Mr. Keeper:
The letter is gone.
Mr. Andre:
He just indicated that he sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since it is not a Governor General appointment, but an appointment by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, perhaps he should address the request to the appropriate person. I have already answered orally that I would certainly consider such a request.
July 25, 1988
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last Friday the Minister met with civic representatives, union leaders, and myself in Glace Bay to discuss the closure of the Highlands Fisheries plant in Glace Bay, thereby putting 310 individuals out of employment.
The Minister gave an undertaking to the gathering that he would have conversations with the president of Clearwater, Mr. John Risley, to secure from him undertakings, hopefully written undertakings, as to the future of this particular plant, and more important as to when the hiring of the 310 employees will be resumed. The Minister gave a date of August 1, 1988.
I ask the Minister to respond as to whether or not that date has been firmed up and the plant will open on August 1.
Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister is intent on having Clearwater live up to the commitment that he is looking for from the company. The Minister visited Nova Scotia on Friday with the purpose of having that plant reopened in order that the workers could return to their jobs. That was specifically undertaken for that reason. The Minister has no reason to look for anything but a concrete plan from the company. That is why it has an enterprise allocation and access to inshore fish.
Mr. Speaker:
This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that response. I wish to remind him that it was a Clearwater representative who said to the community that there was no fish available. Subsequent to the meeting on Friday with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in the darkness of night a ship arrived in port with 30,000 pounds of fish. As a result there has been a blockade of Highlands Fisheries by employees in Glace Bay.
In view of the fact that 310 employees are out of employment, in view of the fact that the Minister has given the community an undertaking, would the Hon. Member not give this House an undertaking that he will return later in the day and give us a status report on what is taking place at the Highlands Fisheries Ltd. plant, in other words, whether the Minister has received written undertakings to open this plant on August 1, 1988?
Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister is following the situation very closely. He has asked the company to keep in mind the
Lobbyists Registration Act
concerns of the workers, and hopefully the 310 workers will be back to work in the near future.
The Minister has a few cards that he can play in this matter, and he is following it on an hour-to-hour basis. I am sure he will use whatever means he can to help the workers return to their jobs.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved
that Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to the House today during third reading of Bill C-82, the proposed Lobbyists Registration Act. It is an important step toward the establishment of a lobbyists' register.
In September, 1985, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced this initiative as part of public sector ethics. Soon after, a discussion paper, Lobbying and the Registration of Paid Lobbyists, was tabled in the House and was referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. Early last year, the committee presented a unanimous report that recommended the establishment of a lobbyists' registration system. Bill C-82, which I tabled in June, 1987, is faithful to the spirit of the standing committee's recommendations.
From the start there have been four guiding principles in the development of a lobbyist registration system. First, openness. A registry should allow the public and public office holders to know who is making representations to Government, giving transparency to the public's relations with Governments. Second, clarity. It should be clear who is required to register and who is not. Third, access to Government. The requirements of a registry system should not impede access to Government by the public. Fourth, administrative simplicity. Administrative processes should be kept to a minimum so that the purpose of the program is fulfilled without imposing an administrative burden on those affected by it.
It was not an easy task to put these four principles in one package. Some seem at odds with others, but I believe the Bill remains true to its principles.
The proposed registry has two levels or "tiers". Tier I lobbyists are professional third party lobbyists who represent clients to Government. We know them as government relations consultants, lawyers, and accountants. A Tier I lobbyist would be required to disclose his or her name and business address and, if applicable, the name of his or her firm. In addition, this lobbyist would disclose the name and address of the client, and
July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
if that client were a corporation, the names and addresses of the clients parents and subsidiaries. Finally, the subject matter of the lobbying activity would also have to be disclosed.
Tier II lobbyists are often called "in-house lobbyists". They are employees of corporations or organizations who, as a significant part of their duties, lobby on behalf of their employers. Because the interests behind those lobbyists are more readily apparent than in the case of Tier I lobbyists who have an arm's length relationship with their clients, Tier II lobbyists are required to disclose only their names and the names and addresses of their employers. In both cases, the onus is upon the lobbyist to register, not the client or the employer.
Mr. Speaker, although a two-tier system was not part of the recommendations of the Standing Committee, as the Hon. Members for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) felt obliged to remind me, we believe the system is better suited to reflect the principles I mentioned just now. Furthermore, it contributes to administrative simplicity without sacrificing openness.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to a two-tier system, disclosure requirements will be more straightforward for most lobbyists, and registration will consequently be easier to administer. It is important that the system should not become an administrative burden, either for those who have to register or for the Government, or become a maze of red tape for those seeking to obtain information.
The Lobbyists Registration Act is a very solid proposal for a registry. It will provide the information needed so that the public as well as public office holders can find out who is making representations to Government. In a democratic society, the ability to find out who is lobbying is as important as the ability to lobby. This system requires only as much information as is necessary to identify who is lobbying for whom and, in Tier I, on what subject. The registry will not be burdensome for lobbyists to comply with or for the Government to administer. The amendments made by the legislative committee have improved the Bill in terms of the clarity of what is or is not lobbying, and who is or is not a lobbyist. I am pleased to put this Bill before you for final consideration.
Over the past weeks and months we have discussed and debated the who, what, why and how of the lobbyist registration system. I hope today that Hon. Members opposite will agree that the when is now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
On debate, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I may say it is a pleasure to finally have
an opportunity to rise in the House and speak to the Bill respecting the registration of lobbyists.
The subject has been discussed for quite sometime. The House will recall that the first legislation in the United States was introduced an passed in 1946. So it would be inaccurate to say the Conservative Government invented the wheel in this respect.
The first Bill in Canada concerning the registration of lobbyists was tabled in 1969 by then Member of Parliament Mr. Barry Mather. The second Bill was tabled in 1974 by a Liberal Member, Mr. Ken Robinson, Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore at the time.
In 1976, the late Walter Baker also tabled a Bill. In 1985, our colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), tabled another bill to register lobbyists, and finally, also in 1985, the former Member for St. John's East, now His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, tabled a Bill on the registration of lobbyists in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that the Conservative Government was elected largely on its promise to abolish patronage.
It is important to remember this mandate that the Government gave itself in 1984 during the election campaign. The Conservatives talked about the patronage, and they said that if elected they would reform the system. They said that they would reform the system of political appointments. They talked about the fact that, in their view, things could be done in a better way. Well, Canadians believed the Leader of the Conservative Party during the election campaign. After the election, Canadians became disillusioned by the Conservative Leader-who became the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) after the election-because he did not live up to the promises that he had made to the people of Canada.
You will remember that this Government was criticized by the Opposition, and rightfully so I might add, in a non-partisan way, of course, by members of the Opposition and by the Canadian people, the media, editorial writers and so on, for the way in which it was dealing with the issues involving public sector ethics.
On September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister decided that he had had it with scandals, with things going wrong in his Government, and he presented himself in the House of Commons and made an impassioned speech for reforming the public sector ethics that he had allowed to decay under his leadership, gave us a speech and a package of documents wrapped in a nice blue ribbon, although blue ribbons are very seldom nice. He asked a Page to table it right here on the table of the Clerk of the House of Commons. He sent a letter to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Leader of the NDP Party (Mr. Broadbent), to all MPs and Senators, and gave instructions to his Ministers. In this speech of September 9, 1985, and in an open letter to MPs and Senators, the Prime
July 25, 1988
Minister promised a new conflict of interest code. He promised another one after that, but he did offer us a new code on that day. He offered instructions to Ministers, imposing limitations on the hiring of family members. We know that some of his colleagues in Cabinet had appointed sons and daughters and cousins and in-laws, and all sorts of relations, to various positions. He wrote a letter to the opposition Leaders concerning the ethical standards for MPs and Senators. He established an experimental program for parliamentary scrutiny of Governor in Council appointments. He said at that time that we would have a system of registration of lobbying activity. Now, what he said is very important. I will repeat it. He said, and I quote from point five, dealing with the registration of lobbying activity, not that we would just register lobbyists, not that we would just register lobbying, he said that we would register lobbying activity. I see my friend from Nickel Belt is paying very close attention to this, because he and I are very interested in the registration of lobbying activity.
I want to read to you from page 9 of this letter. It is a very long letter that the Prime Minister sent to Members of Parliament. I guess the Prime Minister had a lot to think about on the weekend before that. He wrote long letters to MPs.
He knew what he wanted.
Mr. Boudria:
On page 9, he said:
The fifth component of this comprehensive approach to public sector ethics is the undertaking of this Government to introduce into the House of Commons, at an early date, legislation to monitor lobbying activity and to control the lobbying process by providing a reliable and accurate source of information on the activities of lobbyists. We will require, among other things, paid lobbyists to register and identify their clients.
This will enable persons who are approached by lobbyists for Canadian corporations, associations and unions, and by agents on behalf of foreign governments and other foreign interests, to be clearly aware of who is behind the representation.
I repeat that part: "Who is behind the representation". I see that you are paying very close attention to this, Mr. Speaker. I will read further:
1 have accordingly asked my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to prepare, on an urgent basis, legislation to govern lobbying activity.
I did place emphasis on certain key words in there, and you will see why. I want to read a little further from this letter of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does have a pretty mean pen sometimes, and it is important for us to be fully apprised of what it is that he has told us. On page 10, he states:
This initiative should not be misinterpreted to mean that this Government is aware of particular improprieties in the conduct of lobbyists or that it considers lobbying to be an inappropriate activity. On the contrary, the practice of lobbying plays an important role in ensuring that governments, in taking the decisions which affect the lives of all of us, are able to take properly into account the multitude of diverse interests involved. This Government is simply saying that something so important should not be shrouded in mystery.
It was said by the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Lobbyists Registration Act
I thought that the Government was going to introduce on an urgent basis legislation to govern lobbying activity. I believed the Prime Minister, which I suppose is the first mistake. I believed he was going to do what he said he would. I know it is extremely unfair to quote the Prime Minister, using his own words, but I am doing it anyway so that all Canadians will understand that we were not quite given the merchandise that we were promised. I would be the last person to say that this Government broke a promise, because, of course, I am nonpartisan. Nevertheless some of us, shall we say, have been somewhat disappointed that the Prime Minister let us down one more time.
I want to apprise you, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that a number of Canadians have not been satisfied with the actions of the Government as they pertain to lobbyists. We on this side of the House wanted to agree to a degree with the Prime Minister when he said that there was nothing wrong per .ye with the profession of being a lobbyist or with partaking in lobbying. There is nothing wrong with someone being a lobbyist and making representation to the Government on behalf of a labour union, on behalf of a corporation, on behalf of the Coalition on Acid Rain , on behalf of Campaign Life or on behalf of anyone else. That is okay. One can lobby for that. If Jean Bazin wanted to lobby to get a position in the Senate, that is okay too. I do not object to that. I thank the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) for reminding me that people have lobbied for a Senate position from time to time. Perhaps Senator Michel Cogger may have done it. Perhaps Senator Jean Bazin, who is a close friend of the Prime Minister, may have done that. It could be that people have lobbied for Senate positions. That is not illegal nor should it be. People have a right to make a representation to the Government for anything which they feel is important.
Canadians have a right to know who is doing what to whom. If, for instance, Mr. Speaker, you and I worked for the Coalition on Acid Rain we would want to know what that giant corporate entity has done in the way of lobbying the Government. If were lobbying for the Coalition on Acid Rain we would want to know if Inco had lobbied against emission standards. If we were lobbying for Campaign Life we would want to know what the pro-choice group has been lobbying for in the area of the abortion debate which will start tomorrow. We have a right to know these things. I suggest that we have a better form of government when all these activities are in the public domain.
The Government did not initially deliver on the merchandise. As I indicated a while ago, the Government, instead of delivering the Bill that it promised, on December 19, 1985, gave us a White Paper on lobbying. That White Paper, a very thick document, was tabled in the House and everyone looked at the White Paper on Lobbying and asked what it was for. The Prime Minister promised us some legislation on an urgent basis. Remember what I said a while ago when I was quoting
July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker? Three months later this urgent basis had been forgotten because we got a White Paper which discussed the pros and cons of registering lobbyists. How could we discuss the pros and cons of registering lobbyists when the Prime Minister had made a solemn promise? A solemn promise is like a sacred trust, you cannot breach it. Surely the Prime Minister would know you do not breach sacred trust. He has had to deal with that issue before, and I think he found out the hard way that when you make a solemn promise you are supposed to live up to it.
1 do not want to digress from the main topic at hand here, but we were disappointed that the Prime Minister did not bring his lobbying Bill at that time. In any case, that was December 19, 1985 and there was still no Bill. The White Paper itself was shelved for five months.
Finally in April, 1986, after a few more scandals, a few more trouble spots for the Government, the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure was mandated by the House to study the report on the registration of lobbyists. On that committee we had the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), other government Members and myself. We had, I think, a very good non-partisan study of the possibility of registering lobbyists. We studied this issue here in Canada. Then we went to Washington and to Sacramento, California. Those are two jurisdictions which have a system of registering lobbyists. We looked at their systems and identified the strengths and weaknesses of each one. For instance, the weakness of the system in Washington was that one was only deemed to be a lobbyist if one were lobbying an elected person. If one were lobbying an unelected official, say the executive assistant or chief of staff of a legislator, one did not have to register. Obviously that was a tremendous weakness in the system. If one is lobbying Government, whether it be a Member of Parliament, my executive assistant, my constituency assistant or the chief of staff of a cabinet Minister or even a Deputy Minister, one is still lobbying the Government. Obviously one should have to register the very same.
On the other hand, when we studied the system in California we found that it really asked for a lot in the way of detail. As a matter of fact it asked for so much that the system actually became buried in itself. Lobbyists there, I believe, have to register not only the lobbying activity but the fees they were charging, which I kind of like, but there was much detail, such as having to file with the registrar each month every invoice of every expense over $10 or something like that. It means that if a person went to the restaurant and spent $12.50, that person had to get a bill so he or she could put it with the expense account and file it at the end of the month. Can you imagine lobbyists filing into the state legislature at Sacramento with a great big box full of invoices and stuff at the end of every month so they could prove to the person in charge of registering lobbyists that they had not exceeded the amounts in every category and so on for that month? That kind of a system,
needless to say, would be a bureaucratic nightmare. There is no way we would want to hire a group of people to administer that. It would be costly and because it would ask for so much information, the information we were looking for would probably be buried in some other information and we would end up knowing nothing at all. That is not what we wanted.
So our committee made a good and strong recommendation and prepared a report which we tabled in this House. The report which the committee tabled asked the Government to have a system of registering lobbyists. Some members of the committee, and I think I would be fair in saying it was the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and myself, would have wanted to register the fees and disbursements of lobbyists-in any case the fees of lobbyists, but some of the government Members felt that was to onerous, particularly in the beginning.
In an effort to obtain a consensus of all political Parties we agreed that for the time being we would not ask for the registering of the fees and disbursements of lobbyists so long as we got the name of the lobbyist, the name of the lobbying firm, the name of the company or organization which paid for the lobbying activity and the subject matter of the activity as well as the name of the person or governmental organization which they were lobbying. That was, in fact, what we were looking for initially. Our recommendations also proposed after a period of some years that we review the system with the possibility of increasing the requirements on lobbyists at that time. With that review included in our recommendations we went along. However, we did recommend as well, and I will now read from our recommendations:
[Translation)
I read the following recommendation: We recommend prohibiting lobbyists from accepting from their clients any remuneration connected in any way with the results of lobbying. This simply means, Mr. Speaker, that it is prohibited or should be prohibited, according to the unanimous report of the parliamentary committee, that a lobbyist be able to demand fees based on results. For instance, if I am a lobbyist, I cannot go to a client and say: That will be $1,000 for lobbying, and $10,000 as a bonus if I get results. We say that should be prohibited. In any case, I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that in some provinces lawyers are not allowed to charge fees on this principle. That is the case, for example, in Ontario. Does the same apply to Quebec? I don't know. Some could enligthen us and I hope that during the debate we will have shortly, someone can enlighten us on that.
As I see it, being able to charge fees based on results can lead to abuses. We know of only one firm of lobbyists that sets fees this way now and I assure you that it was quite controversial. Perhaps if this lobbying firm stopped doing so, most Canadians, I think, would feel that the system was much better.
July 25, 1988
These are the recommendations that we made with respect to what is required of lobbyists. We recommended that registered lobbyists be required first to disclose their name, firm name if applicable, a contact person, address, and telephone number; second, name of clients and their place of business; third, the matter upon which the lobbying activity is to take place. I said moments ago that we should prohibit contingency fees or fees contingent upon a result. We also recommended a definition of lobbyists and so on. We produced a good report that was tabled in this House in early 1987.
Because this was a compromise position, we felt the Government would introduce a Bill which pretty well mirror imaged the unanimous report of the parliamentary committee. After all, the Opposition had watered down its expectations in favour of getting a unanimous report, so we figured the Minister would probably introduce something pretty close to what we asked. Yet that did not happen, if one can believe it. Instead, the Government introduced a two-tier system of registering lobbyists. From now on, there will be a Tier I lobbyist, which is a consultant or, if you wish, a professional lobbyist. That lobbyist would be operating under a contract with a client, or the lobbyist could be a member of any profession when engaged in lobbying for pay; in other words, a lawyer or accountant who acts as a lobbyist. This kind of lobbyist would be asked to register detailed information such as that I described a while ago pursuant to our unanimous report.
There would also be Tier II lobbyists. I have no idea where the Minister got this idea. It certainly is not from my report, not from his White Paper, not from anything any Member ever raised in this House in any speech at second reading, report stage, or anywhere else. It was not even raised in committee.
The Tier II lobbyist consists of employees and officers of trade organizations, labour federations, business corporations, unions and voluntary groups who, as a significant part of their duties, lobby for their employer.
Those people will be asked to supply only limited information by the Government. For example, they will have to register once a year in a manner which has been described by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt as providing a copy of their business card. The only thing we will be asking them to do is identify themselves once a year with their name, address, and phone number. Providing a copy of their business card would pretty well do that.
My objection is that these people, the so-called Tier II lobbyists, are getting away with something that other people cannot. Why do we offer Tier II lobbyists those kinds of advantages? The Minister says the reason is that in the case of a Tier II lobbyist we know who they are, we know who they act for, and it is pretty obvious what they want. He says in his
Lobbyists Registration Act
press release on page 5, that even among paid employees there are distinctions worthy of recognition. Certain individuals may, on rare occasions, represent the views of their business or association, but they are not primarily engaged by the employer for the purpose of lobbying. By contrast, many groups and corporations retain full-time individuals on staff who are responsible for liaison with and communicating ideas and concerns to the Government. While the latter should be required to register as lobbyists, the former can hardly be considered to be a paid lobbyist. That is quite true. He says further that this system of two different tiers of lobbyists is based on the well established distinction between the often hidden interests of the clients of the third party paid lobbyist, in other words Tier I, and the transparent and well understood interests of the corporations, industry associations, public interest groups, and other such organizations whose staff lobby on their own behalf, or Tier II.
Let us look at the distinction the Minister is making. He says that Tier II lobbyists are transparent, well understood interests of corporations, industry associations, public interest groups, and other such organizations. I say to him that sometimes that may be the case. I will concede that, and even that there are occasions where one can tell by the organization what it is they are concerned about. I will use as an example an organization which has been in contact with me lately, one which I have a certain closeness with, and that is the Campaign Life Coalition. They are obviously going to lobby for pro-life legislation on abortion. However, although that is true for that organization, it may not necessarily be that obvious and that transparent and well understood, to use the words of the Minister, in certain other groups.
Let me give an example. Let us say, for example, that someone is a full-time employee of a giant multinational. I will use Imasco as an example, a parent company of several other companies. If someone is a paid lobbyist for that company, how is it obvious, how is it transparent, how is it well understood what he or she is lobbying for or against? There is no logical answer. When the company is so big one cannot tell which one of the subsidiaries the lobbyist is speaking for or against or which legislation they would be favouring or opposing.
Another example is someone campaigning on behalf of George Weston Enterprises or someone like that. That company's list of subsidiaries is the length of your arm, Mr. Speaker. How can you tell which one of the subsidiaries they are lobbying for? They could just as easily be lobbying against the very thing you may think they are lobbying for. It is not, contrary to what the Minister said, transparent and well understood what they are lobbying for or against.
In order to correct some of those deficiencies I offered some amendments, and I know other Members did as well, to the Bill proposed by the Minister. I say this having supported his Bill on second reading debate and having supported the unanimous report of the parliamentary committee. We suggested amendments which would do a number of things.
July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
Let me read the amendments we wanted the Government to include in the legislation. We wanted, first, to ensure that the Bill would provide that someone who collects information for the purpose of having someone else do the lobbying would also be identified as a lobbyist. I introduced that motion. Unfortunately, it did not get anywhere. My second amendment was to ensure that we were asking the same thing of Tier II lobbyists as we were of Tier I lobbyists, that is, of course, to correct the situation I described a moment ago.
I introduced another motion, which was debated but refused by the Government, to prevent a lobbyist from charging contingency fees. Our committee, which for the benefit of Conservative Members listening to this debate was largely composed of government Members, was opposed to lobbyists being able to charge contingency fees. However, that is not in the Bill.
The Minister says he could not make such a requirement because he does not have the constitutional authority to do so. That is, apparently, due to the fact that contract law is provincial and we are obviously dealing here with federal legislation. Although the Minister may technically be correct in saying that contract law is provincial, which is true, we should remember that the federal Government can require someone lobbying it to meet before it will entertain such a lobby. In other words, this Bill could easily include a provision which would prevent an employee or federal legislator from entertaining a lobby on the part of someone who is charging a contingency fee.
The Government had every opportunity to do that. Such a condition in the Bill would prevent legislators from receiving such a lobby. Perhaps there are other means of satisfying that. There are indeed ways in which the Government could have prevented lobbyists from charging contingency fees.
As I indicated a while ago, we are dealing with this Bill today after some delay. I want to make it clear to the House, to the Minister, and to all Canadians that in no way has either Party in the Opposition made any attempt to delay the passage of this Bill. I indicated that in April of 1986 our committee started to do its work on that report. In September of 1986 the Government prorogued Parliament. It recalled Parliament at the beginning of October, and on November 19 the Government decided, through a motion proposed by the Government House Leader, to reactivate our committee. On January 27, 1987, our committee tabled its report in the House of Commons. On June 30, 1987, we gave Bill C-82 first reading. I do not know why it took from January to June.
However, if you think that is strange, wait until you hear what I am going to say next. We only started to debate the Bill on March 8, 1988, some nine months later. I do not know why that gestation period was required, but nevertheless we started at that time.
Perhaps some would think that after we started debate on March 8, 1988, the Opposition may have dragged its feet. No, Sir, Mr. Speaker, the whole debate was concluded on March 14, six days later, and some of those days were used to discuss other legislation. In fact, only about four hours of House time was utilized to debate Bill C-82. You can see, Mr. Speaker, the great co-operation offered to the Government by opposition Members of Parliament in an attempt to have speedy passage of this legislation.
I hear a Conservative Member speaking. If he is congratulating the House on having disposed of the motion so rapidly, I thank him for that. I assume that that is what he is saying.
In April of this year the committee met. After only two or three hearings the committee dealt with the Bill in its entirety. We had had only two or three meetings on the Bill and the Minister was not pleased. He felt it was taking us too long to deal with the Bill in committee after we had had about three meetings. He literally had a temper tantrum.
On April 27, 1988, in an interview given to The Globe and Mail, the Minister threatened to shelve the Bill to register lobbyists because it was taking too much time. Can you believe that? The Minister took three years to produce a Bill which the Prime Minister promised on an urgent basis, and because we did not have it ready after three one and a half hour meetings of the parliamentary committee, the Minister literally had a tantrum.
If you do not believe me, Mr. Speaker, I will read to you what The Globe and Mail says. Surely you will believe The Globe and Mail. An article of April 27, 1988 says that legislation to register lobbyists could be postponed indefinitely if opposition Members continue to push for amendments. The Opposition was guilty of trying to improve legislation. What an awful bunch we were for trying to improve the Government's imperfect Bill!
The article continues: "He directed his comments at New Democratic Party MP John Rodriguez and Liberal MP Don Boudria who have been trying to toughen the Bill which is scheduled to be sent back to the House of Commons for final reading in May". You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that even the media thought this Bill would be dealt with in May. Today is July 25. I have been lobbying the Government since May to bring this Bill back before the House, and it only did so a week ago.
Mr. Keeper:
Did you register?
Mr. Boudria:
No, I did not register my lobbying activity at that time, in response to the question of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). We do not have such legislation yet.
I would like to read an article from the April 18 Calgary Herald. I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), who is reading Maclean's magazine, to listen
July 25, 1988
attentively to what I am going to say because the Calgary Herald is published in his riding and Maclean's is not. The editorial is entitled "Lobbyist bill overdue". It reads:
Almost three years since he promised legislation, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's new law to register paid lobbyists has gone only as far as first reading and committee hearings.
Well, it had actually gone to second reading. It continues:
It has taken entirely too long for this piece of public interest legislation to become law in Canada.
Since the Tories have asserted, as Mulroney did in 1985, that Canada needs a law requiring the registration of all those who lobby for a living on Parliament Hill, then they should get on with the job of enacting such a law.
The United States has had such legislation since 1946 but Canada's long delayed and slightly bedraggled Bill C-82 had to wait until this month to make it as far as a Commons committee hearing.
It was ushered by an apologetic Consumer Affairs Minister Harvie Andre who argued that the bill ought not to require that lobbyists divulge how much they are paid for their endeavors on behalf of a plethora of interest groups which routinely seek favors from the government.
In short, the bill will ask lobbyists employed by companies or groups to register only such data as their names, addresses and telephone numbers.
Those are the Tier II lobbyists to which I was referring. It goes on to indicate:
A second category or so-called hired gun lobbyists will also have to report, in advance, the issues they have been hired to discuss with government officials.
But that's the extent of government's attempts to provide for public awareness of the activities of influential but little known lobbyists in Ottawa.
No wonder Bill C-82 is also known as the business card bill. It is almost too weak to bother with, but it is, just barely, better than nothing.
That report is from the Calgary Herald. I know the Minister knows the Calgary Herald very well.
I believe I have grabbed the attention of certain Conservative Members. I apologize if I spoke too loudly and woke them up. However, there is a price to be paid for sitting in the House of Commons. Tory Members will have to deal with the fact that they have to listen to what happens in here before they vote. I hope they pay very close attention as I lobby them for their support.
The Bill is not as strong as we would have liked. I have made my pitch for a number of amendments both in the House and in committee. If debate on this Bill should end today, it is better than nothing, as the Calgary Herald has stated. I will support the motion and encourage my colleagues in the Liberal Party to do so, but there is still a chance, if the Minister asks for unanimous consent of the House to revert to report stage, to accept the amendments I have offered. I would be willing to grant that unanimous consent, and I am quite sure most of my colleagues would do the same, in order to improve the Bill in the way I just described.
I have described what the Bill requires of lobbyists. It does not deal with fees as I would have preferred, nor does it prohibit contingency fees. The Bill does not require a record of official contacts, in other words, who was being lobbied.
Lobbyists Registration Act
The Bill contains no provision to stop someone from registering after they have been fined or jailed for making a false statement. A lobbyist who has defaulted under the Act could continue to practise their profession. That is another weakness in the Bill.
There could be stronger enforcement provisions in the legislation. However, in spite of its weaknesses the Bill still carries out its original objective, which is to register lobbyists.
I support the thrust of the Bill. I would like the Minister to reconsider my amendments. I would be pleased to give my consent, if he asked to revert to report stage to deal with those amendments.
While the Bill essentially follows the recommendations of our all-party committee report in January, 1987, it is lacking in those areas I have identified, including its failure to ban contingency fees and requirements for Tier II lobbyists.
That being said, I recommend that the House support the Bill notwithstanding those deficiencies. We want to register lobbyists. Let me state for the record that when the three-year period is up we should increase the requirements on these people.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to this House that the profession of lobbyist is an honourable one, or should be. I note that many lobbyists in Canada do not want to identify themselves as such. They are called government consultants, vice-presidents of government relations or all sorts of other similar titles. I do not think this should be so. When the Parliamentary Committee visited Washington, we noticed that lobbyists in Washington were proud of their profession, just as lawyers or doctors are proud of theirs. And with a law that would require several things of lobbyists, I feel that we would raise the standards of behaviour and that over time, since it will take time, lobbyists will have a profession that will be better known, better recognized and more credible.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues to pass this Bill today.
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):
Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks on third reading of Bill C-82, let me state that the New Democratic Party voted against the Bill at report stage. In the course of my remarks I am sure it will become crystal clear to the House and those who are listening why the NDP has opposed this Bill.
The Bill represents flimflam by a powder-puff Minister who was not committed to the whole concept of registering lobbyists and lobbying.
You mean he is a wimp?