Mr. Rodriguez:

There are those who would be so unkind as to use the four letter word in describing the Minister, but I am not in that group. I simply say the Minister knew who his

July 25, 1988

Lobbyists Registration Act

friends were and who his friends are. He recognizes that he cannot bite the hand that feeds his Government with juicy contributions that come in very handy in an election year.

Who is a lobbyist? We have defined a lobbyist for the purposes of this debate as anyone who, for pay, approaches a legislator or anyone within the bureaucracy with the intent to influence the drafting or changing of legislation, the changing of rules or regulations to the obtaining contracts or appointments to boards or commissions.

Before I came here in 1972, I and many Canadians were aware that there were very powerful interests outside Parliament which seemed to have their own way with the Government in dealing with contracts and appointments. In fact, I have a comment which sums up the way it was and the way it will continue to be in spite of Bill C-82.

It is from an article that I clipped from The Gazette in Montreal on December 3, 1986. The headline reads "Lobbying Threatens Parties: Masse". It goes on to say:

Energy Minister Marcel Masse said yesterday the growing popularity of lobbying is undermining Canada's political party system.

He went on to say, as reported in the article:

"It has become infinitely more easy to attract the attention of one's fellow citizens, the communications media and even the Government by belonging to a pressure group than through advancing one's ideas inside a political party," Masse said.

He went on to say that the danger inherent in lobbying is that it gives disproportionate weight to the opinions of the rich and the powerful. In fact, if people want to bring about change in our kind of democratic system, they should become involved in a political Party and work to make changes.

There is a further refinement that is even more invidious than the ones the Minister described. There are those who latch on, as a scavenger fish latches on to a shark, to the Government. They become friends of the Government and they work for the election of a Prime Minister or a Government because they know that when that person becomes Prime Minister or when that Party forms the Government, they can then extricate themselves from this close relationship and join or start a lobbying company.

In fact, because of the friendships these people have created within the political Party that now forms the Government, the fruits of their labours can finally ripen and fall into their hands.

Mr. Andre:

John, that's a microphone in front of you. You don't have to shout.

Mr. Rodriguez:

I see that the Minister responsible for this flimflammery, Bill C-82, has now been awakened. He was deeply plunged into Canada Post's annual report. Now I see that he has removed himself. He cannot stand the heat; he is leaving the Chamber.

Mr. Andre:

You're hurting my ears.

Mr. Rodriguez:

I am glad that someone can hurt some part of you.

What I have described is not idle speculation. In fact, that is a description of one Frank Moores who was the former Premier of Newfoundland. He was one of the Prime Minister's staunchest supporters for the Leadership of the Conservative Party. In fact, he worked diligently day and night, without pay, without an iota of compensation, doing it all out of the goodness of his heart, working hard for Brian, putting Brian in the Prime Minister's seat. However, everything comes to those who wait. In the fullness of time, as the world unfolded, Brain ascended to the Prime Minister's seat, and of course he rewarded them that brung him to the dance. In his famous words, "You always dance with them who brung you".

What did Frank Moores do? He is not stupid. You don't become a premier of a province if you don't have a little bit of stuff up here. He formed GCI, Government Consultants International. Who did he bring in? He brought in all the flops and flicks and flacks. He brought in Gerry Doucet who was a Cabinet Minister in the Nova Scotia Government, a good friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He brought in Gary Ouellet, a magician. He has a tuxedo with 12 pockets. I saw this guy at lunch one time, he made a quarter disappear. I saw it. The quarter was in his hand, he did that and the quarter disappeared. He has written 12 books on magic. He makes things disappear and 1 suspect he can also make them reappear.

Here was Government Consultants International, a mere new kid on the block in 1984. In that short period of time between 1984 and now, GCI has become the most powerful private lobby group in the country. In fact, its clients include Nabisco Brands Canada, Mercedes-Benz, Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd., the Iron Ore Company of Canada-if ever there was a connection-and American Express Canada. As a matter of fact, American Express Canada was with Public Affairs International, and when Frankie baby arrived on the scene with GCI, he approached American Express Canada and it switched. There was a $175,000 contingency fee just on that account alone. How about Microtel, Huang and Danczkay? These groups got contracts for expanding the airport in Toronto.

Business has been booming at GCI. It has very powerful customers. Guess what? GCI does not charge a fee. It has a contingency fee. It says: "If I get you the contract, I get a percentage".

As a matter of fact, this whole thing blew up, and I think that is the reason for this flimflam, powder-puff Bill. In fact, Frank Moores literally and frankly screwed up. He took $2,000 from a fisherman on the Atlantic to get an interview with the Fisheries Minister so that he could make a pitch to get a fishing licence. The fellow got the fishing licence.

.

July 25, 1988

Frank Moores also sat on the Board of Directors of Air Canada at the same time as he was representing the Airbus Industrie from France which was negotiating with Air Canada to sell airbuses. Guess what? He got kicked off the Board of Air Canada. Guess what? GCI helped, and Airbus Industrie landed the contract. Do Hon. Members know what GCI's contingency for that little project alone was? It was S30 million.

There is no question that these are the louder voices, those who have political influence and friends in the PMO and the Government. These are the ones who are able to use political influence to land contracts.

The Prime Minister said something I would like to read into the record. Things were supposed to change as of September 9, 1985. The Prime Minister, embarrassed by all these revelations, realized that we needed to have ethics in government. Therefore, he wrote a letter to Members of Parliament and to Senators. I want to read the first paragraph of that letter because I think it sort of ushered in, we all thought, a new era of government ethics.

The Prime Minister wrote:

Dear Colleagues:

It is a great principle of public administration-I would even say an "imperative "- that to function effectively the government and the public service of a democracy must have the trust and confidence of the public they serve. In order to reinforce that trust, the government must be able to provide competent management and, above all, to be guided by the highest standards of conduct.

Furthermore, in that letter the Prime Minister promised to establish a registry of lobbying. In the letter he recognizes the need that Canadians have every right to know who is doing what to whom, and I would add for how much. That was the underlying principle when I represented the New Democratic Party in the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which studied the question of lobbying.

We came back with a unanimous report. I did not get everything that I wanted. I wanted to make sure that we knew how much the lobbyists were paying for the lobbying activity. I wanted to know who the contacts were. I wanted to know who was behind the mass mailings, such as the letters we received recently about how having a law on tobacco advertising infringes on the rights of Canadians. I wanted to know who was behind that type of indirect lobbying.

I wanted to ensure that we outlawed contingencies in lobbying. The contingency fee schedule is the greatest incitement to dipsy-doodle around the law, and probably to encourage unscrupulous lobbyists to do dirty things.

I was also interested in having a registrar who would have the ability to verify the information that is placed on the lobby registry. If the registrar is not given the power to verify the information, who will find out if what is put on the registry is in fact correct?

Lobbyists Registration Act

The unanimous report of the committee represented for me the bottom line. It basically said that a lobbyist is a lobbyist. It said that it did not matter if they belonged to the GCIs of this world, or if they belonged to an association, but that they were still in the business of lobbying and therefore ought to be registered. That was the bottom line for me, and it was in the unanimous report. We also recommended in the report that the registrar be given the power to verify the information in the registry.

The Government took the unanimous report and came back with what I have described as a flimflam of a Bill. In fact, it sets up two tiers for the registry. Tier I is for companies- Frank Moores, Bill Neville and a whole host of others-such as PAI and GCI. Under Tier II there would be the associations, all these little innocent associations-and I say this facetiously-which have no power. I refer to the Pharmaceuticals Association, the Manufacturers' Association, the Bankers' Association, the BCNI, the Construction Industries Association, as well as the trade union movement. These would fall under Tier II.

Guess what information we require from Tier I, Mr. Speaker. We need to know the name of the lobbyist, the address, and the company for whom the lobbyist is working, its address and the issue being lobbied on. Under Tier II only the name of the lobbyist and the association has to be listed. That is all. In other words, all that has to be done is that the business card must be turned over.

It is imperative that at least the minimum of what the issue is ought to be included in the information that is put on the registry for the associations. While I have described Frank Moores and the way in which he operates, I have come to the serious conclusion that it is not the Frank Moores type of company, the GCIs or PAIs, which are the ones that have the most power in this country but, after looking at this matter intensively, I have come to the conclusion that it is the associations which carry the power. Those associations, such as the Pharmaceutical Association and the Bankers' Association are the ones that hold the power. One only has to look recently to how Canadian bankers persuaded the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) not to legislate with respect to the abuses on bank service charges but to accept something called voluntary compliance.

In my view it is the associations which have the greatest power today. Any registry of lobbying and lobbyists-and I include both those concepts-must demand from Tier II the minimum that is demanded from Tier I. Justice demands it. The democratic sense of openness demands that in fact the registry contains that minimal bit of information.

The Minister left the Chamber and came back. He was not interested in any of this which raises the question as to how effectively he was lobbied. Not one amendment was accepted by the Government to give some backbone to Bill C-82. Thus the caucus of the New Democratic Party voted against it at report stage. We are going to vote against it at third reading as

July 25, 1988

Lobbyists Registration Act

well. All we have to do is work on defeating this Government and we will bring in the type of lobby registry Bill that ought to be brought in, which will assure Canadians of openness and transparency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Are there any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Mr. Keeper:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to elaborate a bit on the very important point he made, that is, that the centre of power in the lobbying industry in Canada may not be with high profile agencies such as Public Affairs International or Government Consultants International. While these are the high profile actors in the whole field of lobbying, it is in fact the associations which hold the centre of power. They do not make the stories on the front pages of our newspapers so much as lobbyists do. I refer to the bankers and the pharmaceutical industry representatives. I refer to the Business Council on National Issues. Who knows how many average Canadians know what BCNI stands for? Will my colleague elaborate a bit on his conclusion that in fact these associations are the most powerful lobbyists in the capital?

Mr. Rodriguez:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is an important one. It is a thought provoking one as well.

I would like to give two examples of how these associations have indeed wielded power in this Government. One is the Business Council on National Issues. The executive director of that organization is one Mr. Thomas d'Aquino. That organization is made up of probably the wealthiest corporations in this land, such corporations as Power Corp. They are the creme de la creme. They pride themselves on giving leadership to Governments of Canada. In fact, if one were to examine the journey of the free trade agreement that was signed by the Prime Minister and by Ronald Reagan, one would see that in fact here was a Prime Minister who as recently as 1983 said that we will have none of this free trade stuff with the United States. He said that the people said no to it in 1911 and they say no today. What changed his mind? As the piece unfolds it will be recognized that the BCNI was really pushing for the free trade deal with the United States. In fact, it put it on the agenda of the Prime Minister and lobbied the Government to accept the whole concept of free trade with the United States, which led to the subsequent negotiations. That is one point.

The other one concerns the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. Apparently the lobbying association, PMA, approached the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to a change to the Patent Act that would extend and give protection to drugs for 10 years. That lobbying was ongoing, but because there was no registry there was no way that those who were opposed to that type of action had any inkling that they could present counterarguments to the Government and the bureaucracy. In fact, PMA persuaded the Government, and it fell neatly in line with the free trade deal

being negotiated at the time. With the one using the other we eventually saw Bill C-22 brought before the House.

I have mentioned the Bankers' Association only recently hitting the fan. In fact some may say that the banks held up the fan, when all that was happening was that great demands were being made for changes to the Bank Act that would ensure consumers a fair deal with bank service charges. The Finance Committee studied the matter, came back with a report, and demanded that the Government act. Lo and behold the Bankers' Association huddled with the Minister of State for Finance, and we got the Government's acceptance of voluntary compliance with respect to bank service charges. That is where that matter has ended.

I tell my hon. friend and colleague that as I have observed it the real powerful lobbyists around the capital are the associations. I believe that they twisted the Government's arm in setting up the two-tier system. That is why we have the associations in Tier II with only business card information, while those in Tier I have to disclose the issue. Knowing the issue that is being lobbied gives Canadians who may have a differing view an equal opportunity to provide information to government and bureaucracy, it is extremely important.

Mr. Keeper:

When the legislation with regard to the generic drug industry was before the House, many ordinary Canadians were seeking to put pressure on the Government and were lobbying the Government to preserve the protection that they had in the generic drug industry against sky-rocketing drug prices. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry was doing its own lobbying in order to forward its interests and be able to do whatever it wanted with regard to the price of drugs in this country.

At that time I remember hearing about some very quiet lobbying that was going on. In contrast to the public lobbying from ordinary citizens fighting for their rights, there was some very quiet lobbying going on in Washington. There was a leak of information of how the pharmaceutical industry of the United States was able to use the American Government in order to approach the Canadian Government.

Does my colleague believe that this legislation the Government has brought forward with regard to lobbying will throw light on the process of lobbying? Will it throw light upon how power is wielded in the capital? I am thinking of the whole question of the generic drug legislation as a case study.

Mr. Rodriguez:

That is an excellent question. When the standing committee visited Washington in the United States, it found out that lobbyists were registered. One can go to the office where that information is kept on file and, for a fee, have the information pulled off the computer. If one has the name of the lobbying firm or the lobbyists, the information can be taken from the computer. The computer lists the name of the lobbyists, the lobbying firms, and the issues on which lobbyists are lobbying, together with a list of all companies that are clients of particular lobbying firms.

July 25, 1988

If we had such a registry which applied not only to individual companies such as GCI and PAI but also to the associations, we could cross match. If we needed information on who was approaching the Government on what issue-for example, on the pharmaceutical question Bill C-22 that was passed-we could go to the computer to find out who the lobbyist was and, if that were the issue, it could be cross matched with the file in Washington. In that manner we could find out if the pharmaceutical association was lobbying the Canadian Government for certain changes and if in the United States a lobbying firm was lobbying the Canadian Embassy with respect to making sure that the Government of Canada made changes to the Patent Act with respect to pharmaceutical products.

A democracy cannot survive if people do not have information. One of the greatest guardians of democracy is an informed citizenry. If citizens do not have the correct information, they are left to surmise and speculate. I suggest that that undermines the whole process.

There are two other federal Acts of Parliament which are extremely important to this whole question of transparency and the right to know. The first one is the Election Expenses Act, an extremely important Act where contributors of more than $100 are listed. It is important to know who is supporting the political Parties and the candidates and that that information is up front and open. We did not have that before. The second one is the Access to Information Act, not the type that we see here where many things are blacked out, the Government chooses to delay certain information, and the commissioner of Access to Information Act states that the Act is being frustrated by the Government.

In 1983 the Prime Minister was correct when he said that the Liberals believed that Canadians did not have a right to know. He stated that Conservatives believed that Canadians had every right to know. I agree with him, and every right thinking Canadian across the country agrees with those words, but they are only words. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here we have a Bill which will complement those two federal pieces of legislation and federal laws, and Bill C-82 is an eunuch. The Government has eunuched lobbying registration, and it is a sad day for openness of government. It is a sad day for the transparency of government within a democracy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am glad to have the opportunity to put a few comments on record with regard to this legislation. I appreciate the impassioned plea that my colleague who spoke before me made for common sense when it came to lobbying legislation.

I must say that in listening to my colleague, the lobbying critic of the NDP, one is driven to the conclusion that this legislation is simply a sop to public opinion. It comes two and a

Lobbyists Registration Act

half years after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised it in an open letter to the public. It is just a way to smooth over troubled waters. It is a piece of legislation without teeth, without real intent to control lobbying, without real intent to throw light on the whole question of lobbying. In listening to our critic, to the critic from the Liberal Party, and to the Minister as he presented his case for this legislation, I have come to the conclusion that this legislation is nothing more than a sop to public opinion, rather than being a real attempt to control lobbyists, a real attempt to bring to public light the activities of lobbyists, or a real attempt to reinforce the democratic traditions of this country. It is just a way for the Government to get out from under the reputation that it developed as a Government of scandal.

It is this conclusion that I want to examine by looking at the facts, at the substance of the legislation. If this conclusion stands up, it is a major condemnation of the Government.

The first limitation in this legislation which stands out is the one with regard to the kind of information that will be provided to the public. We on this side of the House and our spokespeople have said that the information is inadequate. Not only should the name of the lobbyist be made public, not only should the subject of their lobbying be made public, but the people they contact ought to be made public. I suppose that members of a Conservative Party, Members with a Conservative philosophical bent, might argue against a comprehensive provision of information by saying that it will just create another bureaucracy. My reply would be: Why bother with the regulation of lobbyists? Why bother with seeking to create something called a registry of lobbyists if it is not going to have teeth, if it is not going to in fact deliver the goods, if it is not going to provide the kind of information that is necessary if we are to control the activities of lobbyists?

Another inadequacy of this legislation is the fact that it does not provide the kind of information that people need if they want a true picture of what goes on in lobbying in this capital. The parliamentary committee made recommendations which highlighted the inadequacies of the legislation, which is to say, that we should not only have the name of the lobbyist but the subject that the lobbyist is lobbying about, and the contacts that the lobbyist is approaching.

It would be useful as well, if we are serious about registering lobbyists, for this legislation to require lobbyists to disclose the costs of their lobbying activities. Why not provide it by indicating how much they are spending in order to lobby the Government on a particular subject?

Would it not have been useful for the Canadian public to know, in particular all Canadians who used their democratic right to seek to influence the Government when it came to the generic drug legislation and their efforts to preserve the protection they had against sky-rocketing drug prices until the election of this Government, who was lobbying the Government? Who was scuttling that legislation which provided such a unique form of protection for Canadian consumers? Who

July 25, 1988

Lobbyists Registration Act

was lobbying the Government? Who were they contacting in the Government? How much were they spending in that massive lobbying effort?

I want to note in brackets, so to speak, an article that I read in the paper the other day, dealing with the same subject. It concerned another country, Mexico. The Americans and the American pharmaceutical industry was laying a heavy trip on Mexico in the same area, saying: "Don't you dare do anything that will interfere with the operations of the pharmaceutical industry. Don't do anything that would impede their capacity to set whatever price they want to set for any drug that they should bring on the market".

The importance of that issue is not limited to Canada. It also has implications for the whole continent, and I would suggest the western world as well. Would it not have been useful if we had known how much money was being spent on lobbying when it came to the whole question of the generic drug industry? It is particularly useful to know those costs, because the public opinion polls showed that the public was in favour of the generic drug legislation on the books of this country. It raised a question about the Government's use of a popular piece of legislation that was saving Canadians money, a piece of legislation that was making sure that miracle drugs could be available to people at a reasonable cost. Why would a Government scuttle such legislation? Why would a Government tear the guts out of such legislation? That raises questions.

People must suspect that some pretty powerful interests have been leaning on the Government. There must have been some pretty effective lobbyists seeking to change the mind of this Government, seeking to push the Government in the direction of scuttling this legislation. We would like to know how much they spent on those efforts. Those Canadians who fought to preserve the legislation we had, which was unique in the world, had a right and a desire to know just what they were up against when they were fighting for its preservation, what kind of powerful interests were involved, and how much did they have to take off? That is one comment with regard to the whole inadequacy of this legislation, from the point of view of the information that it provides.

The reason that I am looking at this legislation is that people who have spoken before me have come to the conclusion-or at least their comments have lead me to that conclusion-that this legislation is not really intended to do anything effective about lobbying in Canada and that in fact it is windowdressing.

Let us look at what kind of information the legislation provides for Canadians. It does not provide-and it would be useful for us to know what was going on in any particular lobbying effort-is who is being paid to organize mass mailings.

Who is being paid to manage advertising campaigns directed at influencing government policy? As Members of Parliament we get enormous amounts of mail. We get so much that this House has seen it necessary to assign staff to individual Members of Parliament. In other jurisdictions, such as in Britain, Members of Parliament, for all practical purposes, do their own work. They answer their own mail; they write their own letters. In this country, because of the massive amount of written communication that we receive, we have found it necessary to hire staff, at least three paid employees in the offices of Members of Parliament, to assist in answering the mail. It would be interesting to know how much of that mail is an expression of the spontaneous opinion of ordinary Canadians; how much of it is a direct expression of grass roots democracy; how much of it is a real expression of public opinion and, on the other hand, how much of it is manufactured, how much of it is manipulated, and how much of it is self-serving.

It would have been useful in the generic drug debate for Members of Parliament to know whether the mail being received was something which had been arranged by a lobbyist. Did some lobbyists in Toronto, Ottawa, or Sudbury arrange for people to send in letters to Members of Parliament that called for the scuttling of the legislation, or was it a spontaneous expression? Information requiring the disclosure of names of those who are paid to organize mass mailings and who are paid to manage advertising campaigns would have thrown some light on the situation.

You might ask me, Mr. Speaker: Is it really practical for Governments to monitor all the activities of lobbyists? I must say that I do not know. It has not been done in this country yet. If we are going to bring forward legislation to register lobbyists, to give the public the feeling that we are keeping an eye on them, the legislation ought to be effective. We ought not to undertake legislative activities which are meaningless or simply window dressing.

I want to take a further indepth look, another peak, at the legislation to confirm if the conclusion that we have come to, namely, that this legislation is toothless and is simply a sop to public opinion rather than meant to control lobbyists. Another aspect of lobbying about which we have been informed is something called mapping. Apparently if you want to get something done in this city, you have to know more than a Member of Parliament, and more than just the House of Commons.

There are large government Departments in Ottawa. There are thousands of government employees. There are many managers and there are various kinds of central agencies through which the Government controls itself. Lobbyists are able to map out the way to get to the centre of power. If you have enough bucks to pay them, if you can afford the time and energy of these people who have learned to walk the maze of government decision making, you can get to the centre of

w

s

July 25, 1988

power. Ordinary Canadians, if they come to Ottawa from, say, my riding and want to get a decision out of the Government, would come to myself as their Member of Parliament. That is legitimate, and I would do everything I could to help, but they could not hire an expert or someone who had spent perhaps their working life in the bureaucracy in Ottawa learning all the ins and outs, nor could they hire someone who had spent their working life supporting a political candidate who then becomes Prime Minister and, therefore, has a special insight on how decisions get made in Ottawa.

Why does this legislation fail to provide this kind of information, information that would tell us who is doing the mapping activity in Ottawa? Who leads those people who want to get something out of the Government through corridors of power? Who shows them the dark accesses to power that exist in this capital? Who shows them how to get to the real decision makers and how much are they paid? This kind of information is not available as a result of this legislation. I would say that the public will learn very little about lobbying activities from this legislation, and that is why I say it is a sop to public opinion. It is an effort for the Government to get away from the reputation that it has developed as a Government of scandal.

This legislation has loopholes. We all know the tax legislation has loopholes, but this legislation coming through today is like Swiss cheese; it has many holes.

We have here a two-tier system for the registration of lobbyists. Surely to goodness, if you are going to register lobbyists, you want to register them all and you want to treat them all the same and get the same information from everybody. You want to have a sense of fairness, and you want to know what is going on in all the lobbying activities in the capital. This Government has chosen, instead, to say: "Okay, we will ask for one set of information from one set of lobbyists and something different, something less, from another set of lobbyists".

The Tier II lobbyists are presented to us as the weak cousins, the poor cousins, of the lobbying industry. These are the guys who do not have to give as much information, I assume because they are the 80-pound weaklings on the beach. They will not be able to deliver a punch when it comes to getting a decision out of the Government. Who are these two-tier lobbyists? One is the Business Council on National Issues, BCNI. We have this alphabet soup of the lobbying world: BCNI, CGI, PJI, PAI, PMA, or PAM. It is a maze, but what is BCNI? It is an association, a group of the most powerful corporations in this country. This is corporate Canada. These are the largest companies in the country. They have got together in an organization called the Business Council on National Issues. These are no wimps, Mr. Speaker. The Minister may look like a wimp having presented such toothless legislation to this House, but BCNI is no wimp. This group convinced the Government to bring in the free trade proposal even though the issue was not mentioned in the last election.

Lobbyists Registration Act

Let me sum up. This legislation is full of loopholes. It is letting through the gate the most powerful lobbyists that operate in this capital-the Business Council on National Issues, the trade association, the Bankers' Association, and the Pharmaceutical Association. These are powerful groups which have had a real impact in this House and in this Parliament. These groups have convinced the Government, even though they did not tell the people so, to sign a trade deal with the American Government. These are the people who convinced the Government to scuttle the generic drug legislation and who convinced the Government to remove the protection ordinary Canadians had on drug prices. These people have been let through the gate without being asked the full range of information required of other lobbyists.

Because of the loopholes in this legislation we have to conclude that it is not really meant to control lobbyists. It is not really meant to throw the kind of light on lobbying that would inform the public. It is not really meant to enhance democracy. It is simply a sop to public opinion by a Government that was wallowing in scandals and desperate to get the negative news about it off the front pages of the newspapers.

This is damage control legislation. It is not meant to rein in the lobbyists or the most powerful interest groups in this country. It seeks to improve the image of the Government. It seeks to send out a message to the public that the Government is doing something about influence in the capital.

I have examined the facts and, having done so, I have to agree with the impassioned plea of my colleague who pointed out that this legislation did not deserve the support of this House. It is inadequate not only because it lets the most powerful slip through the net, but even because those little fish it catches do not have to supply adequate information. They are not required to tell us how much they are spending on lobbying, promoting letter writing campaigns, on mass advertising campaigns, or on mapping and leafing through the maze of government decision-making processes. This legislation is nothing other than a token gesture in an effort to make the public believe that the Government is concerned about the use and abuse of influence in the capital.

If the Government was really concerned about that, it would have taken seriously the recommendations of the committee that studied the issue. The committee said that if we wanted to throw light on the activities of lobbyists, if we wanted to enhance and protect democracy, then we had to have all possible information about the activities of all lobbyists.

I am sad but not surprised that after the Prime Minister promised tough lobbying registration two and a half years ago, we are getting a watered down piece of public relations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Questions and comments.

Mr. Rodriguez:

Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was in committee I tried to amend the legislation so that a registry for

July 25, 1988

Lobbyists Registration Act

associations under Tier II would have to declare the name of the person lobbying, the employer, and the issue on which they were lobbying. The Minister huffed himself up and said: "Yes, that would be registering lobbying and we do not want to register lobbying; we want to register lobbyists". He is sitting there and, if I am not quoting him correctly, he can shake his head. It is obvious I am reporting it accurately.

Does the Hon. Member see any strength in that argument? Is there any logic to the Minister's argument that we are not out to register lobbying and that is why he would not require disclosure of the issue on which the Tier II lobbyists are lobbying?

Mr. Keeper:

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is part of the Alice in Wonderland quality of this legislation. We want to know who the evil doer is, but we do not want to know anything about the evil doing. We want to hear no evil, see no evil, and we sure do not want to register it.

If any Government is going to throw some real light on lobbying in this city, we need to know more than who is doing the lobbying. We have to know who they are doing it for. We have to know what they are trying to get out of the system. If you are here on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, what is it that you want? The public has a right to know that. We have to know how much you are spending to do it. How big a budget do you have?

We want to know these things because it is not simply enough to know who the lobbyists are. Otherwise all we need is a collection box for business cards. The Prime Minister could have an in basket at his door and as the most powerful lobbyists in this country walk through, they could take their business card out of their wallet and drop it in. That would be the result of simply registering lobbyists and forgetting about lobbying.

I think the Minister's comments in committee laid bare the fact that the Government does not really want to do anything effective about lobbying. It does not want to expose what goes on when the powerful come to Ottawa seeking favours from the Government. Oh, it is nice to have the newspapers report on the activities of spontaneous grass roots groups such as Rural Dignity. Then the Post Office can send out staff and have that group followed everywhere. We will not ask them for their business cards, but we will sure see what they are doing.

That is a double standard. The activities of ordinary Canadians when they protest the policies of government are visible, but when it comes to those who yield enormous influence, those who can get Governments to make decisions against the public interest, we just want to know who they are; we do not want to know what they are doing. All that says is that the Government is not serious when it comes to registering and controlling lobbyists.

If that is the case, then the Government should not be wasting the time of this House in having us here during the summer months to pass legislation that is not going to throw

any new light on what is happening with regard to the making of decisions and the influence that the powerful in this society yield when it comes to the direction of government.

Why does this legislation not ask the Business Council on National Issues or the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association to provide the same information as it does of its friends in the Tier I category, such as Government Consultants International? Why do they not apply a consistent standard across the board? Why is it that the two associations which influence government policy do not have to give information? Why is it that the one group that was able to undercut legislation, that had the support of the vast majority of Canadians, that was able to make the Government go down a road which was unpopular with the vast majority of Canadians, does not have to provide the same information as do other lobbyist groups? Why is it on the Tier II wimp list? Why is it that the one group that told the Government to sell out Canadian sovereignty is not on the Tier I lobbyist list?

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

Question.

Mr. McCurdy:

I rise on debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Perhaps the Chair will need the help of the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on this matter. On July 21 the House passed a special Order which said that after Question Period on Monday, July 25, the House would consider third reading of Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, and complete the debate on that Act before five o'clock.

The Chair understands that at the time this motion was proposed by the Hon. Minister of State he thought there would be a Private Members' Hour today. There is no Private Members' Hour today, but nonetheless there was an Order made that it was up to the Chair to put the question on third reading of Bill C-82.

Mr. Andre:

Mr. Speaker, I am in the hands of my colleagues. I understand that the House Leader had agreed that when the debate was completed we would suspend and come back at six o'clock for the divisions. I am hesitant to keep colleagues here any longer. They have now endured two speeches of some volume and lacking any sense. If we had some assurance that there would not be further abuse for long periods of time, I would certainly not be reluctant.

However, perhaps I can delegate this responsibility to the House Leader who has the unfortunate job of having to deal with the NDP on a day-to-day basis. I would not want to undermine any relationship he might have with that organization, although I cannot understand how anyone can endure that task day after day.

July 25, 1988