Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much I appreciate the comments of my friend, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am not sure that he has helped me in future negotiations, but it helps my colleagues opposite understand what I have to put up with.

This agreement was worked out last week. The intention was that once we had dealt with this legislation there would be no more business put before the Elouse prior to the vote taking place at six o'clock. We have a choice of calling it six o'clock or recessing the House until six o'clock, whichever the Chair finds to be more appropriate under the circumstances.

Mr. Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister who spoke first on this issue wanted some indication of what we have left on our speakers' list. We have one more speaker and if it is agreeable we will have one more speech and then take the vote at that time.

Mr. Gauthier:

That is no problem, Mr. Speaker. In our usual co-operative mood we would agree to extend the time to allow for that one speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The lucky member of the New Democratic Party will be the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville.

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to impose any additional abuse to that self- inflicted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). I appreciate the polite generosity of others in the House in extending to me this opportunity to say a few words about a matter which has not been exhausted in debate here.

I am sure that not even the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would suggest for a moment that we have before us in Bill C-82 the be-all and end-all on the issue of lobbying. This is a matter of great concern to all Canadians. It was certainly of considerable concern to the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures which submitted its report some time ago and asked a great deal more of the Government than the Government has offered in this legislation.

My colleagues have, with a great deal of eloquence and insight, examined the issue of lobbying. However, I must say that after listening to the debate there might be a temptation to see lobbying as, by definition, evil rather than an aspect and a part of the process of this place which becomes evil only as a consequence of its abuse.

Therefore, it is perhaps useful for the electorate to understand the role that lobbying plays. Lobbying is a special word which is applied to the exercise of individual citizens' rights to petition their Members of Parliament, members of Government, or members of the bureaucracy in order to achieve some end. I think you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that that is a substantial and key part of doing our job properly.

Lobbyists Registration Act

You yourself, Mr. Speaker, have probably come to realize, as have I and my colleagues, that the vast complexity of issues with which Members of Parliament have to deal is far beyond the competence or intellect of Members of Parliament to have mastered. We are required to deal with an infinite number of complex, specialized issues about which we could not be expected to have expertise. It must be added that in many cases, no matter how well aware we are of the environment in which we operate or how well read we are, we may not even know that certain matters are indeed even issues.

When those who ask to see us, lobbyists included, initiate discussions on a variety of matters, very often it is helpful, and not only helpful but necessary in order to give us the impulse to begin the study and investigation which allows for the formulation of points of view.

This kind of lobbying occurs in our offices here on the Hill and may occur in our riding offices back home. It is frequent and involves ordinary Canadians, Canadians who have special recognition in our communities, the wealthy, the poor, labourers, employers, and women. It involves a whole spectrum of people who represent our constituencies.

One does not have to be around this Hill very long to realize the frequency with which one could accept invitations to very exorbitant dinners or fine cocktail parties or, in the case of one significant lobbying organization, an extraordinarily, exorbitantly luxurious party which people vie to attend in order to share the beneficence of those who seek to purchase influence to ensure that the directions chosen are consistent with the will of those able to entertain Members of Parliament at such a level as to bend their minds.

Members of Parliament, of course, have to keep in mind that they have an electorate to face. We also know that lobbying does not include only Members of Parliament but members of the bureaucracy not answerable to the electorate; those who write the legislation, those who can distort and bend the minds of Ministers and shape legislation to reflect, not the interests of the Government but the interests of those special interests better informed and better heeled, and who can determine directions in subtle ways of which we ourselves are all too often unaware. Lobbying is a normal part of the process of democracy subject to abuse.

The issue is that there ought to be full disclosure and transparency of the character of lobbying wherever it occurs. This Bill purports to allow intelligent people to determine whether questions should be raised about a particular lobbying activity, the costs incurred for that lobbying, the pay-off, who is being lobbied, and about what. Those are activities that we ought to be able to track down.

This legislation fails on a number of accounts. Its first failure is that it constructs an artificial distinction between those who may be described as professional lobbyists working for businesses that, for a fee, uses whatever means it has to

July 25, 1988

Lobbyists Registration Act

pursue Members of Parliament, the Senate, and the bureaucracy to achieve certain ends. Such firms as Government Consultants International and Public Affairs International will make certain contacts for a fee.

One may gauge that the effectiveness of such groups may be based on expertise and intimate knowledge of Government. However, it is perfectly clear that when one examines closely the way these organizations work, particularly GCI operated by Mr. Moores, one must be suspicious that it is not the expertise developed by virtue of education or anything of the sort, but the personal contacts and influences gained over years of intimate involvement in partisan political activity. That is what gives such organizations a special claim.

Furthermore, it appears that such a consulting organization may measure its fee on a contingency basis. If it is pursuing a contract like the Airbus contract, amounting to billions of dollars, such a consulting organization could earn millions of dollars. Obviously, the message to all Canadians is that the more money one has, the better one is able to influence the outcome of a bureaucratic or governmental decision. That is an important consideration in the issue of transparency of lobbyists and knowing how much it costs, how much is paid, how much changes hands, and for what. It is important to know what is being discussed and who is involved, because it could constitute a form of extreme prejudice to the rest of the population of ordinary Canadians who cannot mobilize these huge sums of money. This is one example of the application of a particular approach to charging clients to obtain goals on their behalf.

If we are going to have legislation to make lobbying transparent, it is self-evident that we should know what fees are changing hands. We should also be aware that if the size of a contract determines the fee, it will introduce the kind of bias and motivation to make as much as possible at whatever cost.

Contingency fees should be banned and we should ensure that we know what fees are being charged so that we do not create a situation in which wealth, even more than now, will determine a business' ability to gain an appropriate response from government.

Others have spoken about the artificial division between Tier I and Tier II. Tier I constitutes consulting firms such as GCI and PAI. The purpose of this artificial division is to create a loophole so vast as to provide all the room necessary for another scandal, which the Government needs desperately. We have a crazy situation in which the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association can spend all the money it wants and hire a former Liberal Minister for all kinds of money to do nothing but lobby while calling her a vice-president. She would not be included in this legislation.

Mr. Keeper:

Who is it?

Mr. McCurdy:

I would not mention names because that would be unparliamentary and impolite. This former Liberal Minister, in the face of purported Liberal opposition to Bill C-

22, was suddenly hired as a lobbyist, with the title of vicepresident of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada. Surely her activities and activities like those should be registered in the same way as those listed in Tier I. That is elementary.

Since this legislation creates an artificial division, excluding from effective registration employees who function as lobbyists, it is an essential waste of time. This legislation is more rhetoric than substance, and therefore it fails.

There are other shortcomings in addition to those which I have already enumerated. This legislation is so deeply flawed that it should be rejected on that basis alone by any rational person who wants to make lobbying as transparent as it should be. The Government wanted to pass the test of honesty and fairness. I am happy to join my colleagues in voting against this legislation until something better comes along. We know that it will not come with this Government. We will have to wait until more rational and principled heads take power.

Mr. Kilgour:

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I think he is intelligent. He, along with his colleagues, is being a little more than self-righteous about these matters. What would be their reaction if we brought to the House Conservative Party resolutions that were sponsored by Joe's Diner, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, or General Motors?

I have noticed lately that his Party has resolutions from certain locals of unions. I believe the Canadian Auto Workers Association can introduce motions directly at his Party's semiannual conventions. How can he to pretend for one moment that he is acting in the interest of his ordinary constituents, young, old, and of all incomes? In fact, the joke is often made that Bob White runs his Party. I do not think it is a joke; I think it is a reality with respect to the trade issue.

How is it that the Hon. Member can pretend that he is so virtuous and speaks for ordinary people when in fact members of one particular interest group can introduce motions and have them passed at his Party's conventions?

Mr. McCurdy:

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get a question from a colleague whose intelligence, which I also respect, is indicated by the frequent occasion he has to criticize the shortcomings of his own Party. However, there is that Tory flaw. The Hon. Member asks how we can talk about lobbying when UAW, the Womens' Incentive Centre of Windsor, or the farmers of Kent County can bring in resolutions that become a party policy. That is exactly the point.

Any policy initiative of the New Democratic Party is derived from a clear identification of source, and those who join our Party have the right and responsibility to determine what the policies of our Party will be. It is easier for the Hon. Member. His Party does not do that. Its policies are made in that chair right over there, and I suppose even the Hon. Member wonders where they come from, he has questioned them so frequently.

July 25, 1988

Of course, my eminent colleague across the way, intelligent as he is, seems to have missed the point. We are not talking about the processes which occur at the conventions of political Parties. We are talking about those activities that occur in respect to elected officials and the bureaucracy in their official functions as members of the Government. It is our concern that because of the way in which the Conservatives arrive at their policies, secretively and without identification of source, that GCI, PAI, and the like will spread the loot around to create party policy for the Conservatives. This policy will not have the UAW, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, or the name of Conrad Black written under it. It will be secret, at least to the extent that we can measure untoward influence in this House. This legislation should do something about that, and this legislation has failed.

Mr. Kilgour:

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member did not catch my point. My point was how this gives credibility to his Party. I hate to say anything good about the Liberals, but in the two other Parties, an individual man or woman but not a member of a group, a lobby group or a union, can go to our conventions and introduced resolutions. How does it help his Party to act in the public interest when one can pick up its list of resolutions, as I am sure the Hon. Member has, and find that a good percentage of them are sponsored not by men and women as individuals but directly by the Canadian Auto Workers Union or local this and local that?

I hope the Hon. Member will agree with me, when he rises to give me the answer to that question, that it will be a better day when the only resolutions of his conventions will be sponsored by flesh and blood individuals rather than by unions.

Mr. McCurdy:

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must have said that in jest. Individual members come to the Conservative conventions and move resolutions that are forgotten about. New Democratic Party members, whether through unions or through local constituency associations, have not simply bought their membership cards the day before nomination meetings, subsequently to be forgotten about. They have joined the Party and they have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to go to riding association meetings and convince the associations to support their resolutions.

I am not surprised that the Hon. Member does not understand the principle. It is democracy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

No.

Income Tax and Related Acts

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Yea.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nay.