condemn the Liberals' lack of
courage in their proposals for providing a framework for
lobbyists' activities and for ensuring the greatest possible
openness in the administration of government affairs. I imagine
the Liberals are upset because we were on the alert and did our
job as the official opposition.
To try and change the object of this bill, I personally proposed
more than 24 amendments in committee, amendments that were
motivated only by a concern for transparency. The Minister of
Industry ordered his second string to defeat all the amendments
moved by the official opposition. I use the term ``second string''
because the Liberals who were present on Tuesday, March 14
voted against my amendments without being able to explain
why.
We reached the height of absurdity when these same Liberals
were unable to explain their own cosmetic amendments. It was
department officials who explained the Liberals' amendments.
Does that not take the cake. I used to know the House jester, I
know the Prime Minister's ministerial puppets, now today I get
to meet some of the pawns of the Minister of Industry. Nothing
in this situation enhances the role of the members of the
government.
On Tuesday, April 25, the opposition, again at the report
stage, presented over 30 reworded motions in amendment in an
effort once again to improve the bill. We were trying once more
to give the government the opportunity to amend the bill in order
to achieve the objectives that had been set.
(1045)
All of the amendments were once again defeated by the
Liberal government. We have presented over 60 amendments to
this bill. They have all been rejected. Sixty amendments have
been systematically rejected by the government. The Liberals
have therefore said ``no'' 60 times to transparency. They have
said ``no'' 60 times to government integrity. They have said
``no'' 60 times to shedding light on the activities of influence
peddlers. I will let you draw your own conclusions.
The attitude of the government is incomprehensible, since the
aim of the Bloc Quebecois' amendments was, in the end, simply
to enable the government to fulfill its own campaign
commitments. The Prime Minister in fact reiterated them last
June saying that Bill C-43 would give the federal administration
unprecedented transparency. Unfortunately, I have to assume
that we have had the wool pulled over our eyes. I am not alone in
thinking this. Both the francophone and the anglophone press is
making this point.
Gilles Lesage, editorial writer for Le Devoir made the
following comment a few months ago. I will read it for you:
``The Bloc Quebecois is right in believing that Mr. Manley's bill
is watering down hugely the commitments made by the Liberals
in their famous red book. Now that they are in power, they must
do everything possible to keep their promises. As the opposition
is
11929
pointing out, the lobbyists' activities must be better regulated to
ensure greater transparency in government decision-making
and to ensure that the more fortunate do not have undue access to
decision-makers through the actions of the influence peddlers''.
In his editorial, Mr. Lesage accurately identified the issue of
the bill currently before us. From the time the bill was tabled to
when it reached third reading, the government added nothing to
give more teeth to the legislation this bill will become.
It simply fussed about, adding cosmetic amendments here and
there throughout the bill, without substantially altering the bill
in any way.
After it studied the bill, the Bloc Quebecois identified eight
major flaws in it and proposed legislative solutions to them. As
you know, the government often accuses the official opposition
of criticizing without making any constructive suggestions. Yet,
as I said earlier, we proposed 60 amendments aimed at
improving this bill. These improvements had a very specific
goal: to correct the eight flaws in this bill that we had identified
very quickly.
I will start by listing these eight flaws, before outlining them
in more detail later. The first, very important flaw concerns the
ethics counsellor. The other flaws have to do with the types of
lobbyists, the requirement to disclose contracts, lobbyists' fees,
the contacting of ministers and senior officials, the lobbyists'
political ties, coalitions, contingency fees, and tax deductions
for lobbyists' fees.
This bill has no avoidance rule or code of conduct for public
officials. Finally, this great code of ethics will be practically
unenforceable, as I will explain in my last point.
There are eight major shortcomings in Bill C-43, either
because it does not go far enough or because it does not even
mention the problem.
I could go on for hours about this bill, mostly about the
expectations and concerns of taxpayers, because I followed
committee proceedings closely, because my mind was not made
up before I heard the people's concerns, because my only goal
was to answer the questions raised by English Canada and
especially by the Quebec people, instead of trying to please the
lucky few who can afford to send lobbyists to Parliament Hill by
exempting them.
Within the time allocated to me, I will try to explain clearly
each of the flaws I identified in this bill. As I said earlier, the
first flaw concerns the ethics counsellor. Need I remind the
House of the Minister of Canadian Heritage's troubling
interference in CRTC business or the Ritter affair involving a
senior official at the Department of Health who, while still on
the department's payroll, was lobbying his coworkers, trying to
sell them on the merits of bovine somatotropin?
(1050)
Also, when we look at Pearson International Airport, the
helicopter acquisition contract, the Augusta affair as well as the
recent damning positions taken by the Prime Minister and his
cabinet ministers to benefit Power Corporation and, at the same
time, the Prime Minister's own son-in-law, when we look at all
that and at the government's attitude regarding the heritage
minister's quiet trip to Los Angeles to visit Edgar Bronfman,
owner of the Seagram Company, one can only wonder and be
concerned.
Especially when the Prime Minister does not even consult his
ethics counsellor or when he does but systematically refuses to
tell us what advice he was given, when he will not tell the elected
representatives sitting in this House what his ethics counsellor
has recommended.
This deplorable window dressing clearly shows that the ethics
counsellor is not independent enough to assume as crucial and
fundamental a role as that of transparency watchdog in the
federal administration. The Prime Minister probably just
wanted to have an extra advisor on his staff. Smoke screens only
hide the truth.
This appointment is therefore nothing but a sham to fool the
public into believing that the government is actually doing
something, taking concrete action to restore integrity in
Canadian institutions. In actual fact, the counsellor conducts
only secret investigations and accounts only to the Prime
Minister. What does that give us, the elected represeantatives?
And what does it give the people of Canada? Absolutely
nothing.
So, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, believe that ethics,
transparency and public confidence in democratic institutions
and government management are not matters to be left in the
hands of a political party, a government or a Prime Minister, but
rather to be decided on by democratic institutions, the House of
Commons and the elected representatives of the people.
In that regard, one of the government's star witnesses, Simon
Reisman, the president of Ranger Oil Limited, supported the
Bloc's views on the subject. Let me quote him because what he
told the chair of the committee, who was a Liberal and had to
submit a report to the minister, was extremely important. He
said: ``If we get into the business of a code of ethics to govern
the behaviour of the members of this industry, it ought to be kept
out of partisan politics as far as you possibly can. I think one
good way of doing that is to make the appointment an
appointment by Parliament, rather than by the government of
the day. You are more likely to get someone more objective. If
he is appointed by Parliament, I think he should report to
Parliament-which is the recommendation in any event''.
11930
And he added: ``There is another reason I think he should be
reporting to Parliament and should be subject to accountability
to Parliament. Members of Parliament, who are elected under
a democratic process, have the mandate to legislate and they
have the right to review legislation. In our democratic society,
they are in the best position to prevent any abuse of power. The
ethics counsellor will undoubtedly be a very powerful official''.
That statement was made by a government star witness, who
testified at the committee's request. Yet, nothing in Bill C-43
reflects the recommendations made by that witness.
Do you really think that the ethics counsellor, who will work
for the government and look after its interests, will be very
powerful? I do not think that this is what taxpayers were hoping
for when they heard the Liberals' election promises. An ethics
counsellor, sure, but one who has some investigative powers and
who is not under the Prime Minister's thumb. This is what the
public wanted. What we need is a totally independent ethics
counsellor who is accountable to Parliament. This means that he
can hold public inquiries and report on his work, on his findings
and on the reasons supporting his conclusions to the House of
Commons.
(1055)
I am also very concerned by the fact that Bill C-43 does not
delegate any enforcement powers to the ethics counsellor. I fear
that the counsellor will end up being like a traffic cop with no
authority to give tickets. If you listen to the Liberals these days,
you get the impression that they simply want to set up a system
which will be administered behind closed doors, so that
patronage can still go on without anyone really knowing what is
happening. In my mind, that is what is going on right now. Is it
not strange that the tabling of Bill C-43 would coincide with
such a scandal?
A second flaw, equally significant, shows how the Liberals
reversed their position on the tier system for lobbyists. In June
1993, after examining the Lobbyists Registration Act, a
committee of the House of Commons recommended eliminating
the distinction between first tier and second tier lobbyists. In
fact, this was the first recommendation in the Holtmann report.
The members who signed this report, including the hon. member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the hon. member for St.
Boniface, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the
hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, who were all in the
opposition at the time, agreed with the principle of eliminating
the tier system. I assume they are not going to deny that. You are
not going to deny you signed the Holtmann report. You signed it,
and you agreed with its recommendations. Today, those very
same members who are now government whip, Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Deputy Leader
of the Government and lastly, Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry, are no longer on side.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bellehumeur: What they said when they were in the
opposition is not what they are saying now, and I find this very
disturbing.
In fact, they all voted against the amendment I proposed to
eliminate all distinctions between lobbyists. I do not understand
the Liberal's retreat from their own position and the promises
they made during the election campaign. What was not
acceptable two years ago is still unacceptable today. Witnesses
made this clear to the members of the committee that examined
Bill C-43. A lobbyist is a lobbyist, whether they belong to the
first, second or third tier. That is why Bill C-43 should provide
for only one tier for all lobbyists in Canada.
I imagine this position was not palatable to the lobbyists and
the financial backers of the Liberal Party. That is probably the
only explanation we have for the current flexible conscience we
note among government members.
Another flaw in this bill is its disclosure provisions. Here
again, I proposed amending the bill to oblige lobbyists to
disclose their real business, the real facts we could then
investigate, so that we could see what is going on in this
government.
The scandal surrounding Toronto's Pearson airport has amply
demonstrated the lax nature of the current disclosure rules. The
privatization contract, it will be remembered, was signed in the
middle of the 1993 federal election campaign and an inquiry was
instituted to shed light on the transaction. The Nixon report was
submitted to government on November 29, 1993 and revealed
misconduct on the part of the lobbyists, public servants and
political assistants. However, the report raised a number of other
questions to which we have not obtained answers: Who were the
lobbyists who failed to comply with the most elementary rules
of ethics? When did these events occur? In what way were their
actions either illegal or improper? Bill C-43 will still not give us
the answer to these questions.
I see that my time will be interrupted for question period.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Yes, the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm may continue after question period and
routine proceedings. At the resumption of debate on Bill C-43,
he will have 15 minutes to complete his remarks.
[English]
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
11931
11931
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Reform Party argued in the House that
medicare should be partly privatized, allowing user fees.
This calls into question the credibility of its leader who,
during the last election, said: ``I want to make it absolutely clear
that the Reform Party is not promoting private health care,
deductibles or user fees''.
Canadians are aware of the need to make medicare more
efficient, but we cannot surrender its five principles. The
challenge is to balance fiscal responsibility with the
preservation of medicare, implementing more effective
alternative treatment approaches while containing costs.
User fees, like a zombie, should not be resurrected. We cannot
have one standard of health for the rich and another for the poor.
We cannot allow the Reform Party to drive a stake through the
heart of medicare. Instead, let us work together to strengthen,
not destroy it. Medicare shall remain the crown jewel of our
social programs, reflecting the soul of our nation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a number
of voices that speak for democracy and the arts community were
raised in protest at the Department of Immigration's decision
with respect to the visa application by filmmaker Hafsa Zinaï
Koudil.
She had only one purpose in mind in applying. She wanted to
denounce through film the muslim fundamentalist attitude to the
wearing of the hijab and the oppression of Algerian women.
An important voice was missing in the chorus of protests, that
of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The
council would surely have publicly criticized the unjust and
unjustified decision by the department. This credible and
respected voice was unfortunately silenced by an unreasonable
decision of the Minister of Finance in his recent
budget-another example of the government's insensitivity
toward women.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, following their 50th annual general meeting held
recently in Prince George, the B.C. Trappers' Association
communicated its concerns about the anti-gun legislation to me.
Its members are worried that the registration of all firearms
and the prohibition of certain firearms as proposed by the
government would impose an unreasonable burden on trappers,
hunters, and other law-abiding citizens.
They also believe that the controls on firearms, ammunition,
and lawful gun owners proposed in Bill C-68 are an assault on
the traditional liberties and freedoms that are at the heart of our
history and culture.
Therefore, they have requested that their provincial MLAs
and federal MPs place a priority on fighting these elements in
Bill C-68 and fight any other variants that might be proposed. I
am one B.C. MP who intends to continue to do just that.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, discussions are now under way to extend the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty.
The non-proliferation treaty came into force in 1970 and was
given a life of 25 years. The non-nuclear states, like Canada,
that signed the treaty made a commitment not to develop nuclear
weapons. The nuclear states, like the United States and the
Soviet Union, made a commitment under article VI to reduce
their nuclear arsenals. That was not done. While the
non-nuclear states respected the treaty and did not develop
nuclear weapons, the nuclear states did not respect article VI.
In 1970 the nuclear states had 8,000 nuclear weapons. By
1990 they had 50,000. Now the nuclear states and their allies
want to extend the treaty indefinitely without any mechanism to
ensure compliance with article VI. As a result, several
non-nuclear states do not want to extend the treaty on that basis.
This important treaty is now in jeopardy.
I urge the government and its allies to reconsider their
position and to be more flexible. The world cannot tolerate
another nuclear arms race.
* * *
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the faculty and students of
the Quinte Ballet School, located in the city of Belleville.
11932
During the past 22 years the Quinte Ballet School has
consistently achieved recognition for the quality of its education
and the professionalism of its work. The school's philosophy is
centred on the principle that any student having the desire to
dance can receive the highest possible level of dance training.
In particular, I would like to praise the dedicated work of the
school's founding artistic director, Mr. Brian Scott, and his
tireless efforts and artistic excellence.
It is only one of four private dance schools in Canada, and it is
not supported by government funding.
The students at the school are taught in both classical ballet
and contemporary dance and are currently performing
professionally as graduates in many professional activities,
including the National Ballet of Canada.
Next Friday night, May 5, the students of the Quinte Ballet
School will be presenting their fourth annual spring
performance at the Centrepoint Theatre here in the city of
Ottawa. I encourage colleagues and all lovers of performing arts
to attend.
* * *
(1105 )
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to tell the House that the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment marked its 200th anniversary on April 25. This is the
oldest regiment in North America and today is an outstanding
unit of the Canadian reserves.
The Newfoundland regiment has a proud record of service in
the War of 1812 and World War I and recently in the former
Yugoslavia. During World War I, Newfoundland recruited and
sent one of the highest numbers of soldiers per capita of all the
Commonwealth. Sadly, we suffered extremely high casualties as
well. At the battle of Beaumont-Hamel the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment lost 91 per cent of their unit. Their
commander praised them as better than the best, and this has
become their unofficial motto.
The soldiers of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment are a
reflection of the people of Newfoundland. They are
hardworking and tough but with a sense of humour that carries
them through the most difficult times.
Congratulations to the regiment on an extraordinary
anniversary.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
revelation of friendship and favouritism shown by government
ministers to Seagram and Power Corporation causes us to fear
the worst.
Three weeks ago, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was
present when the President of Seagram announced his proposed
takeover of MCA. On Monday, for the first time in history, the
government overturned a decision by the CRTC in order to give
a hand to a subsidiary of Power Corporation, headed by the
Prime Minister's son-in-law.
The Liberals' incestuous relations with the business world are
increasingly coming to light. The Liberal ministers consider the
government their own and use it to benefit their friends. In the
past, in Upper Canada, the term ``family compact'' was used to
describe this sort of incestuous relationship between politics
and business. Today the Liberal clique is running Canada, with
its head offices at Power Corporation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
the Easter break I visited the Edmonton maximum security
prison to get a better understanding of how this institution
operates. I was shocked to learn that there is an enormous
substance abuse problem among prisoners. When I inquired how
this could possibly be the case, I was told that drugs are
smuggled in by visitors during visitation periods.
My immediate reaction was that visitation in maximum
security prisons should be stopped. The warden agreed that this
was his preferred solution. If prisoners want visitation they
should earn the right through good behaviour and
self-improvement. They could then be transferred to medium
security institutions.
What is Corrections Canada's solution to this problem? It is to
provide inmates with bleach to clean their needles in response to
this substance abuse. That sounds like sheer lunacy to me. Why
do they not stop visitation rights and clean up this problem?
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
week the Schizophrenia Society of Canada has launched an
awareness campaign of this very tragic disease. I was pleased to
accept this iris I am wearing today as a symbol of hope and faith
for a brighter future for sufferers of schizophrenia.
11933
One of every twelve hospital beds is occupied by a sufferer
of schizophrenia. The costs of the illness are estimated to be
upward of $4 billion per year, not to mention the incalculable
toll on individual sufferers and their families. Tragically,
schizophrenia most often strikes individuals in their late teens
and early twenties and has been called youth's greatest disabler.
Yesterday the Prime Minister also received an iris from the
Schizophrenia Society and expressed his support for their work.
I would suggest that making money available for research and
education and supporting the public awareness initiative must
be a priority of this government. I hope the Prime Minister will
make good on his promise to do so.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the week of April 24 to April 30 marks the sixth annual Parkdale
Drug Awareness Week in my riding of Parkdale-High Park.
Drug Awareness Week, which is organized by the Parkdale
Focus Community Project, attracted over 3,000 participants last
year.
The week is packed full of activities aimed at promoting a
healthy lifestyle among Parkdale residents, young and old,
newcomers and long-time residents. For example, in our local
Parkdale schools students will learn that a full, meaningful, and
active life is possible without drugs and without alcohol. Events
planned for this weekend will feature sports celebrities, theatre
performances, piano and steel band recitals, and a pancake
breakfast for the whole community on Sunday.
I would like to congratulate both the organizers and
participants of Drug Awareness Week 1995. They are making a
better life for themselves and for their neighbours in Parkdale.
* * *
(1110 )
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on this national day of mourning we commemorate
those working men and women who have been killed, maimed,
or injured on the job.
In Canada, on average, a compensable work injury occurs
every 38 seconds. One out of thirteen workers is injured at work,
and two workers are killed every day. This is not acceptable. The
human loss and the pain are devastating. Workplace injuries rob
us of more than 10 times the number of work days lost due to
strikes and lockouts in Canada. And workplace accidents are
expensive. In 1993 compensation plans paid out a total of $5.2
billion in benefits.
Although the rates of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
fatalities have substantially declined in Canada over the past
decade, they are still too high. Improving occupational health
and safety is a must. It makes financial sense for business, for
workers, and for government, and it makes even more sense in
human terms.
Please join me in remembering those who have paid such a
heavy price in the workplace. Let us work together to reduce the
pain and suffering of victims, their families, and friends.
* * *
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow
Newfoundlander and an outstanding Canadian. The Hon.
Charles R. Granger was laid to rest in his home town of Catalina
last Monday.
In his busy lifetime, Charlie, as he was affectionately called
by his friends, was a journalist, union organizer, political
adviser, federal and provincial cabinet minister, deputy
minister, businessman, poet and historian. He was a lifetime
champion of those in the fishing industry and a fierce worker
helping to bring Newfoundland into Confederation.
His accomplishments and remarkable personal attributes
were highlighted by his warmth, his sense of humour, vision and
perspective. Above all, his love for people and his modest
conduct were the mark of the man.
He was appointed as an officer of the Order of Canada in
January of this year. Unquestionably, his password in life
reflected the Order of Canada's motto: he desired a better
country.
I am sure I am joined by all members of the House in
conveying our thoughts and our prayers to his wife Betty, to
their family and their many, many friends.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, like lightning, strikes again.
After betraying Canada's interests in the Ginn Publishing
case, sending a letter to the CRTC in an attempt to unduly
influence a decision regarding a broadcasting licence,
delivering Radio-Canada into the hands of the Minister of
Finance and sacrificing Canadian content and our satellites in
the Power DirecTv deal, he demonstrated his lack of judgment
yet again and put himself in an apparent conflict of interest by
being in the
11934
entourage of the Bronfman family when it was signing a deal
regarding Seagram which requires Investment Canada's
approval.
Here is a man who has a taste for controversy. I would even
say a thirst. Only one word comes to mind following these
events: incompetence.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on December 14, 1993, a constituent of mine, Carol Goldie, was
stabbed six times by her former husband after he had stalked her
for five years. He was charged with 10 separate offences, among
them attempted murder, criminal harassment, and stalking,
under section 264 of the Criminal Code.
After a long process of plea bargaining, in February of this
year the assailant pleaded guilty to mere assault and received a
sentence of just two years less a day. All other charges were
dropped, including, as usual, the weapons charges.
I find it difficult to express in strong enough terms the outrage
of this sentence. It makes a mockery of the entire legal process.
This precedent setting verdict renders the new stalking law
impotent. Women who are harassed and intimidated remain
unprotected by our justice system. The laws are in place but they
are not enforced because justice is bargained away behind
closed doors. No wonder Canadians are losing faith in our
toothless system of justice. While the system can only bark, the
criminals continue to bite.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to address the matter of the privatization of Canadian
National Railways, which the Minister of Transport has so
recently announced and which I personally applaud.
I would like to indicate the fact that Canadian taxpayers, for
over half a century, have put billions and billions of dollars into
this rail system, and for many people it represents a symbol of
Canadian nationalism: a road that links both oceans together in
this great country. In view of that, I would like to caution the
government and advise that any sale should include the
recognition of this great tradition and heritage. For that purpose
I suggest that any sale include terms that the company which
owns and operates these assets must use the symbol and name
identification which reflects Canadian heritage. For greater
certainty that said name must include the name ``Canadian''.
(1115)
I believe that this is in the best interests of all the people and
taxpayers of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
150 years ago, on February 20, 1845, Sister Élisabeth Bruyère, a
Grey Nun, arrived in Ottawa. She promptly established the
Order of the Sisters of Charity, giving it the mission of caring for
the sick, teaching children and coming to the aid of poor
immigrants.
Today, the Sisters of Charity of Ottawa are very active in
several missions throughout the world, in Haiti, Brazil and
Lesotho to name but a few. In addition, they run Saint-Vincent
Hospital and the Elisabeth- Bruyère Centre, two institutions
with the mission of caring for the sick in the Ottawa region.
On February 18, the opening ceremonies kicking off the 150th
anniversary celebrations of the Sisters of Charity of Ottawa
were held. There will be several other ceremonies and events
throughout the year and in the beginning of 1996
commemorating this century and a half of service.
Congratulations and thanks to the Sisters of Charity.
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on this day of mourning, I join with all my colleagues
in extending my heartfelt sympathy to the many families who
have lost loved ones to work accidents.
In 1993, there were 758 work-related deaths in Canada. It is
difficult to understand how workers can still risk their lives on
the job in this day and age. Yet, thousands of workers still face
this reality, especially in the construction, transportation,
mining and manufacturing sectors, which still account for over
60 per cent of workplace fatalities.
We cannot be satisfied with the recent decline in the number
of industrial accidents in Canada. Occupational safety is one of
the most important social objectives of this century and must
remain so as long as people continue to die on the job. In this
regard, I can only urge the Canadian government to adopt
occupational health and safety practices and policies based on
those in effect in Quebec.
11935
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
every day Canadians across the country enter a dangerous
workplace.
Canadians remember and mourn the 26 miners tragically
taken in the Westray coal mine explosion. This disaster only
serves to underline the brutal reality of certain types of work.
Today is a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the
workplace. Canadians must learn from the mistakes of the past,
take action in the present and ensure their health and safety are
protected in the future.
Occupational health and safety should be foremost in the
minds of management, labour and governments when decisions
are made. A safe workplace translates into a productive
workforce and a strong and vital economy. From the farm, to the
mine, to the factory, to the lumber mill the Reform Party pays
respect to all who put their lives on the line to make ends meet.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
an honour to rise in this House to pay tribute to those workers
who have been killed or injured in the performance of their
duties.
In February 1991, a private member's bill tabled by my
former colleague, Rod Murphy, was passed, designating April
28 as an official day of mourning for those killed or injured at
work. There are four workplace fatalities every working day in
Canada, while a serious injury occurs every seven seconds of
every working day.
Every year, workers develop occupational diseases which,
very often, are neither declared nor covered by any
compensation plan. Governments here and abroad continue to
ignore health and safety standards and their enforcement. We
continue to work with our counterparts at the national and
international levels to set global health and safety standards.
We have the right to defend workers around the world,
especially within the context of free trade agreements. Thank
you for giving me your attention and allowing me to speak on
this solemn occasion.
(1120)
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as others have noted, today is a national day of
mourning for the workers of Canada who have been maimed,
injured or killed while on the job.
In recognition of these tragedies and in solidarity with these
workers, their families, their friends, I ask you and hon.
colleagues to join me in a moment of silence in the House at this
time.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
_____________________________________________
11935
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
quietly took a trip to Los Angeles, where he met with Edgar
Bronfman, the owner of Seagram, at the very moment that the
acquisition of communications giant MCA by Seagram was
announced. The possibility of such a transaction, involving
several Canadian interests in the book, film, record and
distribution industries, had been in the news for a few weeks.
In this context, how can the acting Prime Minister explain that
the Minister of Canadian Heritage placed himself in a conflict of
interest situation by happening to be in Mr. Bronfman's suite
just as Mr. Bronfman announced this transaction, given that the
deal will have to be approved by Investment Canada?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member reveals a lack of understanding of
what the Investment Canada review process consists.
First, Investment Canada is located in the Department of
Industry. Second, the threshold issue will be determined by an
official, the acting president of Investment Canada, on whether
or not Seagram is a Canadian controlled corporation. If it is,
there is no Investment Canada review required.
This indicates his hypothesis is incorrect. The review is based
on an application initiated by the purchaser, which in this case is
Seagram, rather than by the acquired company.
There is no real or apparent conflict in the visit that the
Minister of Canadian Heritage paid to producers in Los Angeles.
11936
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is a well known fact on the hill that no one
understands anything, except the Minister of Industry, who
understands everything. In fact, everyone in Canada and Quebec
understands that there was a minister of this government in Mr.
Bronfman's suite, when the most important deal in media
history was struck. Everyone can understand that. The only one
who does not understand is the Minister of Industry.
I would like to ask the acting Prime Minister how he can deny
that the Minister of Canadian Heritage put himself in a conflict
of interest situation since, by a pure coincidence once again,
input from the Department of Canadian Heritage is required to
help Investment Canada analyze the transaction between
Seagram and MCA and its implications.
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the Minister of Canadian Heritage will be
present later in question period if there are questions regarding
the details of his visit to Los Angeles.
(1125 )
There is neither an apparent nor a real conflict of interest in
the Minister of Canadian Heritage meeting with a group of film
makers and producers, all of whom carry on business in Canada,
and representing the interests and views of Canadians in that
milieu.
No review is under way at the present time. No application for
review is under way at the present time. In fact, the threshold
determination of whether or not Seagram is a Canadian company
has yet to be made.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what are we to believe: that when the heritage minister
visited Los Angeles two weeks ago, he did so as a Canadian
government emissary announcing to Liberal friends that the
approval of Seagram's deal by Investment Canada would not be
a problem, or did he travel to Los Angeles just to discuss the
smog problem?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the event of a review of the transaction by
Investment Canada, it would be the objective of the government
to improve on the existing undertakings with respect to the
corporation MCA.
It is clear that in the interests of Canadians, any review of that
transaction, if it were favourably disposed of, would result in
benefits to Canada pursuant to the Investment Canada Act.
The government has an obligation to have the best possible
understanding of the business and of the undertakings of the
acquirer as well as the acquiree corporation in Canada. That
does not create a conflict of interest.
If there is a conflict of interest, I do not know where it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I do not suppose it was a cultural exchange between
Mickey Mouse and a representative of the federal government,
when the Minister of Canadian Heritage, unbeknownst to the
taxpayers, went to Los Angeles two weeks ago. That just does
not make sense.
My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering the conflict of interest guidelines that apply to
members of this government and considering that the case of
Power DirecTV has shown there is a very close relationship
between this government and influential Liberals in the business
community, including Mr. Paul Desmarais, father of the Prime
Minister's son-in-law and member of the board of directors of
Seagram, does the acting Prime Minister realize that the conduct
of the Minister of Canadian Heritage raises questions about the
integrity of the Liberal government?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we have seen in the House over the last few days,
members like the one opposite are prepared to make allegations
founded not on fact but simply on innuendo.
In the preamble to his question he tries to link the decision to
table a direction with respect to direct to home satellites to some
kind of apparent conflict. As recently as this morning's
Montreal Gazette, we have yet another editorial opinion saying:
``The government in overruling the CRTC has made its future
decisions easier. The guiding principle for the CRTC is that all
its decisions reflect the best interests of consumers and that
includes competition in choice''.
I can understand that perhaps the member opposite is not in
favour of competition in choice and is not interested in the
affairs of consumers. That is for him to say. But to suggest that
acting in the interest of consumers is somehow motivated by a
conflict is an entirely unfounded, improper and irrelevant
allegation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how surprising that The Gazette should support the
Liberals. Very surprising indeed.
After seeing the way his minister proceeded in the Ginn
Publishing affair, the disturbing letters he wrote to CRTC, his
betrayal of his commitments to the CBC and his abdication of
his mandate in the case of Power DirecTv, would the acting
Prime Minister, leader in this House and defender of his
government's integrity, agree that the Minister of Canadian
11937
Heritage is no longer capable of performing his duties and that
consequently, he will have to ask for his resignation?
(1130 )
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, actually this is a worthwhile question. It reveals the
real motivation of the Bloc Quebecois in this, which is to malign
personally the integrity of a minister of the government without
fact, without any basis in policy or otherwise.
The government stands prepared to debate its policy with
respect to DTH satellite broadcasting, to review the issue of the
acquisition of MCA, in fact its review under the Investment
Canada Act and to respond to questions concerning the
objections or otherwise of these decisions.
For the hon. member to stand up and make the ridiculous and
absurd allegations that he is making today, totally unfounded,
demonstrates the political motivation. That is all there is behind
this.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canadians have no tolerance for governments that conduct
public business behind closed doors.
First we had a backroom deal and an unprecedented use of
cabinet powers to benefit Power Corp. and the Desmarais
family. Now we have the makings of a backroom deal to benefit
Seagram and the Bronfman family. It is this type of thing that
undermines Canadians' confidence in their elected officials.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his Minister of Canadian
Heritage has committed yet another grave error in judgment by
meeting with Edgar Bronfman prior to Seagram's takeover of
MCA?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe what undermines Canadian confidence are
unfounded allegations.
I remind the hon. member that those in this House who stand
to accuse others may one day have to stand to defend
themselves. I suggest that she should be a little more sensitive.
I will give her a suggestion of what the popular media is
saying on this. I offer her at this time today's Financial Post
which states: ``Rather than being politically motivated the
cabinet decision is clearly based on the desire for competition
and not the creation of a monopoly in DTH satellite service''.
If the Reform Party is interested in competition, then the hon.
member would be saying something about the content of the
report, rather than making the silly allegations that she has made
this morning. In fact what I observed on ``Canada AM''
yesterday was that the spokesman for the Reform Party said he
could not comment on this because he had interests with
Expressvu.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday and again today the industry minister denies that the
heritage minister knew anything about Seagram's acquisition of
MCA at the time of his meeting with the Bronfmans.
In fact the Minister of Canadian Heritage was informed of the
takeover by Allan Karp, the CEO of Cineplex-Odeon, more than
two weeks before the backroom meeting. That makes the
minister's actions even more reprehensible.
Why was the industry minister not briefed on the heritage
minister's meetings with Seagram?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not in the habit of seeking briefings on the
heritage minister's meetings.
Let me advise the hon. member that this infamous luncheon
she is making a great deal of seemed to have quite a few people
at it who are associated with a variety of companies in the Los
Angeles area. Yes, Mr. Karp was present, as were officials from
Canada. Also present were Mr. Jack Valenti of the Motion
Picture Association of America; Lew Wasserman, chairman of
the board of Music Corporation of America, Universal; Sid
Scheinberg of Music Corporation of America, Universal; Bill
Baker of Motion Picture Association of America, and on it goes.
There were quite a lot of people at this secret meeting to
somehow influence the decision of Investment Canada.
These allegations are really not worthy of the hon. member.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Industry has accused the opposition of focusing
on personality because we cannot criticize the process.
Let us look at the process. We have seen an unprecedented use
of cabinet power. We have seen secret meetings and unlimited
access being given to a favoured few.
(1135 )
Whether we look at Pearson, direct to home satellite or the
Seagram takeover, the major players are all the same:
Desmarais, John Rae, Bronfman, Rabinovitch and Goldenberg.
The family compact indeed is alive and well.
How can this government reassure Canadians that Investment
Canada's decision will be free from political influence?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us set a few facts straight from the beginning. Yes,
the use of the direction by the government is unprecedented. It is
a relatively recent power contained in the Broadcasting Act, as
the hon. member knows.
11938
There is nothing wrong with the government having power to
make policy. That is what we are elected to do, to establish
policy. That is what our responsibility is, to establish policy,
yes, for Canadians. That direction does not give anyone a
licence. What it does is create a level playing field for
competition where companies can apply to get a licence on fair
terms.
The government does not direct who gets a licence. The
government does not tell the CRTC what to do. The government
sets the policy direction. That is what our responsibility is.
If the Reform Party is against competition, if Reform Party
members do not care about the interests of consumers, let them
stand up and say so. If they are interested in competition, let us
hear one, just one, solitary, useful suggestion as to how we get
competition.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before he lost his temper, the Minister of Industry
advised us to put our questions to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage when he arrived in the House. That is now the case.
Therefore, considering the conflict of interest guidelines
governing members of this government, the fact that the Power
DirecTV case has indicated the existence of a very close
relationship between this government and influential Liberals in
the business community, including Paul Desmarais, father of the
Prime Minister's son-in-law and a member of the board of
directors of Seagram's, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage
realize that his conduct has cast doubts on the integrity of the
Liberal government?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we have explained many times why
the government decided to table its proposed directives to the
CRTC. We are talking about competition, Canadian content,
transparency and the structure of the information highway.
These are fundamental aspects of policy, and all interests in the
information highway applauded this decision. They felt we were
being open, frank and transparent, and by putting this before the
House, we are giving all members of this august assembly an
opportunity to express their views during a forty-day period,
when there will be a discussion on DTH satellite services.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is again directed to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. I hope the Solicitor General, who wanted to
answer on his behalf, will let the minister answer the question.
There is a lot to ask, but this question concerns the trip to Los
Angeles and a visit to Mr. Bronfman's suite when the transaction
took place. And we want to hear what the Minister of Canadian
Heritage has to say about that.
After his performance in the Ginn Publishing case, after the
disturbing letters he wrote to the CRTC, after making certain
statements that came back to haunt him, after his betrayal of
commitments he made to the CBC and his abdication of his
mandate in his handling of the Power DirecTV case, does the
minister still have the courage to do the honourable thing and
resign?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's performance is
reminiscent of the best horror movies.
(1140)
What the Minister of Canadian Heritage was doing in Los
Angeles was defending and promoting the interests of the film
industry in Canada. I have always said that content was
important on the information highway, and I am responsible for
promoting that content.
In the past few months I conducted extensive consultations
with the industries concerned in Canada, and our conclusion was
that it was advisable to meet the main competitors and also to
look into opportunities for co-operation. That is what I did when
I went to Los Angeles.
I may add that I never was in the suite next door to a certain
gentleman referred to by the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Yesterday the minister stated that the heritage minister has no
role to play regarding the Seagram acquisition and that Industry
Canada is dealing with the issue on its own. Despite this,
Investment Canada officials confirm that they have already had
discussions with heritage officials regarding the Seagram file.
If Investment Canada is to work on its own and if heritage has
no role to play, why are this minister's officials consulting with
heritage officials? Why is it the minister does not seem to know
about it?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I gave that impression in my answer yesterday, then I
was wrong.
To be exact about it, on the issue of whether Seagram is a
Canadian corporation, heritage has no role to play. That is a
determination made by the acting president of Investment
Canada. If the transaction is reviewable by Investment Canada,
then it does become an acquisition in the cultural sector. With
respect to that decision, which is a decision I would make, I
would consult in the normal manner with the Minister of
Canadian Heritage and officials would consult with each other.
What I was endeavouring to explain was that at this stage we
do not have an application under review because we are still at
the stage of satisfying ourselves as to whether or not Seagram is
a Canadian corporation.
11939
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps we should mark this day on the calendar. It is
the first day I am aware of that a minister across the way has
admitted to being wrong.
Given the talks with heritage officials and given the heritage
minister's meeting with the Bronfmans, how can the minister
deny that he has allowed Investment Canada's decision to be
tainted by the appearance of undue influence?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not see it as a tainting of the transaction
whatsoever.
As I indicated in my earlier answer, as did the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, a visit to a group of industry people in Los
Angeles is in the normal course. I must say that as industry
minister it is common for me to meet with representatives of
companies and industrial groups on a daily basis. It is part of our
normal activities. It is one of the ways in which we do our jobs.
That is normal. The fact that a transaction may come forward is
still hypothetical.
I can assure the hon. member, as I did earlier, that our
objective as a government, in the event the transaction is
reviewable, will be to secure improved undertakings on the part
of MCA to make the transaction of greater benefit to Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Two weeks ago, the heritage minister put himself in a conflict
of interest by making a secret trip to Los Angeles, to meet
Liberal friends conducting a megatransaction which involves
Canadian cultural interests and which will require Investment
Canada's approval.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House if he
used a government aircraft and will he also tell us who
accompanied him on that trip out west?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this opportunity
to provide him with answers on issues which seem to concern
him a great deal. I certainly did not use a government aircraft. In
fact, I always avoid doing so, for financial reasons.
(1145)
When in Los Angeles, I had no contacts with Canadian private
interests trying to conclude a transaction to take over MGM.
True, I did go to Universal studios with officials from MGM,
Disney, Sony and Motion Picture Association of America,
including its president, Jack Valenti. The purpose of my visit
was strictly to explore possibilities with the heads of these
American majors. Neither the agenda of this meeting, nor the
discussions which I had with these American studios had
anything to do with a transaction which I did not know about.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the
answer just provided by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I
will direct my supplementary to the Minister of National
Defence.
How does the Minister of National Defence explain the fact
that, this morning, his department refused to release
information concerning the use of Challenger jets by cabinet
members during that period, this at the specific request of the
Prime Minister's office? What is the Minister of National
Defence also trying to hide?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member obviously does not know the procedure for reporting
the use of government jets. Every month the use of jets is made
public.
We have lots of calls on lots of issues. That information will
be public within 30 days. There have been no complaints about
the procedure.
I find it rather odd the member would raise it in this context.
My officials were absolutely correct in saying to the member
that they could not give the information to him today, because
there is an established procedure and it is working.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
process in the Seagram deal stinks to high heaven.
The ADM for heritage responsible for the file is linked to the
Bronfmans through family ties. Investment Canada has
confirmed that Rabinovitch's people have contacted it on the
issue. This is a blatant conflict of interest.
Why does the Minister of Canadian Heritage fail to see that
his department's continued contacts with industry officials and
with the Bronfmans jeopardize the integrity of the process and
of the Liberal government?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make clear in the House that
I never met Mr. Bronfman on the occasion of the visit I paid to
Los Angeles.
I learned of the transaction as I was walking from the aircraft.
My meeting was an hour or two afterward. It is not unusual,
bearing in mind that these transactions are highly secretive
because of market conditions.
As to the responsibility for Investment Canada and a
declaration on whether a certain company is Canadian or
American, this is entirely within the responsibility of the
Minister of Industry.
11940
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
is an amazing coincidence and probably one without precedent
in the country.
The minister has denied that there has been any wrongdoing
on the Seagram file. Yet his officials have been in contact with
industry officials and are still in contact with and linked to the
Bronfmans. Surely the minister has been briefed on the contacts.
Is the minister suggesting that it is appropriate for his
officials to continue contacting industry officials who are in
constant contact with principals of the Seagram deal?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is difficult to understand an allegation of wrongdoing
``on the Seagram file'' when so far nothing has been done on the
Seagram file.
I state again very clearly that the threshold issue is whether or
not Seagram is a Canadian controlled corporation. That is a
matter entirely within the determination of the acting president
of Investment Canada, based on criteria set out in the act. That
determination will be made based upon information we obtain
from Seagram or its counsel. The next stage would be a review
under the Investment Canada Act of whether the transaction is
of net benefit to Canada.
(1150)
I suspect the hon. member wants to say that he does not think
Heritage Canada, Investment Canada and Industry Canada will
act in the best interest of Canada in reviewing the transaction.
That is an extreme allegation. I invite him to make such
allegations in a public forum where he is subject to all
disciplines of civil law. I would ask him, if he is going to say
things like that, to provide real evidence rather than just
innuendo.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am feeling sick to my stomach, but I will nevertheless
put my question to the Minister of Industry.
In the endless series of intimate relations this government has
with the extended Liberal family, the matter of Power DirecTv
continues to raise a number of questions about the actual
involvement of the Prime Minister and his entourage.
Could the Minister of Industry, the self-styled champion of
transparency, tell us clearly when the Prime Minister informed
him that he did not want to be involved in any way with Power
DirecTv in which his son-in-law has interests? When did the
Prime Minister tell him, about that, exactly?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me thank the hon. member for his question.
It bears repetition that the Prime Minister has restated in the
House, as he did among ministers, that he did not wish to be
involved in the file or have any knowledge directed to him about
it. That being the basis upon which the entire transaction has
occurred, I have never had a discussion with the Prime Minister
about the file.
I want the hon. member to understand that these are the kinds
of indications we are receiving from disinterested people who
are concerned about the issue. The Consumers' Association of
Canada: ``I am writing to you on behalf of the Consumers'
Association to urge the government to act upon the
recommendations of the policy review panel''; ACTRA: ``We
are pleased with the recognition of the need for competition
among services. We hope the government will move quickly'';
the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting; the Canadian Conference
of the Arts; and all the others.
The simple point is that the Prime Minister has acted with
entire integrity, discretion and care in the matter to avoid any
appearance of potential conflict. For the government to have
failed to take its responsibility-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I must ask that
both the responses and the questions be somewhat briefer.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Industry would surely be held in higher
esteem if he answered the question.
And so I ask him: Given that the government decided on
September 12, 1994 to overturn the decision of the CRTC, which
did not serve the interests of the Prime Minister's son-in-law,
-and I want it to be very clear-would the Minister of Industry
show us today, from his seat, the memorandum he received from
the Prime Minister asking to be completely kept out of the
government's decisions in this matter?
Can the sponsor of the Lobbyists Registration Act table the
memorandum that will enable us to understand and shed some
light on this matter?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I never had any discussions with the Prime Minister
about the file. There was nothing to visit.
Let me complete the statement I was making. In the face of the
urging such as I was indicating to the hon. member, the
government would have failed many groups in society, many
consumers, all the interests crying out for competition and
choice in the area, if it had failed to act.
11941
I am waiting for the opposition parties to give us a clear
indication of how they would have responded to these pleadings
if they did not think we should move the way we did.
* * *
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry.
On Wednesday major oil companies raised the price of gas
again, this time by 5 cents per litre in the national capital region.
This makes for a 20 per cent increase in just one month.
(1155)
[Translation]
These unacceptable increases in the price of gasoline in the
Ottawa region worry and shock local MPs and consumers.
[English]
What does the minister intend to do to stop the constant abuse
of price hikes by major oil companies in the national capital
region?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my day again.
I am pleased the hon. member raised the issue with respect to
the national capital region. However, whether it is in the
national capital region, remote communities of northern Ontario
or the farmers of Saskatchewan, everywhere across the country,
même au Québec, même dans l'Ouest, consumers are concerned
that gasoline prices seem to go up without explanation.
The best solution in this sector as well as in others that we
have talked about is competition, real competition. As we
complete our review of some of the useful proposals we received
on whistleblowing legislation and other measures, I hope we
will find tools to ensure oil companies and distributors of
gasoline products are respectful of the need for real competition
in the sector and the need of consumers to have cheaper
gasoline.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the simple point is that this is not an issue about competition.
This is an issue about ethics, about Liberal friends helping
Liberal friends and family. It is the family compact.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Did he
meet with the principals of the Seagram deal and Investment
Canada officials prior to the announcement of the acquisition?
Yes or no.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had absolutely no contact or anything to do
with whatever the Seagram corporation wants to do in the
United States.
This is of no concern to me. They have proceeded with the
appropriate secrecy and the risk taking involved. I only heard
the rumour that there might be an acquisition a day or so before
the acquisition was announced. It was from the press that I
learned of such an acquisition.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
asked the hon. minister for an answer of yes or no. I did not get
that answer.
I will ask the question again. Did the heritage minister meet
with the principals of the Seagram deal and Investment Canada
prior to the acquisition? Yes or no.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister maintains that he did not put himself in a
conflict of interest regarding Power DirecTv and continues to
purport that he stayed at arm's length of the deal.
Now, the Minister of Industry said, in reply to my colleague's
question, that he did not discuss the issue with the Prime
Minister. That is what he claims. But we now know, and the
Minister of Industry himself even admits it, that Eddie
Goldenberg, the Prime Minister's senior policy advisor, was
kept abreast of developments on the matter.
Will the Minister of Industry confirm that the departments of
Canadian Heritage and Industry sent copies of all of the
correspondence they exchanged regarding the Power DirecTv
deal to the Prime Minister's senior policy advisor, Eddie
Goldenberg?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Really, Mr.
Speaker, so what? Management of an important file would be
expected. In the context of conversation it would be normal,
among other things, that what the government is doing with
respect to a file would be told to the Prime Minister's office.
(1200 )
What I think is important here and the question the member
should be asking is whether on behalf of the Prime Minister the
principal secretary endeavoured to influence the decisions
ministers were taking.
Mr. Goldenberg communicated two things, that the Prime
Minister did not want to be involved in any way in the file, and
neither did he.
11942
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the way the minister acknowledges the direct link between the
Prime Minister and his information sources is just incredible.
Given the admission that the Prime Minister's senior policy
advisor, Eddie Goldenberg, was kept up-to-date on the matter
affecting the Prime Minister's son-in-law, will the Minister of
Industry admit that he and the Minister of Canadian Heritage
were players in the Prime Minister's charade, in which he used
his senior policy advisor to achieve indirectly what the law
prohibits him from doing directly?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had a little trouble hearing the member's question.
If I recall, the hon. member is a former or perhaps a
continuing actor. I would like to read to him what the president
of ACTRA wrote to us on this: ``We are particularly pleased with
the recognition of the need for competition among services and
for an equitable contribution from revenues to be directed
toward production and administered at arm's length from
carriers. We hope the Government of Canada will move quickly
to enunciate policy which will lead to the implementation of
these principles''.
In this case we have initiated a process which is open and
transparent and subject to discussion in Parliament. Process is
the rule of law and it is the way to ensure avoidance of conflict of
interest, which is what we are doing.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the assistant deputy minister for cultural
affairs in the Department of Canadian Heritage is Victor
Rabinovitch.
Mr. Rabinovitch is directly responsible for the Seagram's file.
His brother Robert, who wrote the DTH satellite directive,
works for the Bronfmans.
Why is the Minister of Canadian Heritage allowing this
sensitive issue to be handled by someone who is in a direct
conflict of interest?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a Seagram's file in my
department. The issues are related to Investment Canada, not to
Heritage Canada. Therefore, there is no reason our colleague
should be so concerned.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry keeps saying
nothing is being done on the Seagram's file. We hear the
heritage minister denying there is even a Seagram's file.
If that is the case, why is Investment Canada seeking a legal
opinion of the Seagram's acquisition?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Investment Canada Act creates a regime under
which certain transactions are reviewable. The first requirement
is that the acquiring corporation be non-Canadian.
Therefore, we do not know until we determine in this
particular case whether Seagram is Canadian or non-Canadian
and whether there is a reviewable transaction under the
Investment Canada Act.
What I said was not that nothing was being done on this file
but that nothing has been done because her colleague accused
the government of wrongdoing on this file. Nothing has been
done. The issue is open and under consideration by the acting
president of Investment Canada. We will be obtaining
information from the file in Investment Canada that will deal
with it because the transaction is located in Investment Canada.
However, until all of the facts have been obtained we cannot
say there is a reviewable transaction. Therefore, the issues of net
benefit to Canada are not yet under discussion.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National
Revenue.
Recently I brought to the minister's attention the fact that
there may be loopholes in the regulations governing the goods
and services tax as it applies to the sale of new and used
automobiles.
Can the minister inform the House if he is investigating this
matter to assure consumers that GST paid to automobile dealers
is passed on to national revenue?
(1205 )
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and
for the continued interest she shows in tax fairness.
There are specific provisions in the GST legislation which do
provide for a notional input tax credit. This credit in turn allows
registered car dealers to compete at the same level as private
sellers who are not GST registrants.
The department monitors and investigates any indication or
reports of any abuse of the notional input tax credit and I can
assure the hon. member that we have, as a result of her
11943
representations, stepped up our own activities to ensure the
notional input tax credit provisions do not result in any tax
advantage for any particular individual or group of car dealers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the acting Prime Minister. Now on to another
scandal, because it is also a scandal for women.
All Canadians and Quebecers are going to look a little silly
this week-end. The Minister of Immigration's stubbornness will
prevent Ms. Hafsa Zinaï Koudil, a filmmaker of Algerian origin,
from participating in the Montreal festival ``Vues d'Afrique'',
which will feature her movie ``Le Démon au féminin'' decrying
the violent way religious fundamentalists in Algeria treat
women.
How can the acting Prime Minister justify the Minister of
Immigration's obstinate refusal to grant a visitor's visa to
filmmaker Koudil?
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, officials
must follow the law when making any decision to accept or
refuse a request for visa. This is something the hon. member
knows well.
I have been asked by the minister to encourage both the
member and the person in question to reapply, to submit any new
information. Departmental officials are bound to uphold the
laws and protect the interests of Canada. The member knows
this well and we await a new application if there are new facts.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, he has denied having a meeting
with the Bronfmans prior to the announcement of the Seagram's
deal. Did he have a meeting in Los Angeles? If so, what was
involved in that meeting? Did it involve Investment Canada?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no meeting took place and therefore the
response to the second part of the question is no.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Over the past
few days gas stations across Canada have increased their prices
by as much as 10 cents a litre without justification.
This is the sixth price increase in the last 11 months,
representing more than a 25 per cent increase to consumers and a
40 per cent increase to oil companies' revenues after record
profits last year. These increases will cost Canadians over $3
billion each year and will hurt business, agriculture and
consumers, basically our entire economy.
Failing a voluntary rollback by the oil companies of these
unfair increases, will the government act to protect consumers
by rolling back these costly increases until a price review can be
conducted to see if these price increases are justifiable?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question and I recognize the
continuing work he has put into this matter of raising the
attention of the Canadian public to the level of gas prices in
Canada. He has worked very hard.
As he knows from the answer I gave to our colleague from
Carleton-Gloucester, I share his concern about the apparently
inexplicable increase in prices that Canadians have experienced
and from coast to coast are complaining about.
As to his suggestion of regulation of prices, this is not
something I favour. I do not believe that to regulate prices,
either to roll them back or to tell companies what they should
charge for the goods or services they provide, is the best way for
consumers ultimately to enjoy lower prices.
The real solution is real and sustained competition.
(1210)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This concludes question
period today.
_____________________________________________
11943
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table in both official languages the government's response to 18
petitions.
* * *
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to table the formal response of the
government to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on
Industry, ``Rebuilding Trust'', pursuant to Standing Order 109.
11944
Hon. Herb Gray (for the President of the Treasury Board,
Lib.): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-85, an act to amend
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to
provide for the continuation of a certain provision.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-86, an
act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, on Monday, May 8, 1995 the
sitting of the House shall commence at two o'clock p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 500 citizens from the
region of Montreal who ask that Bill C-58, an act to amend the
RCMP act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, be
withdrawn.
They say the bill is undemocratic, will isolate the members of
the RCMP by depriving them of the status of public service
employees and will in consequence violate their fundamental
rights and freedoms.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the
clerk of petitions on behalf of 25 individuals.
The petitioners request that Parliament at the earliest possible
time initiate a wide ranging public inquiry replacing many being
convened piecemeal into the Canadian Armed Forces, including
reserves, which will investigate, report and make
recommendations on all matters affecting its operations,
tasking, resources, effectiveness, morale and welfare.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first
deals with assisted suicide.
The petitioners urge we make no changes to the Criminal
Code which would affect that area.
(1215 )
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): The second petition, Mr.
Speaker, deals with the request of citizens of Moncton that
changes be made to the charter of rights and freedoms to enable
residents to be notified when repeat sex offenders are released
into the community.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
five petitions to present today. The first one, signed by 35
people, is that the petitioners pray and request that Parliament
not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or charter of rights
and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): The second one is
signed by 25 petitioners, requesting that Parliament not change
the law respecting assisted suicide.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): The third petition is
signed by 25 petitioners with respect to extending protection to
the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): The fourth petition
has four pages and has to do with the petitioners calling upon
Parliament to enact legislation against serious personal injury
crimes being committed by high risk offenders by permitting the
use of post-sentence detention orders-specifically, passing my
colleague's private member's bill, C-240.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Finally, I have 500
or 600 signatures on a petition in response to the budget that just
came down. Again, these petitions are still coming in.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement
a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
11945
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too rise to present four petitions this
afternoon. I have one petition here with over 400 signatures.
The petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament
reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and
implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal government
spending.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is a petition with
roughly 75 names. These petitioners are requesting that
Parliament not amend the human rights code and the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any
way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase ``sexual orientation''.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): The third petition that I offer today under Standing Order
36 is that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the
unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition that I present is again
from many residents in my constituency who are asking that
Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with proposed section 718.2 as
presently written, and in any event not include the undefined
phrase ``sexual orientation'', as the behaviour people engage in
does not warrant special consideration in Canadian law.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege and pleasure to
present these petitions today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest that all the questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
11945
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to
make related amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before question period, I started pointing out the flaws
in Bill C-43. I mentioned the staging of the ethics counsellor's
appointment and the authority he was supposed to have. I
highlighted the discrepancies in the Liberal position and their
about face regarding several points, including the different
categories of lobbyists.
One will recall that the Liberals, when they were in the
opposition, wanted to have only one category for lobbying
because, in their opinion, lobbying was lobbying.
(1220)
But once they came to power, their friends, probably the ones
who fund their electoral campaigns, told them: ``No, no, no! We
would rather it stay the same, with three different categories''.
So, the Liberals reviewed their position and now, Bill C-43
meets the lobbyists' demands, maintaining three categories.
Before question period, I was dealing with the third flaw I
found in Bill C-43. In total, there are eight major flaws which
were deliberately introduced with a view not to reach the stated
goal of Bill C-43, which is transparency. The third flaw I found
has to do with the compulsory filing of a return. As I mentioned
earlier, the scandal regarding Pearson airport, in Toronto, is
ample proof of how lax the present rules are in this area.
One will recall that the privatization contract was signed at
the height of the federal electoral campaign, in 1993, and that
subsequently an inquiry looked into that deal. The Nixon report,
issued on November 29, 1993, revealed several instances of
misconduct on the part of lobbyists, officials and political aids
to the ministers concerned. The report raised several other
questions which have remained unanswered to this day. For
example, who are the lobbyists who contravened the most
elementary rules of ethics? When did these events occur? How
did they act illegally or unlawfully? Who are the officials and
political staff members who went too far in this matter?
The Liberal government did not answer those questions. They
chose to close their eyes to such stratagems which undermine
the credibility of our democratic institutions. Most
unfortunately, Bill C-43 offers nothing new. We remain totally
in the dark. The clique exercising such undue influence will
continue to have its way, and that is terrible. While they were in
the opposition, members of government had promised they
would bring transparency into this issue.
11946
If the Liberals were serious about transparency for all
government undertakings, why do they now refuse to force
lobbyists to indicate which contracts they are trying to
influence the federal administration on? Furthermore, why do
they refuse to disclose which contracts are attributed in a
discretionary fashion, without any call for tenders? I regret that
the Liberals absolutely refuse to shed any kind of light on this
issue.
If the Liberal government were really serious when it talks
about integrity and transparency, would it not demand that
lobbyists also disclose their fees? I learned, through the
Minister of Industry, that in Ottawa, some lobbyists charge up to
$5,000 a day to negotiate small arrangements with government.
In such a case, people have the right to know who is paying
this kind of money, who has an interest great enough to pay up to
$5,000 a day to have a minister or the government change its
position or decision. But no, Bill C-43 says nothing about that.
When they were on this side of the House, the Liberals were in
favour of such disclosure. They thought, quite appropriately,
that lobbyists should disclose their fees. I will give you specific
examples of Liberal members who have changed their tune since
they took office.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and
government whip, said on February 2, 1993: ``In other words,
the public has the right to know who does what and for whom,
and at what cost''. When in opposition, that is what they were
asking the government. Put even more eloquently, on February
16, 1993, the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry said, about the disclosure of lobbyists' fees: ``One of
the reasons I stand firm on the issue of disclosure is that your
organization does not work only in the area of politics. You now
have a polling department and a media relations unit. Your
organization''-he was answering someone in committee and
knew what he was talking about-``has a strong influence not
only on consumers but also on government and the media. In a
town like ours you only have to be a few days in the press centre
to have almost any idea accepted. One of the reasons I believe
your fees must be disclosed is that it sometimes happens-Take
the referendum for instance: millions of dollars have been put in
the system by lobbying firms advocating a position while we
knew almost nothing about them''.
(1225)
The parliamentary secretary to the minister said only a few
months ago that lobbyists fees had to be disclosed. Today in Bill
C-43, the minister says that fees will not be disclosed. What did
members say? What did the parliamentary secretary to the
minister mention? I will not answer that question. I will not
answer it because I find it deplorable that a member did not raise
to express his concerns and or defend the ideas he had when he
was in the opposition. Power corrupts and gives Alzheimer's to
Liberals.
I would now like to refer to another issue over which the
Liberals ranted and raved when they were in the opposition, and
that is the contacts initiated by lobbyists with ministers and
officials. They seem less concerned about that issue today,
although the problem remains unsolved.
Suppose that Bill C-43 had been in force during transactions
which led to the contract to privatize Pearson airport. I often
choose that example because it was a scandal known to all
Canadians and to the Liberal themselves. The new registry
would have told us on what contract a consultant lobbyist had
worked, and that this lobbyist contacted the relevant
department, in this case the Department of Transport. So what?
Such are the changes brought about by Bill C-43. That is the
information we would have.
This new obligation to disclose is being presented as a bold
move by the government and the Liberal majority in the
committee. It goes without saying that, for the Bloc Quebecois,
it is essentially pointless. It is obvious that a lobbyist trying to
influence the government on an issue relating to the
privatization of an airport would contact the Minister of
Transport. That is obvious, we do not need a bill to know that;
one does not have to be a rocket scientist to guess that.
To really have transparency in its dealings, the government
should have agreed to lobbyists revealing their meetings with a
minister and the names of the senior officials involved. Bill
C-43 should have required lobbyists to say they had contacted a
given minister or a given senior official at a given time, that they
had discussed a given issue, that they wanted the government to
make a decision on a given subject. Bill C-43 does not say
anything about that; it does not give us what we wanted.
Such transparency would have helped to restore the integrity
of institutions in people's minds. Once again, the government
missed the boat. Once again, we proposed some amendments to
this end, but the government said no to the transparency and the
integrity proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.
Also, why not require lobbyists to reveal their political ties? It
would be interesting to know that a given lobbyist is employed
by a given political party. It might be interesting to know that a
given lobbyist had once been a candidate for a political party. It
might be interesting to know that a given lobbyist is the
president of an association or was a minister's chief campaign
organizer. It might be interesting to know also that a given
lobbyist gave $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 to the Liberal Party's
fundraising campaign. It would be interesting to know that.
11947
But no. When the Liberals had trouble collecting a nickel,
that was required from the government, the lobbyists had to
reveal that. But now that they are in office, now that they have
cocktails and luncheons at $1,000 and $2,000 a plate, they do
not want this information. They have changed their tune.
(1230)
Since time flies, I will not deal at length with the contingent
fees some lobbyists ask from those who hire them. They say: I
will charge you $5,000 an hour-as in the example given by the
minister-to make representations to the government, and if
you win your case, you will pay me $250,000 on top of my fees. I
am using large figures to put my point across more clearly, but
that is what is meant by contingent fees.
The Bloc Quebecois thinks Bill C-43 should prohibit
contingent fees. Of course, as you have seen, Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals rejected that amendment. However, witnesses who
appeared before the committee said that contingent fees lead to
scandals and influence peddling. The higher the contingent fees,
the more forceful lobbyists will be in their representations to the
minister and the more they will use all kinds of tactics. Today,
the Liberals find that quite acceptable. It is not. Those are the
kind of things they criticized when they were the opposition, but
now that they are in power they are too busy at the trough and
feel everything is fine. Such smoothies.
I repeat that I could keep talking for hours on this important
issue. As a matter of fact, it is so important that the committee
heard about 80 witnesses. We received brilliant briefs. This was
the third time a group of parliamentarians reviewed this issue.
We have had the Cooper Report, we have had the Holtmann
Report and now you have before you today the Zed Report.
Three times, parliamentarians have said: ``We have to give
teeth to the Lobbyists Registration Act''. And what do we have
before us? A toothless bill, a spineless bill, that will not reach
the goal of openness that had been set. There is nothing new in
this bill, and scandals will occur again.
Talking about scandals, about current events also, as you
could see during question period, all kinds of revelations are
being made. These issues have been raised for weeks now. We
are not the only ones saying that there is something strange
going on in the government machinery, something that is going
wrong. Except of course for The Gazette. But nobody wonders
why The Gazette is supporting the government.
What all these elements are showing us I think is that there has
never been such an urgent need for a bill to closely regulate the
lobbyists. That is what current events show us, with the saga of
patronage by the Liberal government in its policy on direct to
home satellite broadcasting.
Here is what Jean-Robert Sansfaçon wrote in today's Le
Devoir: ``Seldom has the federal government been more
obviously under remote control than with this decision to
suspend the rules set out by the CRTC. This is an action whose
only purpose is to allow onto the scene a certain player, none
other than the company run by the Prime Minister's son-in-law,
André Desmarais. Once more, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, Michel Dupuy, looks like a puppet, unable to apply
either the letter or the spirit of the Canadian Broadcasting Act''.
All that has been done through lobbying, meetings and visits
with the minister. And all that is the doing of the powerful
PowerCorp lobby.
We now have Bill C-43 before us. It could not have come at a
more appropriate juncture. We have the proof we need to say
that with Bill C-43 as enacted, as drafted, nothing will change
and scandals as those we have witnessed this week will occur
again, and our questions will never get answered. We will never
really know what guided the minister in his decisions, his visits,
his meetings, etc. That is a true scandal.
(1235)
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an
honour to be able to rise in this esteemed House, the one to
which all of us were elected to represent the people of Canada, to
address the question of lobbyists.
I will begin by commending my colleague from the Bloc who
just spoke. He presented a very good case and I very much
appreciate the points which he raised.
I would also like to comment briefly on the process we went
through. As most members know, this was the first bill that went
through the new process of going to committee after first
reading. As I have said previously in this House, I found that
experience both frustrating and rewarding.
It was rewarding in the sense that we had a very amiable
chairman. I have said that before and he usually grins when I say
that, and I give him that compliment again. I also got to know
and to like all of the members on the committee. It was a very
good, free and easy exchange.
We were assured during that process that we could think out
loud. We could bring out ideas which perhaps we did not really
espouse but we wanted to raise as questions. What would happen
if we did this or what would happen if we did that? Being a
neophyte, I thought that was a wonderful way of discussing and
debating. I thought that we were going to get a really good bill
out of this process and I was very enthused for most of it.
We had excellent witnesses. Again, I would like to go on
record as commending them. They did a good job in presenting
their cases.
11948
Underlying all if it, I always wondered whether we really
needed the lobbyists. As a matter of fact, if I can express my
naivety, I came to Ottawa as a new MP in the fall of 1993
thinking that strictly speaking lobbyists are redundant and they
should not be here. To a large degree I still think that way.
That reminds me of a story my assistant shared with me about
a problem with some ravens that apparently had pretty well
taken over the city of Ottawa. The ravens were becoming a real
nuisance. They not only messed up cars, they occasionally
attacked children and on occasion even, shall we say, bombed
some public officials. That is when action had to be taken.
The mayor of this esteemed city put out a call saying that there
would be a $5,000 reward for anyone who could get rid of all of
the ravens. Lo and behold someone from the country said to the
mayor: ``I will solve your problem but it will cost you $5,000''.
The mayor said that very well, it was worth it because when that
last official got bombed by one of the ravens that was the end of
it.
The young man had a cage which contained a blue raven. He
went to where all of the other ravens were, opened the door and
let the blue raven out. That blue raven somehow attracted all of
the other ravens and they flew together out of town and were
never seen again.
The mayor said to the person: ``Here is your $5,000, but I have
a question for you: Do you have any blue lobbyists?''
That is a question. Should we get rid of all of the lobbyists?
Should we get one of them to take the rest of them out of town?
I will admit that I underwent a minor change in my thinking
during the work on this committee. I met different people and
different groups and particularly, certain professional
associations, business and industry associations which came to
make presentations before us. In fact, they were quite successful
in convincing us of their importance. I will not mention any of
them specifically by name.
(1240 )
Certainly, just as what happens in this place deeply affects
citizens, it also affects groups of citizens, businesses and
different professions. Therefore, for the government to have
some kind of an interface with an association of all of the
dentists in the country instead of having to deal with each one
individually probably has some merit.
Another one that comes to mind is a presentation that we had
from an association of the forestry industry. In this particular
instance public policy measures of taxation, environment
protection and so on impact greatly not only on the industry's
ability to do business in this country but also on its ability to
compete worldwide, a factor which is ever more present with us.
Consequently, I came to the conclusion after thinking about
this that there probably was some justification for these people
to be represented by a smaller association which would
specialize in making their views known to the government.
I still think though that for the bulk of public policy issues,
lobbyists should be unnecessary. As a matter of fact, as a
member of Parliament I am frequently asked whether I will meet
with this or that group. I have several rules. One rule is that I
usually respond by saying that I do not meet with lobbyists. My
constituents, the people who elected me, are my lobbyists. They
are the ones I am here to represent.
I have a few little subrules as well. If a lobbyist group comes
to see me and one of the delegation members comes from my
constituency, I do not care what their issue or cause is, they
automatically have an in. I will never refuse to talk to any
member of the Elk Island constituency for any reason.
I also have a couple of other little subrules. Occasionally
there are groups that have done a lot of research and are
specialists in their field. If they can increase my understanding
from a technical point of view or from the government impact
point of view on the wider population not just in my
constituency but throughout the whole country and I have an
opportunity to learn something, I will not deny that opportunity.
Therefore, I have had the opportunity to deal with a number of
lobbyists directly. In most instances I have appreciated this.
We need to talk about this bill because it seems to be a
foregone conclusion that the work of the MP is not effective. I
hate to stand up and say this. I know that in a way I am
impugning all of my colleagues, myself included, and certainly
all of the backbenchers on the government side. It is true that our
access to the decision making loop really is limited.
I was interested and paid close attention to the minister's
speech this morning. I am going to respond to a few things he
said. Among other things, he indicated that it was the
government's goal to give MPs a greater role. I wrote that down.
I remember reading that in the red book during the election
campaign. I must confess that I never did read the whole book.
Mr. McCormick: That was your first mistake.
Mr. Epp: I read enough to get the gist of it. However, I do
remember reading this part. I was afraid that perhaps we would
not win the election. If the Liberals had as their platform a
greater role for the MPs and limiting lobbyists and so on, they
were stealing our platform and maybe the people would believe
them and elect them and then we would not win.
11949
Well it so happens that despite that, I did in fact win in the Elk
Island constituency. When I was asked to be on this committee it
was great. It was something I really believed in and would be
able to work on.
The minister this morning made reference to the specific
statement that there would be a greater role for MPs. Frankly I
have not observed it. I observe that decisions are still made
mostly in the offices of upper level government officials in the
departments, the top bureaucrats, in consort with deputy
ministers and ministers. For ordinary people, including
members of Parliament, to break into that loop is difficult. I
understand it is almost as difficult for members on the
government side as it is for those in opposition.
(1245)
We all have influence. I am aware that Liberal members have
influence in their caucus. However there would be no lobbyists
if the people were able to successfully promote their views of
what kind of country they would like and what our public
policies should be. Their MPs are free. Well, they are not free.
Taxpayers pay very handsomely for them, including the MPs'
pension plan to which the government so eagerly hangs on.
There is no additional or incremental cost to someone who wants
to send a message to government if they do it via their member
of Parliament.
That lobbyists exist is mute testimony to the fact that many
people, being pragmatic, recognize that if they want to have
their issues heard, they know that is how they have to do it.
I would like to say a few words about the changes we have
produced to the bill. It was a good experience in the committee
to propose amendments and to talk about them. Many of them
were done before there ever were any clauses.
The final clauses were done quite unofficially without formal
amendments. Then we began the process of formal amendments.
You must remember, Mr. Speaker, as in the House, the
committee is made up of a majority of members from the
government side. The member for the Bloc and myself
representing the opposition were, shall we say, considerably
outnumbered.
I will say to the credit of the government members there that
we did have an open discussion. We were heard. For the most
part there was a high level of respect. I really appreciate the
relationship that developed and the ease with which we were
able to discuss things.
Then my hon. colleague from the Bloc, as he mentioned in his
speech, proposed a large number of amendments. Those
amendments were uniformly declined by the members on the
government side. I was very disappointed. The House has
already heard the member for the Bloc speak today. He
described his amendments and their justification. Certainly
there was justification for that. The government lost a great deal
because it failed to put those into the bill and therefore they will
not become law. That was very frustrating.
Then I brought in a number of amendments. As you know,
Madam Speaker, we voted on those several evenings ago. I felt
badly about it. It was due to the many amendments we brought
forward from our party that all of us had to sit here for about an
hour doing all of those votes. In order to maintain my integrity I
had to bring those forward. I had to make sure that the
government would go on record as saying ``yes, we want these''
or ``no, we do not'', just so the lines could be clearly defined.
(1250 )
I am pleased. As far as I know it is a record that two opposition
amendments were accepted. I believe it is the first time that
opposition amendments at report stage in this Parliament have
been accepted. They were very good amendments, not because I
brought them but because they were well supported. It shows
they were logical and represented the wishes of the people. It
was very gratifying to have those amendments passed.
A number of the amendments we made were declined by the
government. Unfortunately this is going to be the proof of the
pudding. This is going to be the Achilles heel of the government,
where given an opportunity to really increase openness and
transparency it declined the opportunity.
I do not want to be only negative. I said when I was elected a
member of the opposition, not only would I criticize when
things were wrong but that I would also try to give accolades
when things were good.
Some things in the Lobbyists Registration Act are fairly
positive, for instance, the increase in the disclosure
requirements. If people now want to know who is lobbying who,
they will know more than before Bill C-43 is passed. I presume
it will be passed next week because of the Liberal majority.
The Reform Party thinks it is important for members of
coalitions to be represented and registered so that if there is an
association, its registration indicates all its member
organizations.
We believe it is important, and this was our amendment, a
very significant one, that when a lobbyist or association or
corporation they represent receives direct government funding
it also be disclosed.
I was asked about that not long ago by a member of the media.
I said it really is stage one. Once Canadians find out that they are
funding groups whose business it is to step in front of ordinary
citizens in order to try to influence government, that funding
will soon cease because of public pressure. Obviously there has
not been the political will to stop funding lobby groups at this
stage. Now that will be disclosed and people will be able to
know exactly how much the government is spending on funding
these various organizations.
11950
When people know I am sure they will start sending their
politicians a message that says stop funding them. That is our
goal. There is no doubt in my mind that a lobbyist group should
be funded by the people they purport to represent. If they do,
they have full legitimacy.
A group whose first lobbying function is to lobby the
government for its own funding so that it can continue to exist
and then purport to represent a whole bunch of people is just not
authentic. It totally minimizes its effectiveness and is a waste of
money, besides being an aberration in the democratic process.
I am very pleased that the bill provides for the electronic
filing of returns. One of the things we heard is that more and
more government is intruding on our lives. It is making report
filing more difficult. Certainly Canadians are very aware of that
at this time of the year.
Under the Lobbyists Registration Act lobbyists can register
and complete their information electronically so it is less
onerous. It was a very fine idea to have the time of registration
extended. Most of the time it is not urgent for these registrations
be filed immediately, when the activity is taking place.
To ask for a final disclosure does two things. It is now
required that every six months they bring their file up to date.
What makes this good is knowing that it has to be disclosed is in
itself a form of control. I think of it the same as when I do my
work as a member of Parliament. I try to keep in the back of my
mind the objective that we need to write and behave in such a
way that anything ever made public will not bring us into
disrepute. If we adopt that attitude, ultimately the people of
Canada will be the judges. Then we will have a good process.
(1255)
I need to criticize a little bit. The minister took the occasion in
his speech this morning to deal at length with the question of
restoring trust and confidence. He talked a bit about some of the
current issues. I asked a question and he made a comment that:
``The member for Elk Island cannot wait to have his say''. It is
true. I was trying to get his attention. He was talking about the
current problem and giving the government's point of view.
I was trying to get something from the minister but
unfortunately he did not respond. How does Bill C-34 solve the
problem? I was not heckling him. I was simply trying to get his
attention. The minister ignored that and proceeded with his
statement, which is fine. In his speech time he is entitled to
finish what he has to say.
The reason he could not answer is because Bill C-34 will not
solve the problems that come before the House from time to
time, including the current questions before the House. We all
know what they are.
Issues that are important here are openness and
accountability, showing that things are being done right. We
could have a situation where things are not being done right and
if people never find out about it, they will continue to be done in
the wrong way. If we have an openness, a transparency-that is a
word which means we can see through things, we can see right to
the back of it-then these kinds of problems and issues could be
put to rest reasonably quickly.
I do not believe there is sufficient meat in Bill C-34 to achieve
the goal. That is regrettable because it was an opportunity for all
members of the House to assure the Canadian people that, in
fact, their government is honest. I am not implying it is not. I am
talking about the assurance part of it. Even if it is honest and if
the people perceive differently, then the battle has not been won.
It needs to be correctly communicated in such a way that it has
credibility.
Bill C-34 fails to do that for a few reasons. I will only have
time to state a few of them. I want to use my time to talk later on
about the big issue.
First I would like to point out that the red book promised in the
1993 election that the Holtmann report on lobbyists would be
enacted. There are a number of areas where that has not been
done. One explicit recommendation of the Holtmann report on
lobbying, which was a couple of years ago, was that there should
be an elimination of the tiers.
I suppose a lobbyist is a lobbyist is a lobbyist. If the purpose is
to either procure a government contract or to influence
government policy, then they are lobbyists. From the taxpayers'
and voters' point of view, it really does not matter whether the
association hires an external lobbyist who goes to government
or whether the association or organization sends one of their
own. That tier distinction for most groups is irrelevant. In every
instance a lobbyist is out to influence a government decision.
We felt very strongly that the distinction between the tiers
should be removed.
(1300)
I will admit again that I went through a metamorphosis here.
At one stage I thought that very strongly, and then for a while I
was thinking there is some justification for having a
differentiation and perhaps less onerous reporting requirements.
However, with further reflection, thought, and analysis, I came
back to the conclusion that indeed there should be open and full
disclosure of all of them equally.
Another problem is the definition of lobbyists. It is quite clear
for association lobbyists and is included in the act that if they do
lobbying for pay they are lobbyists and are required to register.
However, the way C-34 is written for tier two lobbyists, the
association ones, those who represent an organization from
11951
within are only required to register if the lobbying activity, by
some undefined definition, is significant.
We think the word ``significant'' leaves it wide open. In fact,
people could be lobbying for a fair amount of time, but if they do
very much other work then this two or three day amount of
lobbying could be interpreted as insignificant. But if that
lobbying is done by a person who has high government contacts,
perhaps just a one-hour or two-hour luncheon meeting could
have tremendous impact on a government decision. For that not
to be disclosed is again a breach of the confidence that Canadian
taxpayers are expecting.
Another issue we thought was very important is that there be a
disclosure of political ties. This always comes up: So-and-so
talked to so-and-so and got this achieved. Who did he or she
know? What was the connection?
I know we also attract a large number of people. Just as the
Liberals have a large number of supporters, party members,
people who work on campaigns, so do we. Anticipating that not
long from now we are going to be on the government side, I
welcome the disclosure; I welcome the fact that if some time we
are over there, there should be a total disclosure of someone who
has worked on our campaigns. What's to hide? Why should we
try to deceive the Canadian people on an issue like that? That
should have been included in this bill.
We also believe that significant political contributions should
be registered. We just pegged $1,000 as an arbitrary amount;
that could be changed from time to time. But usually, if someone
will put down a cheque for $1,000 they are more than just a
casual supporter; they are usually people who are highly
influential, or at least more influential in the party.
We can see that following the election it could happen that
those same people want to try to influence the government. I
would like to recommend very strongly that this should be
disclosed. Again, what's to hide?
It has been a while since I have conducted 55-minute classes,
so my voice is getting a little raspy. The difference is that when I
used to teach at the technical institute my students paid attention
and learned something. Now that was an unkind statement.
There is one more flaw to discuss before getting to the next
section. Another considerable flaw in this bill is that there is no
requirement to disclose the name of the government official
being lobbied. We require the name of the lobbyist; we require
the name of the groups or associations that are represented. But
all that needs to be said is that, for example, in the Pearson
airport deal the Department of Transport was being lobbied, and
I think it would be very useful for Canadian people who judge
matters like this if they could have a clear indication of who in
the department was being influenced.
I want to talk a little about the ethics counsellor. There are
other issues, but I am going to run out of time.
(1305)
To me, the ethics counsellor is the pivotal point of this whole
bill. I would like to begin by commending the government for
bringing in the position of an ethics counsellor. It was long
overdue. I suppose we could applaud that and say to the Prime
Minister and to the government that this is a step forward.
Unfortunately, the position of the ethics counsellor will end up
being the weakest point of the bill, and it did not have to be. This
is most regrettable.
The only time the ethics counsellor is needed is if there is a
suspicion. Normally, if there are good relationships between
companies or between associations and government, and there is
no allegation of wrongdoing, the ethics counsellor can just sit in
his office and go about his usual duties.
I would reflect on what the minister spoke about this morning.
He talked about the deal with the minister of heritage. He
mentioned it at length this morning. When I was trying to get his
attention as to what Bill C-43 would do about it, I was hoping he
would say that the ethics counsellor will investigate and put the
matter at rest. I was trying to give him an out, and he did not bite
at the bait; he ignored it.
That is a demonstration of the flaw in this bill. The minister
did not recognize that in this particular case, where he claims
over and over again that the minister did nothing wrong, the
government did nothing wrong and the Prime Minister did
nothing wrong, it is not convincing. It is the fox declaring
loudly, ``I did not eat the chicken'', while the feathers are
dangling from his mouth. Even if it is right, it requires
independence to have credibility.
When we form the government I will welcome an independent
ethics counsellor. I want one. If there are allegations that are
untrue, I want an ethics counsellor to be able to investigate and
to declare to the Canadian people beyond a shadow of a doubt
that there was not any kind of influence or pressure and that he
has investigated and has found nothing wrong in order to clear
the name.
Under this bill the ethics counsellor is appointed by the Prime
Minister, he answers to the Prime Minister, and he reports to this
House through the registrar general. Everything is done through
the government. Usually the allegations are of wrongdoing
between a member of the government or a member of the
bureaucracy. Any thinking person can see that if the ethics
counsellor is appointed by and answerable to and through the
government, any minister or the Prime Minister, he is basically
unable to do his job. That is most unfortunate. It is most
regrettable. That is the greatest missed opportunity in this bill,
and it is the one I emphasize the most.
11952
I would like to talk about both sides of this issue. When there
is an allegation of wrongdoing there are really only two
possibilities, with perhaps some interpretation along the
spectrum in between. Let us consider the current issue that is
before us in these dealings we have had during question period
and in all of our debates this week. Either there is nothing
wrong, as everybody over there keeps saying, or there is
something wrong.
First, I would like to deal with a supposition. Here is a
hypothesis. Let us suppose that in fact there was something that
was not right. I want to have an ethics commissioner who has
total freedom to investigate and to declare to the public via this
House directly that he has investigated and this and this and this
is wrong.
(1310)
The other hypothesis is that there is no wrongdoing. Under
our present system and under the one proposed by this bill, if the
ethnics counsellor investigates and then says there is nothing
wrong, the people of Canada will say we are not really sure we
can trust him. It is not because he has not done his job. The
current person who holds that office is a person of high esteem
and honour. I have no reason to be suspicious of him. However,
the man is hampered in his ability to convince the people simply
because he lacks the independence of being able to give an
independent report. Even if he has done his very best, he is still
seen by the people as possibly having been pressured or
organized by the Prime Minister, because he is appointed by him
and is answerable to him.
We have had a number of cases in which we have asked for the
ethics counsellor to investigate. The answer has been no, I am
not going to ask him. We have gone on several occasions to the
ethnics counsellor directly: ``Were you consulted? Have you
investigated?'' The answer was ``No, I have not been asked''.
It is true that right now the counsellor is somewhat inhibited
because this act has not yet been proclaimed. When it is, I
believe that his role will be somewhat strengthened. He will then
be empowered to investigate, so that will strengthen his role
compared to what it is right now. There is a plus, and once again
I applaud the government for that plus.
The negative end of it is that he is still required to table his
reports, both the annual report and the reports as a result of an
investigation, through the minister, the registrar general. This is
ironic. I just point out a possible future flaw, a trap that will
catch us. What happens if the registrar general, who is a member
of this House, becomes the object of a suspicion and if the ethics
counsellor does an investigation of that and then presents his
report to the very minister he is investigating? Who will believe
him? It does not matter what he says. He could say that
everything is okay and no one will believe him. If he says that
there is such and such a problem, of course that would be great.
Then he would be believed. But it would have greater
authenticity if he could have the freedom to answer both ways.
When I plead for the defeat of this bill based largely on the
fact that the ethnics counsellor lacks independence, it is because
I am looking forward to the day when I want him to have total
freedom to convince the Canadian people that the allegations of
wrongdoing are false. That is the motivation. There is nothing
that is more important than that.
We need to do everything possible to strengthen the
legitimacy of the role of the ethics counsellor. I would like to
add that the annual reports also should be given directly to this
House.
I think of a perfect analogy. When I go across the
country-and I have not done too much of that, I have done most
of my work in my Elk Island constituency-I visit other people
in Saskatchewan and also in Manitoba. When I talk to them, one
government official who has almost universal recognition and
respect is the auditor general. The auditor general, because of
the way he is appointed and the way he reports, is believed.
There is no doubt that the flaw in this bill is that the ethnics
counsellor will be hampered in his ability to provide believable
reports simply because he lacks that independence.
I would like to conclude my statements, Mr. Speaker, by
saying simply that this to me is a broken promise. It is an
opportunity missed. It is regrettable because, among other
things, the red book stated it explicitly. On page 95 it states the
ethics counsellor will report directly to Parliament. Had the
government fulfilled its red book promise in this legislation it
would have been a good response.
(1315)
I know I cannot comment on votes. Therefore I will not say I
regret my amendment was not passed. However, I really
commend the positive parts of this bill but I regret we will not be
able to support it because of these tremendously important flaws
in it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened carefully to everything that has been
said until now during the debate on the lobbyists registration
system and I caught myself thinking that it is quite a paradox
that, on this day, Friday, April 28, the House is at third reading
of a bill which is at the very heart of our democracy while the
government is linked to numerous nepotism and patronage
scandals.
This is really something else. I see that the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands wants to take part in this debate. It is
also a paradox that he is allowed to speak without ever rising
11953
from his seat. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is only through your
kindness that we can hear what he is saying.
I would like to remind the House of the importance of the
lobbying issue. We are not saying that this is an easy question.
We are not saying that this is a trivial issue. We are not saying
that this is a futile issue, because it deals with the degree of
openness the government is ready to allow.
We must remember the words of the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm whose contribution to this debate was so
enlightening.
An hon. member: Enlightening?
Mr. Ménard: Yes, enlightening, and I am weighing my
words. I want everyone to know that, were it not for the
painstaking, relentless and honest work of the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm, this debate would never have reached the
level of honesty, integrity and perceptiveness it has reached in
this House.
All this to say that the lobbying issue, as we all know, is linked
to the willingness of our Parliament to ensure that government
decisions, policies and guidelines are developed in the open. No
wonder the public is asking for such a piece of legislation, for a
tougher law, because the voters generally are much more
interested nowadays in public affairs.
Not only are people more interested in public affairs, but this
reflex of our fellow citizens to want to know who makes the
decisions, on whose behalf they are made and, of course, lastly,
who tries to influence them is a very positive sign, a sign which
we should welcome with great joy. In short, this bill ensures that
all political decisions are taken openly and publicly.
I had a friendly talk a little while ago with the government
whip who is, it must be said, a seasoned parliamentarian, an
experienced parliamentarian. This man, the governement whip,
who is my friend notwithstanding, reminded me that he had
spent 12 years in the opposition, a claim that not all
parliamentarians can make. Remember the fight he waged when
he was in the opposition.
(1320)
I remember seeing him, of course, I was very young then, but
being young is not a life long condition. I remember seeing him
intervene virulently in this House and ask the government,
which of course was Conservative at the time, as we know, to
give Canadian democracy a tougher lobbyists registration act.
What happened in the meantime, since we know that the
government whip and his colleagues have not changed? How did
these people who, when they were in the opposition, fought so
hard for such a bill, come to present such a watered down
version now that they form the government? This is a bill that
could even be called insignificant.
What happened? Of course, the Liberal Party, which is a
continental party, formed the government. As we know, it is
taboo for the Liberals to talk about adopting legislation on
popular financing of political parties even though, for the sake
of fairness, we would have been entitled to expect them to be
logical with themselves. Considering the dynamics of politics,
we can accept that the government would not bow to the wishes
of the opposition, but it is beyond understanding that the
Liberals would go so far as to disown their own past.
It is beyond understanding and saddens us. Of course, we
could argue that the role of the opposition is to criticize, but you
know how the opposition has been responsible, enlightened and
forward looking since October 1993. Finally, we turn to
independent sources to see what is being said of the bill.
I would like to quote someone who is very influential in
Quebec, a journalist-and journalists, like lawyers, command
some respect in our society-an intellectual and a graduate of
ENAP who began to take an interest in questions of
accountability.
Let me quote Gilles Lesage, journalist at Le Devoir. He is a
reporter for Le Devoir, a newspaper that the member for
Kingston and the Islands should read more often. You will
understand that a reporter for Le Devoir has no political
ambitions. His criticism is essential to our democracy. I would
like to read the first five lines, or so, from his article.
Here is what Gilles Lesage, a moderate and respected figure,
had to say. Allow me to quote him particularly for the benefit of
the member for Kingston and the Islands. He said: ``As
well-inspired as it may be, the bill does not even come close to
fulfilling the promises made by the Liberals, even though the
Liberal action plan for Canada was clear on the need to restore
integrity in our parliamentary institutions''.
Mr. Lesage was no doubt referring to the red book and to all
the speeches made by the Liberal Party's big guns during the
election campaign. They talked freely and openly about
democracy, parliamentary integrity and transparency.
But let us go back to what Gilles Lesage had to say. He said,
and I quote: ``The action plan-still talking about the red
book-suggested that Canadians should have the right to meet
with ministers and senior officials or to be represented in their
dealings with the government without having to pay lobbyist
fees. It also promised a code of ethics, the appointment of an
ethics counsellor reporting to Parliament and the
implementation of the Holtmann parliamentary report from
June 1993''.
(1325)
None of this is in this bill, except of course for the code of
ethics. That is why Canadians are disappointed and that is why
our institution is losing its credibility.
11954
The Liberals have always talked from both sides of their
mouth, saying one thing when they are on the opposition side
and something else when they are on the government side. This
runs through the party's history. I could give other examples, but
that is the kind of thing that has done the most damage to our
democracy.
The Bloc Quebecois, being responsible in its role as the
official opposition, has studied this issue with an open mind and
with great interest. I think it is worth reminding my colleague, a
newly elected member who will surely gain a lot of experience
in this House, of the five points proposed by the member for
Berthier-Montcalm who, as we know, did a superlative job on
this issue. He was even quoted by journalist Gilles Lesage, who
wrote: ``Mr. Michel Bellehumeur is suggesting five main
amendments''-I hope the members of government are
listening, especially their whip-``that is: the ethics code should
be recognized as a statutory instrument; the ethics counsellor
should be appointed by the House of Commons, not by the prime
minister; lobbying fees and meetings with ministers and
officials should be divulged; tax deductions for lobbying fees
should be eliminated; and-last but not least-the distinction
between categories of lobbyists should also be eliminated''.
This is an outline of the legitimate claims put forward by the
Bloc Quebecois. For the main part, these claims also appeared in
the red book, which fast became the black book to Canadians.
Yet, all these undertakings did not last beyond the official
opposition's coming to power.
Let us examine each of these points more closely. As regards
the ethics counsellor of course we should remember that the
opposition had acquiesced to the suggestion made by the prime
minister concerning the incumbent. We contributed and
supported that appointment. The problem with the ethics
counsellor is that we would have wanted him, considering the
importance of his position, to be directly accountable to
Parliament. That is neither unreasonable nor unrealistic and it
would not require the government to go against its principles.
Things are done that way in many situations where you want to
give added importance to a certain position and elevate the
debate.
Take for example the Chief Electoral Officer who has to be
appointed by the House on the basis of a large consensus. We
should also recall that in most true parliaments ombudsmen are
appointed by the very parliament to which they are accountable.
Why does the government insist on making the ethics counsellor
work in isolation? Why has the government not taken advantage
of what could have been a genuinely democratic measure and
could have reconciled us immediately with the government,
although momentarily? Why did the government fail to take
advantage of such an auspicious situation by making a true
democratic gesture? We know the answer. In fact, Liberals are
not prepared to do that much in matters of lobbyist registration.
They are certainly not prepared to submit a firm policy
concerning their influence.
(1330)
We would have liked the ethics counsellor to be accountable
to Parliament appointed for a seven-year term, with the
possibility of being reappointed one more time. We would have
liked-which is certainly not trivial nor asking too much-the
ethics counsellor to have much broader enforcement powers
than he now has. As a matter of fact, what is it that is posing a
threat?
Let us take very recent examples of government activities, for
example what happened to the minister of heritage. Despite
being indisputably a noble-hearted man, we must recognize that
he is certainly not the most clever minister in this government.
Between the moment the Prime Minister suggested that his
ethics counsellor be consulted and the moment he advised the
House of this decision, three weeks had gone by.
Let us now consider, Mr. Speaker, what is presently
happening in the Prime Minister's own circle. Of course, in the
last two days, I have come to understand a lot better why the
government is standing up for the family. Recently, I had the
pleasure of tabling a motion, and I had a hard time
understanding why the government was so stubborn. Now I
understand that, when the Liberals talk about defending family
values, they also mean the importance of defending the close
ties between the Prime Minister and his family and friends.
On the whole, the member for Ottawa-Vanier will agree that
this bill has no teeth and would have gained from being
strengthened. In matters of disclosure for instance, the bill
provides for a number of things. A lobbyist must state the role
played in the development of legislative proposals, the
influence used in the tabling of bills, the making or amending of
regulations, the development or amendment of any federal
program, the awarding of grants, etc. There are about seven such
duties.
Why are lobbyists not required to reveal the special ties they
may have with public servants, senior officials and ministers?
The government has trivialized things to such a point that
lobbyists have to declare the department they had dealings with.
As if even the dullest of minds could not guess from the
lobbyists' area of activity with which department they had
dealings.
The government whip, who waged a hard battle in the past, is
now, as the father of psychoanalysis would say, a polymorphous
pervert, which means that he changes form with the debate. How
is it that no minister, no member stood in the House to demand
that lobbyists be required to disclose the names of public
servants, senior officials and ministers that they meet?
Mr. Speaker, in political life, as you know very well since you
are a wise man, there are some tests of truth. The Lobbyists
Registration Act is such a test of truth and we would have
wanted the government to be strong. We would have wanted the
government, for once in this mandate, to not only be strong, but
11955
to work hand in hand with the opposition parties, since this is not
just anything. As a Parliament, as parliamentarians, we could
have built a wonderful consensus which would have allowed us
to send a clear message to the population, saying: ``We, as
parliamentarians, agree that public policies which are our prime
concern may be developed openly and publicly''.
(1335)
In closing, I would like to say how I am disappointed in the
emasculated bill that the government is proposing and how
much better it would have been had the government been
stronger.
It is still time for the government to rally to the arguments of
the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you will certainly agree with me that the hon. member
for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve really understands the problem.
This man has exceptional assessment skills. He made extremely
fair comments on this debate and on certain qualities of the men
and women in this House.
That said, what struck me in the hon. member's speech-and I
think his speech is justified-is that he highlighted the
differences between what government members said when they
were in opposition and what is in Bill C-43 on lobbyists
currently being considered at third reading. Moreover, the
Liberals even tabled in this House the so-called Zed report,
entitled ``Rebuilding Trust''.
Given what I hear from the Liberals, I think the title should be
``Imposing Trust'', because that is what the government is
doing, forcing Canadians and Quebecers to trust this document.
What they have said since taking office 18 months ago is quite
different from what they used to say in opposition.
In closing, I would like to ask the hon. member a question,
which he will surely be happy to answer. How can he explain, as
seriously as possible, the Liberals' shift in policy? What is the
most obvious explanation for this change of heart by, among
others, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
who, when he sat on the opposition side, used to tear his shirt
over this, when there is no trace of these elements in Bill C-43?
How can the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
explain this extraordinary about-face, because the whole issue
of government integrity is an extremely important and serious
matter? How can the hon. member explain this?
Mr. Ménard: This is a difficult question, Mr. Speaker, but I
will try to answer it to the best of my ability.
It should be pointed out first of all that the chief government
whip is not easy to pin down. It is therefore difficult to explain
his about-faces in any great detail. It seems to me, though, that
the answer may lie halfway between human nature and what I
would call corporate pressure.
Perhaps you have already given some thought to the fact that
Quebec is a step ahead in this respect. It certainly is no small
thing that, in a democracy like Quebec, legislation and standards
governing public administration were quickly established to
ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, conflicts of interests
are avoided.
I keep saying that I am the son of a labourer. My father made a
decent living but not a fortune. You do not have to come from a
wealthy family to get into politics, as long as you have an idea to
put across. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, for example, decided we
would rather be funded through personal contributions.
(1340)
For my part, when I ran and was elected to represent the
people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I ran on a $30,000 budget.
This amount was made up of modest contributions by
individuals who wanted me to become their member of
Parliament. The difference between Bloc members and
government members, who are under pressure from various
sources, is that, when I rise in my place, I know that I do not have
to account to a corporate constituency. I know that, whether I
speak on drug patents, the recognition of same sex partners or
the national AIDS strategy, I do so freely, without any
constraints.
But to be able to speak absolutely freely, our election funds
have to be clean and the system must ensure that the ties between
corporate constituents and elected representatives are clear. The
government party, which is made up of honest people for the
most part, exposes itself to criticism because it relies on
corporate financial backers who have interests and attempt to
influence government decisions. That is why it is so difficult to
remain honest and keep one's hands clean in politics without
clear funding arrangements.
I think that party funding and lobbyists registration are issues
that reflect our willingness as parliamentarians to maintain our
independence of mind and action.
Let us face it, with respect to the party financing policy and
the lobbyists registration system, the Liberals are a traditional
party, that is to say a party subject to pressure from the corporate
constituency of this country. Again, it is a shame that the Liberal
Party did not continue to act the way it did in opposition.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member
for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve on his out-of-the-ordinary
performance.
11956
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): I
expected the Liberal members to rise in recognition of the hon.
member's incredible talent, and particularly because of the
appropriateness of his comments. Our colleague provided a very
eloquent answer to the question asked by the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm as to why the Liberal Party, which makes
up this government, is now proposing a bill which is not only
meaningless, but which also contradicts the views expressed by
the Liberals when they were in opposition.
The best possible example is that of the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who, when in opposition,
constantly denounced the Conservative government and fought
tooth and nail to promote integrity. Now, he reminds us of St.
Paul, who was struck and fell off his horse. Indeed, the member
is now supporting a meaningless and toothless legislation, but
one which will allow business to go on as usual. What took place
in this House during the past week is very telling.
Every day this week, during oral question period, the official
opposition and the Reform Party gave examples of shameless
patronage which are in contradiction with the good intentions of
the legislation before us.
(1345)
I would like the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
to comment on the two timing displayed by the Liberals, given
what they were saying when they sat in opposition and what they
are now doing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member has one
minute only to comment.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, you know I always respect my
time limit. I wanted first to point out that the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead looks as tanned as the
Minister of Heritage, so he too might have been to Los Angeles.
Finally, this issue might say something about the Minister of
Industry's importance in the cabinet. I think it also shows the
real influence that minister has. If we were dealing with a
minister with real power within the cabinet, surely the
legislative results would have been different. But it is really not
too late for the Liberals to pull themselves together, and let us
hope that, in the coming hours and days, we will see one last
instance of the confidence that can still drive this government.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I see my remarks will get a warm welcome on the
other side. Earlier today, I listened to comments by members
opposite. I listened intently like I always do. I really wonder if
they are familiar with the bill before us or just with the person
who prepared the notes they read, like good Bloc members who
read the propaganda that is prepared either here, by their local
branch, or by their jead office or even by somebody else.
I also hear some heckling, not to use another word, on the part
of a Reform Party member. He would like to know if I will
address all aspects of the bill. I fully intend to.
[English]
The hon. member of the Reform Party who is anxiously
waiting for me to address particular parts of the bill will need to
be reminded of the document of the Liberal Party known as
``Creating Opportunity''.
Mr. Milliken: The red book.
Mr. Boudria: As the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader and the excellent member for
Kingston and the Islands has just said, it is called the red book.
Yes, it is the red book.
What was promised by the Liberal Party in the red book is
what we are delivering to the people of Canada as we continue
on our very successful program of delivering on our
commitments to the people of Canada. Through the excellent
leadership of the Minister of Industry we are delivering on that
commitment in this third reading debate on Bill C-43.
We promised as a party that we would restore integrity in
government in a general sense. That is exactly what we have
done with the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister. We
said that we would have stricter rules of conduct for lobbyists. I
will get into those details in a minute. We also said that we
would establish rules of conduct for members of Parliament and
senators, and that item is on the Order Paper for debate on
Monday. Immediately when we complete this facet of ethics in
government we will deal with the next part, which is the code of
conduct for MPs and senators.
(1350 )
I am anxiously waiting the support we will get toward
bringing that resolution to a successful conclusion and to start
our work in that regard. If members across the way do not adopt
the motion to start that work, we will have to conclude they do
not want rules of conduct and ethics to apply to them. We will
see about that in a few days.
Mr. Milliken: We will see that on Monday.
Mr. Boudria: As the parliamentary secretary says because he
is charge of such matters, we will see that on Monday.
In the red book we committed ourselves as a party to deal with
the issue of lobbyists. Let us remember how we got the rules that
presently exist for lobbyists. Prior to 1985 there were no rules
for lobbyists. On September 9, 1985 after a number of questions
were asked in the House-and if I do say so myself I asked a
good number of them-the then prime minister decided to
announce a series of measures. Two years later-
11957
Mr. Sauvageau: The Conservatives?
Mr. Boudria: It was a Conservative Prime Minister.
Two years later when that same prime minister had not
produced the rules, we prodded him and finally got a
commitment from the government to establish a parliamentary
committee. That was the Cooper committee.
I sat on that committee. I will claim some responsibility for
some of the recommendations in its report. It was chaired by the
member for Peace River. We arrived at a unanimous report. The
then New Democratic Party member for Nickel Belt, several
Conservative MPs and I under the chairmanship of the member
for Peace River produced a report.
From that report the government produced a bill. That bill is
the law in the country. It was referred to a parliamentary
committee, the Cooper committee. We dealt with it, made some
improvements to it and now it is the law of the land.
One of the clauses that came from the committee was the
sunset clause of sorts on which there would be a review. The
review was to improve on the bill. Pursuant to that we did the
study under the able chairmanship of the member for
Fundy-Royal. We now have before us a bill to amend the
present act. That is how it all came about.
When five years of having the first law were completed or
close to it the government, again at the request of the opposition,
appointed a committee under the leadership of the member for
Selkirk-Interlake, Felix Holtmann, who is in Ottawa; I saw
him 10 or 15 minutes ago. He chaired the committee that
produced a report I have before me today.
[Translation]
The Holtmann committee report was entitled ``A Blueprint
for Transparency: Review of the Lobbyists Registration Act''.
The Liberal Party used that report as the basis for its own red
book.
An hon. member: That is not so.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: A member across the way says that it is not so,
or he is questioning whether it is accurate. I will read to him the
relevant sections of the red book at page 95:
In particular, a Liberal government will appoint an independent Ethics
Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day
application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Ethics Counsellor
will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House
of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.
Are members opposite listening?
Mr. Milliken: Why bother consulting with them? They are
not interested.
Mr. Boudria: As a matter of fact the Prime Minister
consulted with the two opposition parties.
Mr. Milliken: And now they are complaining.
Mr. Boudria: Now they are complaining, as the hon. member
so eloquently said. It continued:
The Ethics Counsellor will be mandated to develop a corresponding code of
conduct for lobbyists-
That is enshrined in the bill before us today.
-and to examine and recommend responses to the ethical and business
practice issues that arise from time to time in government relations. The
Ethics Counsellor will be able to offer guidance to both the lobbyists and their
clients and, if necessary, so that they can judge in advance the acceptability of
any proposed contract or activity.
A Liberal government will give the Ethics Counsellor the power to
investigate complaints and review specific dealings between the government
and lobbyist to ensure that the Code of Conduct is honoured. The Ethics
Counsellor will be available to the Prime Minister to investigate allegations of
impropriety by Cabinet ministers.
(1355)
An hon. member: It is all there.
Mr. Boudria: It is all there. The part dealing with lobbyists is
in the bill, if not more.
The red book went on to state that we would adopt the
recommendations of the Holtmann committee and that is what
we are doing.
[Translation]
So, let me quote from the Holtmann report on which was
based the red book. Listen to what was said about the
independence of the registrar. At the time, the title used was
registrar instead of ethics counsellor. The title recommended by
the Holtmann committee for this position was registrar.
On page 19, the Holtmann report says, and my colleagues may
want to listen carefully and even write this down: ``We listened
with great interest to the arguments presented by these
witnesses'', meaning the witnesses who wanted the registrar to
be placed under the authority of the House of Commons, but
``heard no evidence that the Registrar has been hindered in the
execution of her duties. Nevertheless, we are anxious that both
the excellent performance and the public reputation of the
Registrar be maintained. We feel that this can best be
accomplished by giving the Registrar an increased measure of
independence and additional authority to report on matters
pertaining to the Act. Apart from the obvious benefit of reducing
the possibility of political interference, this would allow the
Registrar to comment on deficiencies and problems with the
operation of the Act. Therefore, the committee
recommends-listen to this-that the Registrar be appointed by
the Governor
11958
in Council-in other words by the Prime Minister and the
cabinet, and get this-subject to the approval of a committee of
Parliament''.
There you go. It is already provided for in the Standing Orders
of the House of Commons. As you can see, the complaints and
the lamentations that we heard earlier today from the members
opposite-
Mr. Milliken: The moaning and groaning!
Mr. Boudria: The moaning and groaning, it is nothing but a
show.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Milliken: That is what it is.
Mr. Boudria: Absolutely. It is nothing but a show. The
members opposite got what they asked for and, indeed, what had
been promised to Canadians. As usual, the Liberal government
is determined to keep its promise to the people of Canada.
Mr. Milliken: As always!
Mr. Boudria: As always, as the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands so rightly said. So we have not diluted our
commitment in any way as alleged by the opposition critic, the
member for Berthier-Montcalm. He said earlier today that we
have lenient rules. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The member
has certainly not heard the Minister of Industry, who said in this
House today that we have the strictest rules of all the countries
in the world.
Some hon. members: In the world.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we will shortly be having a
question and comments period, and I would invite the member
for Berthier-Montcalm, in the preamble to the question he will
no doubt ask, to tell us what other jurisdiction has stricter rules
for lobbyists than are found in Bill C-43 before us. I invite him
to list the countries for us. It will not take him long-there are
none. I am familiar with the situation in the United States. There
are absolutely none there. In the United States, only dealings
between a lobbyist and a legislator are recorded. No record is
kept for a member of the executive, or even for staff member or
even for the highest government official in the country. Only in
the case of a conversation or other communication with a
legislator, not a member of the executive.
In the United States, there is no record either of lobbyists
costs, unlike what we will have here in certain controversial
cases, as the minister indicated so well. In the United States,
only the honoraria of foreign lobbyists are recorded when they
lobby in the United States and only when foreign interests are
concerned.
(1400)
I went to Washington with the committee, I saw what was
being done there and I invite the members opposite to get their
facts straight on this matter. I was, I humbly point out, the only
parliamentarian to take part in the Cooper and Holtmann
committes. The member opposite claims to have become an
expert on the issue after spending some months on a
parliamentary committee-and the Bloc Quebecois even
switched its critic mid-way through. I do not question the hon.
member's competence.
An hon. member: No, he is very competent.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Boudria: But he must not lay claim to a monopoly on
insight into this kind of thing, because I have been working on
this matter for close to ten years now. I think I can safely claim
to know at least as much as he does.
I know that the opposition is quite upset about the issue. They
see that in a few minutes we may vote in a new law which will
strengthen the great confidence that the Canadian population
already has in its government. The Liberals have been working
like they always have on this issue, and that is what we intend to
continue doing, that is what we promised and that is what we, as
the government, will indeed do.
A little earlier, I heard the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm talk about what he called the Liberal
government's flexible conscience. Now, this is from people who
got themselves elected under the separatist banner, calling
themselves moderate separatists during the election campaign.
They called themselves strong separatists in separatist ridings,
and moderate separatists in those that were not. But, once they
got elected and came to Parliament, they all threw out those
principles and became militant separatists. Now, all of a sudden,
the leader of their party decides to champion a form of federalist
separatism. Look closely at what the members opposite have
done. Separation with Canadian passports, Canadian currency
and a federal Parliament. That is what some members opposite
start calling separatism when they see that their agenda is going
nowhere.
So, we are now dealing with federalist separatists and
separatist separatists across the way. But now, we must know
whether the separatists-
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, allow me to invoke the rule of
relevancy because we cannot see where the government whip's
allegations are leading and what is the link with Bill C-43.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The rule of relevancy is
very difficult to apply. It is extremely flexible. I listened
carefully to all the speeches, on both sides of the House, and I
believe that, to a large extent, the debate has been very relevant.
I would ask the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to
conclude his remarks.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member for
Berthier-Montcalm was quite right to talk about the flexibility
of one's conscience; I suppose that he is quite angry at his
11959
colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for claiming that to
talk about such a topic, as his colleague did, was against the
rules.
I believe that he is going to get an earful from his colleague
after questions and comments. I agree with the member for
Berthier-Montcalm in this matter. I am sure that he was right to
raise this issue. In fact, this is why I am answering. Since he was
not called to order by the Speaker when he raised the issue, it
means that he was abiding by the rules.
Mr. Bellehumeur: This is too much!
Mr. Boudria: No. Members across are not in a position to be
sanctimonious. This is certainly not the right time for them to
vow political chastity. Just think of what was happening recently
between the local branch here and the head office in Quebec.
One wonders which brand of separation will be preached. Is it
the federalist one of the local branch manager in Ottawa, that is
the Leader of the Opposition, or the separatist one in Quebec?
Which one will prevail in the debate?
(1405)
It now seems the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is slightly ahead
of his provincial colleague. We will see, in the near as well as
distant future. In any case, whichever brand of separation, it will
still be separation. It is like ice cream. The flavour might be
slightly different, it is still ice cream. In this case, however, the
product has soured and the public will not buy it.
In conclusion, I will repeat that we have here an excellent bill
which was introduced by a minister who really did his
homework and which was studied by an extremely competent
parliamentary committee. That committee, through its majority
members, delivered what we promised in the red book and went
even further on some points.
I support their work entirely. I am convinced that this is a
good bill. As the Minister of Industry indicated, it is a
legislation which has the strictest national requirements in the
world. Yes I must repeat it. It is not my fault if such are the facts.
Nonetheless, it is still the truth.
[English]
I welcome questions from my colleagues across the way on
this bill. I welcome in advance their support if they do want
stricter rules for lobbyists. We will find out in very short order
whether that is really what they want or if all they want to do is
complain and not really do anything.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am really disappointed to see the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell laughing about such an
important issue as Bill C-43, an Act to amend the Lobbyists
Registration Act, confusing everything and saying almost
nothing about the bill itself.
The member talked about sovereignty, about all kinds of
issues, about the leaders of the sovereignist forces in Quebec,
about almost everything except for the real issue, the one
concerning lobbyists. As for sovereignty, during the referendum
period, in Quebec, the member will come and talk about the
great policies of the stuffed beavers over there. He will come in
Quebec and talk about that. However, today's debate is on Bill
C-43.
Bill C-43 is a most important bill, and I find it strange that the
member has nothing to say about it. I will ask him a few
questions but first, I want to make a comment. He
underestimated the work done by the committee. He said that the
members claimed they alone knew the truth because they had
heard witnesses during six months. That is not true, Mr. Speaker.
I am not alone in knowing the truth. I only report to the House
what I have heard during the hearings of the committee.
I report to the House what witnesses, taxpayers and voters
said to the committee about what they would like to see in Bill
C-43. I think that the member underestimates the work that has
been done, and that is most regrettable.
There are two very important points in this bill. There are
many others, but what is important is not what is in the bill.
There are, in particular, a couple of points concerning the ethics
code and the appointment of the ethics counsellor.
I will read two clauses to the member opposite who suggested
that this bill is a model of openness and absolutely the best
legislation of its type anywhere in the world, that they are the
smartest, the most clever and the boldest in their proposal. Why,
then, does the bill clearly state that the counsellor's
investigations should remain secret, hidden behind the closed
doors of the federal government? We are not allowed to know
what is going on behind those closed doors. Why does the bill
specify that the code of ethics is not a statutory instrument for
the purposes of the statutory instruments act? Are they afraid
that the public will initiate legal proceedings to have the code
enforced?
(1410)
Are they afraid of civil suits? How do you explain section 10.5
of the bill, which says that ``the Ethics Counsellor shall prepare
a report of the investigation, including the findings, conclusions
and reasons for the Ethics Counsellor's conclusions''? We insist
on having a reasoned report. The ethics counsellor would never
tell us how he came to these conclusions.
It is the same with a judge's decision. It is by reading the
decision that you know if the judge's findings are right or wrong.
We will not have this information because the legislation is
made especially for the friends of the government, those who
contribute to the Liberal Party's election fund. They do not want
us to know how the ethics counsellor came to his conclusions.
They do not want us to know how the ethics counsellor really
judges a minister, senior official or anyone else working for the
11960
government machine. No, instead they introduce a bill that
makes no sense.
I would say to the hon. member that he should have been
embarrassed to speak today about Bill C-43. I would have been,
knowing that I had signed the Holtmann report, which
recommended taking measures that are 10 times stronger and
more comprehensive than those in the bill before us.
He was a member of the Holtmann committee, he signed the
report regarding the tier system for lobbyists and disclosure, and
we are not even doing one-tenth of what the Holtmann report
recommended. I would be embarrassed to flaunt that today. I
would also be embarrassed to hold up a book, claiming that it is
still red. Those small red books may all have come out of the
same press, but not two are identical. At least in the version of
the book they used during the election campaign they were
committed to implementing the recommendations of the
Holtmann report.
An hon. member: Promises, promises.
Mr. Bellehumeur: It was an election promise. Today, their
other small red book called ``Rebuilding Trust'' has nothing to
do with that and would have been better named ``Breach of
Trust''. It does not even go one tenth of the way, and that is
disgraceful. I would be embarrassed if I were him.
I would like him to explain to me why the contents of Bill
C-43 do not jive with the Holtmann report. Let him explain, if
he has the courage to and if he even knows, because he has
hardly been to two or three meetings in the last six months. And
today, he thinks he can teach me something. No, there is
definitely something wrong with this picture.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to
apologize to the hon. member opposite for the fact that, since
then, I became the government whip. During the period when
discussions on the bill started and were finally concluded, I had
the honour and the privilege-
Mr. Sauvageau: To abandon ship.
Mr. Boudria: I do not think that becoming the government
whip of one's country means abdicating one's responsibilities,
as the hon. member opposite inferred. If some day he manages to
get this kind of job, perhaps he will understand. And if he does, I
might remind him of what he said today.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I hope not.
An hon. member: The opposition will be in bad shape.
Mr. Boudria: It certainly will if it happens to be him.
The Holtmann committee submitted a good report. For
instance, all those who had to register, it is all there in the
Holtmann report. Disclosure of information as well. Today's
proposals on administration, implementation and enforcement
of the legislation are even stricter than what was recommended
in the Holtmann report.
Look at what the report recommended, for instance, regarding
the creation of a professional association and a code of ethics for
lobbyists. It said lobbyists should immediately set up a
professional association with a code of ethics. We go even
further than that. The ethics counsellor himself will draw up a
code of ethics on behalf of the lobbyists. We want it to be even
stricter.
The person in charge, the public official, will do this himself,
and I am referring to the person who will have this
quasi-judicial role to play. He will have that authority. In this
bill we have gone even further than the Holtmann report, which
was already a good report.
(1415)
We went farther than the current legislation. There were three
stages. We started with the existing legislation, improved it with
the Holtmann report, improved it in the red book, improved it
further with the report entitled ``Rebuilding Trust'' and
improved it again today with Bill C-43.
We had the benefit of the wisdom of the members opposite,
because we even adopted some of their recommendations with
regard to their amendments, which we voted on a few days ago.
We were proud to do so, because this is what we want, and I hope
this is what the hon. members opposite want as well. We want
the most practical bill, nevertheless, the best possible, by
reconciling everything that needs reconciling so that what we
put forward is more than just fancy theories. We have a good bill
and we will have the best, when the members opposite decide to
let their colleagues vote so we can get on with this matter, which
is important for lobbyists, the government and the people of
Canada, who elected this government on its agenda, on its red
book.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very
brief. I will simply say that I appreciate the work the hon.
member did with respect to lobbyists during the time he was in
opposition. He was a good, hard working member and he said a
lot of wise things. I wish that his government had followed some
of his advice.
I would like to refer to what I call the Liberals' red ink book of
broken promises. At page 94 of the red book, under ``The Public
Trust'', it says: ``Nine years of Conservative government have
brought our political process into disrepute. A Liberal
government will restore public trust and confidence in
government.'' Wonderful. Those are nice words. ``We will
regulate the activities of lobbyists by appointing an ethics
counsellor''. They have done it. Great. It continues: ``We will
reform the pension plan of members of Parliament''. For
everybody who was here before 1988 it is the same old trough.
``We will give more power to individual MPs by providing more
free votes and more authority for parliamentary committees''.
That is not happening. ``And we will establish strict guidelines
for merit in government
11961
appointments''. We have lists and lists of appointments on
everything other than merit.
I would like to ask the hon. member to respond to this,
because this is very serious. I believe that their commitment is
honourable, but they are not following through. I would like the
hon. member to explain it. He was involved in the reports in the
past that made this recommendation. I am reading from page 95:
``In particular, a Liberal government will appoint an
independent ethics counsellor''. He referred to that in his
speech. I would ask him to describe how the present
appointment mechanism established in Bill C-43 via the Prime
Minister and the submission of reports via the registrar general
to the House reflects an independence, which is so necessary.
It continues: ``The ethics counsellor will be appointed after
consultation''. Great. But it says here explicitly: ``-will report
directly to Parliament''. That is not happening. The hon.
member needs to explain that.
The Liberal government says that it will implement the
unanimous June 1993 report; that is the Holtmann report. I
cannot give the House the details, but if I had the time I would
list two specifics in the Holtmann report that were not
implemented. The removal of the tiers was an explicit Holtmann
report recommendation. That is not in this bill. The
anti-avoidance schemes were specific in the Holtmann report,
but not in here.
I would like the hon. member to respond as to why the
government is not doing those things.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have two points. First, I thank
the hon. member for his questions. They were indeed very
pertinent and I would like to respond to them. I know the hon.
member has been very diligent in his work on this.
I would like to suggest a comparison. The Minister of
Industry also has reporting to him, albeit nominally, because he
works independently, the director of investigation and research.
That person investigates what we formerly called the combines
investigation and so on. Does anyone ever say that the person
who does that judicial function, because he reports nominally to
the minister, who then tables his report in the House, is
somehow tainted by the fact that he reports to the minister? I do
not think anyone has ever said that.
(1420)
I do not know why anyone would say that a report delivered by
the ethics counsellor to the minister in his capacity as registrar
general, which is then tabled by the minister in the House, is
somehow tainted. The member across will surely know that is
not the case.
With regard to the tiers or the categories, I want to outline
something for members across and indeed to all Canadians who
might read Hansard. I cannot discuss watching TV; that would
be inappropriate.
The federations of agriculture and other organizations came
to testify before us. They told us that the governments consult
them, and because the governments consult them, the new and
stricter requirements that we will be imposing on the contract
type of lobbyist should not apply to them, that it is in fact unfair
to them.
If the member wants to say that we should give far more
bureaucratic type of work to be done by the dairy commissions
or the dairy councils, the federations of agriculture, the milk
committees, and groups like that, let him say that, if he wants to
impose those kinds of onerous requirements of the kind that we
are placing on contract lobbyists.
An hon. member: He didn't even move those as amendments.
Mr. Boudria: No one even moved amendments to that effect.
Because we are making the requirements so strict for others,
that is why those things in there cannot be applied to groups like
the federation of agriculture in my riding, or the milk
committee.
I will be meeting with the milk committee from
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell next week, Mr. Speaker, and you
are invited to attend the meeting. All three milk committees are
uniting at St-Isidore-de-Prescott in my riding. I will be meeting
with their executive next week. That is a lobbying activity. They
have asked to see me in order to lobby me on a very important
issue.
This is not a joke. The dairy producers in my riding, who feel
these issues are very important to them and lobby their member,
think this is pretty serious stuff. They do not want to have
imposed on them the same kinds of requirements we would
impose on a guy like Frank Moores. I do not even know if he is
still working, but Mr. Moores, in the heyday of his Tory
lobbying, would have had, under these rules, the same kind of
requirement as l'Association des producteurs laitiers du comté
de Russell.
[Translation]
I do not think I would put these groups on the same footing
with regard to disclosure. If the members opposite think that is
the right way, let them say so.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hope and trust that I read
the mood of the House correctly when I allowed the question and
comment period to go a little bit longer than the period normally
allows for. Following that, we have approximately five minutes
left to this day. Do we in fact want to continue and allow the
member for Skeena to take the floor, or are there other
suggestions?
11962
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask
that you seek unanimous consent to simply continue the debate
with the present member? I would appreciate that. I think it
would be useful because of his experience and wisdom in this.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House is the master
of its own destiny. It is by unanimous consent, with the
understanding that the day will end at 2.30 p.m.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm has the floor on a
point of order.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the
five minutes are in order to finish, only five minutes.
As for the rest, regarding the wisdom of the hon. member, I
cannot say I quite agree, but that is another matter. However, as
regards unanimous consent, you have it for five minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I have understood
everyone, we will still adjourn at the time agreed upon, that is, at
2.30 p.m., but we will continue with a period of questions and
comments for the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
[English]
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this.
The member indicated that there were no amendments to
remove the tiers. I want to inform him that in fact one of our
amendments at report stage dealt with exactly that issue, and it
was turned down. That has happened here.
(1425)
The member did not adequately explain how the
independence of the ethics counsellor is achieved through the
present system. When we compare it to the independence of the
auditor general, there is quite a difference. Certainly in the
perception of the people there is a large problem if the ethics
counsellor is investigating an issue that deals with the registrar
general. In that instance, the ethics counsellor would be doing an
investigation and reporting to the very member he is
investigating and then through him to the House. There is a
perception of not having adequate independence. I want the hon.
member's response to that. This is not adequate.
Mr. Boudria: First, Mr. Speaker, let us establish one thing.
The nature of dealing with lobbyists is not in itself judicial. One
might argue it is quasi-judicial. We do not start off with the
premise that someone who is being investigated has committed
a crime. This is not at the same level. The member would
understand that first premise. I am sure he does.
We do not start off with the premise that anyone who is before
the body in question has committed some sort of wrongdoing. In
fact the ethnics counsellor will be producing the rules to govern
these people, the code of conduct, providing advice to them. If a
lobbyist is deciding whether or not a particular lobbying activity
is ethical, he will be able to consult the ethics counsellor and so
on. That is the first proposition.
The second proposition is that the member has said that I have
not convinced him why someone who reports nominally through
a minister for a report to be tabled in the House would be
independent. I have to turn it right around on its head and say he
has not proven that he is not. He has far from made that proof.
I gave the example of the director of investigation and
research, who does work in regard to dealings in the corporate
sector, and how if groups are guilty of collusion, price fixing,
and so on, these people are investigated.
There are administrative tribunals involving international
trade that report through a minister to the House. None of the
pension tribunals report directly to the Speaker of Parliament.
Does the veterans pensions appeal board report directly to the
Speaker? Of course not. It reports through the minister to the
House. Does anyone say that all these people are tainted,
incompetent, and that their judgment is biased? I do not think so.
What about all the other administrative tribunals? Does anyone
make that allegation?
There is an interesting point. One minister has as his task to
report the estimates of the CRTC in this House: the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. Because that minister passed a complaint
on, without even a recommendation, referred a letter from a
constituent, that was brought on the floor of the House as saying
that this body is quite independent, even though it reports to the
minister. If that is true, that a person reporting through the
minister had previously, according to the same people asking the
questions today, always been independent, how is it that this job
of being the administrator of these rules will never be
independent? How can that be? Obviously it is wrong. Their
judgment is incorrect.
I say that even though the person reports to a minister of the
crown, the person is not a police officer or a judge of the
Supreme Court. He administers rules of ethics. There are two
facets to it: one involves lobbyists reporting through the
minister to the House; the other one is reporting the conduct of
ministers to the Prime Minister. The reason for that, of course, is
we operate under the principle of responsible government.
With the indulgence of my colleagues, may I end with this
comment? What if we had a system pertaining to the conduct of
ministers where the Prime Minister was not responsible?
11963
If the Prime Minister answered questions saying: ``Do not ask
me. There is an independent officer investigating this'', what we
would hear from the opposition was: ``Prime Minister, you are
the boss. You appointed these people. You are the one who is
supposed to administer discipline''. In other words, the
opposition would turn it around. Its members would say quite
correctly that we live under a system of responsible government
and the buck has to stop with the person in charge.
Those are the two functions that person will have to
administer, one closer to a judicial role and the other something
where the ultimate responsibility has to lie with the Prime
Minister. Those are the two functions that the person will have
according to my understanding of the job. That is the important
thing for us to remember.
I hope this legislation will be passed expeditiously and that
we have better rules of conduct not for us in this bill-we will
have those too, some other time-but a better code of conduct
for lobbyists for the betterment of the whole country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to thank everyone
for their co-operation. It is most enjoyable to finish on a
co-operative note at the end of the week.
It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)