L042B - Tue 13 Oct 1998 / Mar 13 Oct 1998 1
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AND LOBBYISTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 CONCERNANT LE COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ ET LES LOBBYISTES
Mr Grimmett, on behalf of Mr Hodgson, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 69, An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des députés et édictant la Loi de 1998 sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I am pleased to begin my remarks by saying that I looked up the definition of "lobbying" today, because I wasn't really certain how the term had evolved. As some of my colleagues pointed out to me, I should have known. The House dictionary, which is just behind you, Madam Speaker - it's an old, beaten 1960 dictionary - indicates that "lobbying" actually evolved from the definition of "lobby," which is an ante-room or a vestibule or a corridor, and lobbyists are people who are often seen in the legislative lobby or chamber, especially to influence the members. I think that's a fairly straightforward and simple definition of the kind of individuals we're trying to regulate with this proposed legislation.
We're trying to set up a register where people who are paid to influence government and to try to influence government decision-making are, through a process, voluntarily identifying not only who they are but also who they're working for and what kinds of activities they're engaging in in their relationship with the government of the day. This legislation is fairly straightforward. It's not a really lengthy bill. In many ways it is modelled after the legislation at the federal level. The federal government has had lobby registration legislation in place for several years, and in the remarks I make tonight you will note that there is great similarity with the federal legislation, which I'm sure you're very familiar with, Madam Speaker.
I thought I would begin by mentioning how the legislation identifies who has to register. The object of the legislation is to set up a register and to identify to the public, and especially to those people who have a lot of activity with the government, when and how they are to become part of the registration process. For people who are engaged in lobbying or who are thinking of doing so and are watching tonight, I'll try to provide a basic rundown on just which ones of them should be registering and how they would go about doing that if this legislation gets the approval of the House.
The first part of the definitions I thought I'd deal with is to identify what kind of activity would fall under the category of lobbying. Lobbying, under the legislation, is a communication between a paid lobbyist - so we're not talking about volunteer lobbyists here; we're talking about people who make a living trying to influence government - and a public office holder to influence government decisions about legislative proposals, bills, regulations, changes to policies and programs, the awarding of grants, contributions, other financial benefits and anything involving privatization of government activity.
If the person is a lobbyist, if they are in fact paid to influence government, who would they talk to who would make them be required to register? A public office holder is the party identified in the legislation. A public office holder, under this proposed legislation, under Bill 69, is anyone occupying a position in the provincial government, including cabinet ministers, members of the provincial Parliament and the staff of cabinet ministers and members of the provincial Parliament. It also includes appointees and employees of ministries, agencies, boards and commissions of the provincial crown. Public office holders do not include legislative officers, such as the table officers, or judges. That quite clearly identifies the people these lobbyists would be interacting with, and that helps them know when they would or would not have to register.
Then the legislation deals with the different types of lobbyists that exist. They are dealt with somewhat differently. Again, this has been modelled quite closely to the federal legislation, which I think most people agree is working quite well.
The first category of lobbyists I thought I'd talk about are the consultant lobbyists. These are people who are retained by a client. They're usually part of a larger organization, but they would be retained by a client specifically to lobby a public office holder on a specific matter. These people would have to register, under the legislation, in a public register as soon as they begin lobbying on behalf of a client. When the information they've put into the register changes, they would have to again make an entry into the register; and when their lobbying activity is completed or their undertaking to their client is completed, they would then have to make a final entry in the register so the public is aware of what kind of activity they took part in, what their goal was and what happened to complete the process.
The second group of lobbyists identified in the legislation are in-house lobbyists employed by commercial organizations. Those commercial organizations could be corporations or partnerships. These people are employees of such an organization who, as a significant part of their duties, lobby for their employer. The employer is an entity that carries out commercial activities for financial gain, and these employees would have to register when they begin to lobby for their employer and every year thereafter. It's done on an annual basis. Again, they have to report any changes to the information they initially registered, as to the type of activity they're engaging in and the object of it, and if they cease their lobbying activity with that part of the government or that individual, then that would have to be reported in the register.
This goes on on a daily basis at the federal level now, and the federal government has found that about 94% of the registration is done through the Internet service available for registration. This allows the lobbyists to make the entries from the comfort of their office and also saves on time that public employees might spend assisting in the registration. The federal experience seems to be working well, and the proposed legislation we're discussing this evening would allow for that kind of electronic registration to be put in place if the provincial government receives the approval of the House and proceeds with this legislation.
The third type of lobbyist identified in the legislation is an in-house lobbyist employed by non-commercial organizations. These associations would include such organizations as the chamber of commerce, a community-based organization, an advocacy group. These are organizations that we often see in the Legislature. For the purposes of this act, these are not-for-profit organizations where the collective time spent by one or more employees devoted to lobbying amounts to the equivalent of a significant part of one employee's duties. If that's the case, if in fact this organization is engaged in lobbying to that degree, the senior officer of the organization has to register when the organization begins to lobby, and then they must register again every six months.
You can see there are three significant criteria here, and the level of time and effort that must be made by each of those is commensurate with the type of lobbyist they are. This again is similar to the federal legislation, which appears to be working quite well, keeping the public informed on what lobbyist activity is taking place. That's really what the object of the exercise is: to let the public know just what lobbying activity is taking place, why people are at the Legislature, what their purpose is and who they're dealing with.
As to the type of information that the legislation sees being disclosed on the register, aside from the lobbyist's name and address, they're also going to identify their client; they're going to identify whom they're there representing. They will also describe the specific legislative proposals or bills or policies that they're trying to influence or deal with. They will identify the names of the provincial ministries, agencies, boards, commissions etc that they're attempting to lobby, and the source and amount of government funding received by the lobbyist's client or employer in this activity. They will identify the communication techniques that they're using, including grassroots communication, and they will identify the corporation and organization, and describe the business and activity that it is involved in.
1840
They will also be required to report when they are communicating with public office holders in an attempt to influence the awarding of a contract by or on behalf of the crown and every time that they're arranging a meeting between a public office holder and any other person. I'm told that at the federal level that means as many as 700 registrations a year. Typically there is a lot of activity going on arranging meetings and that's the kind of activity that this bill is meant to address, to make sure that if you are arranging a meeting between a public office holder and any other person, that activity is identified.
There are heavy penalties in the bill for non-compliance - up to $25,000 in fines for failing to register or for making false or misleading statements - and an interesting one: People required to register under this act must be very careful and cognizant to not place a public office holder in a position of real or potential conflict of interest. The onus is placed upon the lobbyists to avoid that happening, and I'm sure there are many who welcome that particular section in the act and I'm sure that will be discussed again later this evening.
Currently, the federal government has set up this register both on a manual method, where people will go to a government office and provide the information and fill it out either longhand or in typewritten fashion, or they can use the Web site. The Web site that the federal government has used and that I'm told the provincial government would like to use as a guideline if this legislation is approved enables the lobbyists to file or terminate their registrations electronically, and of course it also provides the public with an on-line access to a database of approved registrations to search and view.
Organizations or individuals that are interested in finding out what kind of lobbying activity goes on - I'm sure members of the media would have some interest in this as well as constituents and members of the general public - are able to access that information from the federal system by simply going on-line. I know that is going to be of interest to the members and also of interest to the members of the media.
One final thing I thought I would speak about is the opportunity that this legislation provides for us to identify just what kind of lobbying activity is taking place. I noticed in reading an article in the Globe and Mail that the Cairns Group and MacDonald and Co, two firms based in Toronto that specialize in government relations, did a survey recently of some of the major trade associations and major companies about their lobbying activities. A surprising result they found: "`For all the time and money invested in building relationships and communicating with governments, it does not appear that survey participants are overjoyed with their success,' concludes the survey of 74 major companies and trade associations."
The article is by Richard Mackie. It was in the July 18 Globe and Mail, and Mr Mackie goes on to say, "The survey comes as the Ontario government is preparing legislation for the fall that would set up a registry for lobbyists similar to a program that already exists at the federal level." I think the timing of this legislation is appropriate in that there is much more observation going on now about just what lobbyists do in the government process and what kind of influence they have.
I also noted in reading through some of the material from the media that there is already legislation in several US states and at the federal level in the United States. I think the challenge for us is to make sure that this legislation prevents what has happened in some of the American jurisdictions where lobbying certainly is more successful than this survey finds it is in a Canadian context.
I think with those remarks I'll pass on the debate to my colleague.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's a pleasure to be able to follow in with the debate on Bill 69. The Lobbyists Registration Act is new, it's different for Ontario, although we have had some experience of it with the federal government, and if we look over the border to the south, we'll see quite a bit of activity on this type of legislation.
Really the whole principle of the legislation we're bringing in is about disclosure, not about control or real strict regulations on what they do or how they do but rather disclosure of what they are doing. Lobbying legislation, as you look around the world, can be divided into two categories: legislation that provides for disclosure of information and legislation that sets out regulation regulating what the lobbyists do.
There's no question in Ontario I believe the public do have the right to know and therefore disclosure is very important to our public. Those in office need to know who they're being lobbied by, and through registration they would be so informed. It's also important for interest groups to know what is going on to ensure that their contribution is indeed being heard.
As we look at some of the background of lobbyist legislation, it's certainly nothing new. It's something that has been around for some time, even if you go back to the first of the Pharaohs. When they were going out to get bids for contracts to build their pyramids, lobbyists were present at that time. It is indeed, since then and up until now, a prominent feature of modern-day politics. It's here to stay. Whether it's something we like or something we don't like, it is indeed here.
It's estimated that in Canada some 450 lobbying companies or firms are present and they bill approximately $100 million to $200 million every year to their respective clients. It's recorded in Ottawa that there are some 2,700 lobbyists and they work with industrial associations, law firms and government relations firms.
The whole industry is about influencing government decisions. At first that may sound as if, "Oh, isn't it terrible that people are out there trying to twist and turn and manoeuvre things," when in fact what they're doing is putting forth the best point of view of the organization that's paying their salaries. They're showing one side and in party politics we hear that information on one side on a regular basis, and as government we have to sort out what is best for the people of Ontario.
Certainly we live in a very complex time and we're talking here about paid lobbyists, not those who volunteer or those who are doing it on an unpaid basis. When you first think in terms of lobbyists, there's an awful lot of lobbying carried out outside of paid lobbyists. It happens every day in my office and every other office of the 129 members in this House. People come to you, your constituents come to you with concerns and they are in essence lobbying whether it be for school buses or whether it be for something different in property tax. They have their concerns and they're putting their best foot forward. In this case we're talking about those who are being paid by organizations to do that for them.
There is a need for this legislation. Just as a note to begin with, there are conflict-of-interest standards that we brought in in December 1997, tough new rules for political staff leaving public service and going to the private sector. As I understand, no other government before has acted to prevent the public servants from sort of going through a revolving door to a secure position with lobbying firms.
1850
We recognize, certainly, that it's not appropriate for public servants to develop expertise or the type of contacts that can be developed on the public payroll and then exert influence over former colleagues. It's sort of like creating a permanent ruling class. It couldn't go unchecked, as under previous governments. It contributed to poor image for politics, poor image for lobbyists and poor image for politicians.
When we talk about lobbyists and some of the things that have happened in the past, every time you mention a name like Patti Starr, the Liberals sit up and get pretty paranoid over the whole thing. But I have read the story about Patti Starr, and I think it's a very unfortunate circumstance that woman found herself in. With this legislation in place, that kind of a mess probably would not have occurred.
We have also extended the integrity legislation to lobbying firms. This government is committed to operating in an open, accessible and accountable manner. The new legislation will define lobbying in three categories: consultant lobbyists, in-house lobbyists for persons and in-house lobbyists for organizations. It will require firms to register in the lobbyist registry, which is going to be open to the public, it will require lobbyists to register their lobbyist activities and it will require lobbyists to disclose who their employer is.
Ontario will be the first province to have a lobbyist registration law. Canada, along with 37 US states and the federal US government, has lobbyist registration laws already. The legislation we are proposing is similar to the federal legislation, which was first brought in by a Conservative government in 1988 and was later upgraded by a Liberal government.
It's instructive to look for a moment at the US experience. Just in the last three years, 35 of those states have reformed their legislative ethics and lobbying laws. As with these proposed laws, they have created independent commissions to oversee lobbyists and to enforce lobbying laws. The US states encourage voluntary codes of ethics, they promote training and development and voluntary certification programs. This is something we might also look at, that we require lobbyists hired by companies to sign a code of professional conduct.
There's no question that lobbying firms want tough rules. They support the disclosure rules, and they're eager to demystify their work. Generally they're very respectable people doing a job that's quite important to the democratic process. They see reporting and making it open as a way to dispel this image of stealthy influence peddling that seems to have been there in the past, as the previous member speaking commented, where the name "lobbyist" came from people who hung around the lobbies to lobby with politicians to be able to influence them into their kind of thinking.
In 1993, in the standing committee on consumer and corporate relations, the lobbyists were anxious to get rid of this influence-peddling, lurking type of image that was unfair and wrong-headed, and they were pushing very hard in those committee hearings to get on with this upgraded legislation.
Certainly lobbyists are a crucial link between legislators and interest groups, providing information that flows both ways. With this legislation, there will be tough new rules which will help to weed out some of the bad apples which have given the lobbyist profession a rather sleazy image in the past. We want to get rid of that.
In moving forward with new legislation, you will recall that on April 23, 1997, the Honourable Dave Johnson, who was Chair of Management Board at the time, announced the introduction of the lobbyist registration law, and he indicated at that time that our government planned to introduce it in the not-too-distant future. It would establish a public registry modelled after the federal registry coming under Industry Canada. It would require lobbyists to enrol in the proposed registry, make it available to the public for review and require all firms and individuals paid by lobby groups for the government to ensure that they are registered. I'm very pleased that Minister Hodgson is moving forward with his earlier commitment.
In conclusion, there is no question that lobbying is here to stay. Even the harshest critics of lobbyists also recognize that lobbying is here to stay as a profession. Both the past federal governments, the PCs and the Liberals, enacted legislation to improve accountability for both the lobbyists and the legislators. The Lobbyists Registration Act, introduced first by the PC government, and later strengthened by the Liberal government, accepts lobbying as a legitimate function and provides information for lobbyists that is publicly available.
All lobbyists who appeared before various parliamentary committees endorsed the principle of disclosure. They recognize that in the system of representative government the most important thing is the highest trust in both the government officials and government employers. The public have a right to be assured of impartiality, integrity and independent judgment of employees and government officials. This is necessary and wise legislation for Ontario, once again forging new trails and establishing new standards for accountability in government.
For these reasons, I am very pleased to be able to support Bill 69, An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998, as it will bring disclosure and improved integrity to lobbyists and to politicians.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate on the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998. I think the bill is long overdue. It's something the federal government already has. It brings openness to government, and it brings transparency in the process with respect to who's trying to influence government policy and other things that would be involved in the government process, so I'm in support of this legislation.
The legislation involves the mandatory registration of lobbyists and supports the government's commitment to ensure government activities are conducted openly, fairly and transparently. This legislation would require lobbyists to register their identity, the names of their clients and to declare their lobbying activities on a government registry for the public record. The lobbyist registration would be accessible to the public on a government Web site.
Not only are we the first Ontario government taking action to ensure that taxpayers' interests are protected; we are also the first provincial government across Canada to take this step. That's a very fundamental step in open, honest and fair government.
A mandatory registration process for lobbyists will allow the public to know who is being paid, and by whom, to influence government decision-making. Lobbyists would disclose information such as the lobbyist's name and address; the client's or employer's name and address; a description of specific legislative proposals, bills, regulations, policies, programs, grants, contributions or contracts sought; the names of the provincial ministries, agencies, boards and commissions that are being lobbied; the source and amount of government funding received by the lobbyist's client and employer; communications techniques used, including grassroots communications. Corporations and organizations must also file information describing their business and activities.
In the legislation, there's a specific definition with respect to what "lobbying" means, and I think that's something the public should understand as part of understanding this bill and how far-reaching the government is taking its commitment to open, honest and transparent government in this day and age.
1900
The term "lobby" means "in relation to a consultant lobbyist...and an in-house lobbyist...to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence,
"(i) the development of any legislative proposal by the government of Ontario or by a member of the Legislative Assembly,
"(ii) the introduction of any bill or resolution in the Legislative Assembly or the passage, defeat or amendment of any bill or resolution that is before the Legislative Assembly,
"(iii) the making or amendment of any regulation as defined in section 1 of the Regulations Act,
"(iv) the development or amendment of any policy or program of the government of Ontario or the termination of any program of the government of Ontario,
"(v) a decision by the executive council to transfer from the crown for consideration all or part of, or any interest in or asset of, any business, enterprise or institution that provides goods or services to the crown or to the public,
"(vi) a decision by the executive council, a committee of the executive council or a minister of the crown to have the private sector instead of the crown provide goods or services to the crown,
"(vii) the awarding of any grant, contribution or other financial benefit by or on behalf of the crown, and
"(b) in relation to a consultant lobbyist...,
"(i) to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence the awarding of any contract by or on behalf of the crown."
A "public office holder" is defined in the legislation to include a member of the Legislative Assembly or their staff; also, a consultant lobbyist "to arrange a meeting between a public office holder and any other person." If the consultant lobbyist is trying to deal with an MPP, to have them influence the rewarding of any contract by or on behalf of the crown or to arrange a meeting between an MPP and any other person, that is certainly covered by this legislation.
The legislation also specifically defines the organizations that it is meant to cover in terms of these lobbying activities. They include:
"(a) a business, trade, industry, professional or voluntary organization,
"(b) a trade union or labour organization,
"(c) a chamber of commerce or board of trade,
"(d) an association, a charitable organization, a coalition or an interest group,
"(e) a government, other than the government of Ontario, and
"(f) a corporation without share capital incorporated to pursue, without financial gain to its members, objects of a national, provincial, territorial, patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charitable, educational, agricultural, scientific, artistic, social, professional, fraternal, sporting or athletic character or other similar objects."
Those are the organizations that the bill is intended to cover, and I think obviously for the purposes of this exercise its focus in the public's mind is in terms of who lobbies out there: businesses and of course trade unions are involved in lobbying to try to influence government policy.
The objective here is to ensure greater transparency. Consultant lobbyists will also, as I said, be required to report when they are communicating with public office holders who are MPPs, "in an attempt to influence the awarding of a contract by or on behalf of the crown" and when they are arranging a meeting between an MPP and any other person, for example.
There are provisions in the bill for fines of up to $25,000 for violations of (1) failing to register; (2) making false or misleading statements; (3) knowingly placing a public office holder in a position of real or potential conflict of interest. These fines are consistent with those imposed for similar violations of other Ontario statutes.
The bill will provide a lobbying registrar with authority for (1) administering the lobbyist registration process; (2) requesting clarification of information on a registration form or other document submitted; (3) identifying omissions and inconsistencies and communicating with the lobbyist to ensure correction or requesting supplementary information; (4) providing advice and information about the proposed registration system to lobbyists, public office holders, general public and other groups, for example, the media; (5) submitting annual reports to the minister for tabling in the Legislative Assembly about this activity; (6) ensuring public accessibility to the information contained in the lobbyist registry.
The concept of openness underlines this legislation. All information registered with the government becomes part of the public record. This information will be posted on a lobbyist registry Web site, as I previously noted. The Web site will (1) enable lobbyists to file, renew or terminate their registration electronically; (2) provide the public with on-line access to a database of approved registrations to search and view; and (3) include reference sources for lobbyists and the public, such as a full text of the Lobbyists Registration Act, regulations, interpretation of both and other communications.
Lobbyists who do not have access to the Internet will be able to file paper forms with the government. Not only are we the first Ontario government taking action to ensure that the taxpayers' interests are protected, we are also the first provincial government across Canada to take this step, and I'd say this is another example of this government leading the way in policy development across the country.
The government is following through on its commitment to establish procedures to register all persons and firms who lobby the government. The legislation enshrines four basic principles: (1) the importance of open access to the government; (2) the legitimacy of lobbying; (3) the need for public awareness of influences on government; and (4) that registration procedures should not impede access to public office holders.
The government has fulfilled its promise and has taken action to protect the public's interest. Introduction of this legislation is the government's commitment to conducting government business in a manner that ensures accountability to the taxpayers of this province.
I think it's long overdue that a government has the confidence and the maturity level to come out to the public and say that we believe in open, fair and transparent government because we want to be accountable to the people in regard to what happens with respect to how government policy, for example, is shaped and the lobbying that goes on.
A lot of the public doesn't understand what happens with respect to the shaping of government legislation, the shaping of government policy, what happens to different programs, why they are introduced, why they disappear. I think the public has to know what type of activity there is with respect to the influences on government by having a public registry, a public record of who is involved in this type of activity.
For example, trade unions would be a part of that public registry, businesses that are involved, and the public will want to know what kind of issues they're getting involved in. I think it's very important for them to know when they see issues that are hotly debated, hotly presented in the press, who may be interested in this and who would be involved in trying to influence public opinion, because that's part of the process.
We've seen that activity being heavily involved with respect to trade unions where they're not in favour of anything that would affect the status quo of their memberships and the raison d'être for what they're trying to accomplish. The public has to be aware of that when they see third parties getting involved in the process and trying to shape their public opinion and they're doing it for one specific reason only, and that's because they want to shape public policy.
But that's something that is more of an upfront nature in terms of when we see advertisements by particular groups that want to put forth their own positions. That's up front, that's transparent, that's open, that's honest, that's fair. What we're talking about is behind the scenes, where they're actually doing this not in front of the media, not out in the public, but they basically have taken the position, "We want to be involved in this process," and in fact they are lobbying MPPs, different ministry officials etc.
1910
The public has a right to know, through the public record, who is involved in this type of activity. The public record is important, as I said, to deal with these four basic principles, because everyone agrees that registration for lobbyists is needed. There should probably be consensus on that.
What we want the public to be aware of is the importance of open access to government; the legitimacy of lobbying; the need for public awareness of influences on government; and that registration procedures should not impede access to public officer holders.
The registration process is mandatory. There are fines that have been put in place, similar to other provincial legislation, to deal with specific offences for those who are involved in the activity and have not followed through in terms of the mandatory requirements.
It's very important for everybody to know what the rules are - the public who want to know how the government is operating and how the government is being influenced; from that category, how their MPPs are conducting themselves in the House in terms of who has been lobbying them on particular issues. That's something the public wants to know: who's influencing their member. That's something about open, honest and transparent government that the public has a right to know.
I'd just like to indicate, as I have previously, that I support this type of approach by this government. This is the only provincial government that is doing this in the country. This is the first provincial government in Ontario's history that has come forth with this piece of legislation, and I think it should be supported.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm certainly delighted to continue on in the consideration of Bill 69, dealing with the registration of lobbyists.
The whole lobbying industry in Ontario has become very significant in the determination of public policy issues, the outcome of those public policy issues. My colleagues the previous speakers have outlined fairly well the content of the bill, how it will play out, what players are involved and what kinds of rules lobbyists must register under so that there is a very strong disclosure element in public policy-making today.
Up until this point in time, we haven't seen registration of lobbyists in this country, except federally. If you look at the United States, Washington, DC, is probably the haven of the lobby industry. There are estimated to be over 100,000 people involved in the industry in Washington, DC, alone. Imagine what it's like out in some of the bigger states. So you can see that the way in which public policy is getting shaped across North America has required the introduction of this particular bill.
Rather than go into the details of the bill, I would like to outline what, in my estimation, are the forces which are leading up to the necessity and urgency of setting up a lobbying registration process.
I'll start out by noting that in public policy-making today, probably more so in the United States than Canada, the role of political parties in agenda-making, in policy development, isn't as sharp as it used to be, because if you look at some of the political parties in the western world, there are very few that take the specific recommendations at a policy convention and implement them one by one. That has occurred with us to a great extent through the Common Sense Revolution, but it was done outside the political party policy-making process to a great extent. So there is a decline in the role of policy-making by political parties throughout the western world.
Secondly, I think we have seen in this particular province, and in others across Canada, a great deal of voter volatility because people have assumed, unfortunately, a great degree of cynicism in the public mind about how policy is made by government, whatever the political stripe of that government. There is a certain skepticism that the voter brings to his or her mind. How are you shaping public policy, whatever the issue is: health care, education, gun control, the Regulated Health Professions Act, the transportation industry.
I think that explains to a certain extent a second reason for the rationale in requiring the registration of lobbyists. People want to see more open and, as previous speakers alluded to, transparent government, more accountable government. When you look at the content of the legislation, it outlines how we are going to create that equation of greater public confidence and trust in the public policy-making process of this great province.
Specifically, I wanted to reference within the bill, as the great member for Simcoe Centre noted, that when a lobbyist registers his or her business and they set out the content of what they are registering, what the public policy issue is, with the lobbyist registrar, in section 12, under the registrar and registry section it clearly states, "The registrar may verify the information contained in any act, any return or other document submitted to the registrar under this act."
It also goes on to outline the certification of that information, the validity of it, so that when voters look at the Web site or look at the paper records they know what they see is actually true, fair, valid and consistent, and that all adds up in the equation of greater governmental and political accountability, which we all have to reach in today's very sophisticated world of public policy-making.
This leads me to the third reason for the rationale, the motivation of this particular piece of legislation, and that deals with the point that public policy has become increasingly more complex and sophisticated because of the interrelationships of issues, whether it be in transportation, health care or education. There is a greater strategic linkage between many of these issues, and I have personally seen that in dealing with many of the issues which have come before the Red Tape Commission.
Good examples of that particular interplay of public policy issues involve the you-brew industry and the brewing industry in terms of new rules that they wanted to see, not only by the players in the you-brew industry but by the larger brewing interests in this province, because of the increasing competition, part of the market that the you-brew industry was taking. It's an interesting flip on what you see in government relations people or the associations coming to us asking for specific deregulation of their industry. Here was an example of where they wanted some clearer, more certain rules in terms of the you-brew issue and its health care concerns.
1920
So it is with this particular bill. The lobbying or government relations industry itself has been asking for many years in this province for clearer rules on how they go about doing business. They want to see a demystification of what they do because they are labelled, to some extent unfairly, by ourselves, by the media, by the public, that somehow or other public policy is being made behind closed doors, when in point of fact that's not the point at all. That's not the reality. There is an interplay of those interests, whatever the issue is, with whatever the particular viewpoint that that minister and ministry have on a public policy issue. I think that is another key reason why we have a very prominent role today of the government relations industry not only federally, not only in the United States but within Ontario.
This leads me to the fourth point, and that is, when you have so much competition for scarce resources in public policy, whether they be regulatory or monetary, you're going to see a greater interchange of communications between the players, the public policy-makers, the interest groups, whether they be teacher federations, labour unions, business associations or not-for-profits, with the viewpoint presented by the bureaucracy, with the viewpoint presented by party members whether they be the party in power or a party in opposition. There is a great interplay among all these groups, given a public policy issue. When you have scarcer resources and an environment of no tax increases - people certainly today do not want to see their taxes increased across the board in any area - then that creates a greater necessity for the lobbying or government relations people to make sure that their viewpoint is heard at Queen's Park.
Finally, it's important not only to outline some of the factors which have led up to this bill, but to point out that this government has taken action on this particular issue. Much as it's probably a low-visibility issue, it is a key issue in terms of how governmental business is carried on, whether it be in Ottawa or at Queen's Park. I specifically would like to outline and point out that there was an editorial recently in the London Free Press which outlined very clearly the need for registering lobbyists.
It says, "It is not an issue that grabs headlines or seizes the imagination of voters, but it can be integral to ensuring integrity in government," and I think that's the key fundamental viewpoint here, the word "integrity," because you will find that word in the Members' Integrity Act, under which this registrar will function when it gets up and going, probably early in 1999.
I think also that this particular bill will enhance over time greater public or voter confidence in government business, whether it be on contracts, where we have a pretty good record across this country, in this province, in the way in which things are tendered, in the way in which we have requests for proposals, whether they be for facilities or the supply of services. This particular legislation will shed even greater light on that sort of a hidden world in terms of those particular issues.
Referring back to the editorial in the London Free Press, it states very clearly, and I think it's important to hear from our members opposite why they didn't do this when they were in government, "This idea has been discussed provincially for about 20 years." I think that's rather important.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Who was in power 20 years ago?
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Ottawa West, come to order.
Mr Hastings: In terms of the members opposite, it will be interesting to hear what their rationale will be for not having dealt with this issue over that time frame of three governments: PC, Liberal and NDP. This is not a partisan issue, as the member from Ottawa may want to point out. It is particularly in the broader context that the issue wasn't dealt with, and here we are.
I think we deserve some credit for bringing the whole subject forward, because I've heard for over three years in this House from the members opposite, "You're going too fast." Here is a particular issue that we haven't gone fast on, so I don't think they can use both sides of the issue. I would like to hear from them whether they have any specific amendments to make improving this particular legislation and how they would do so. That's what I look forward to hearing as we look at the finer details of this piece of legislation.
Finally, let me conclude. This particular bill will once and for all outline a way in which government becomes more open, more disclosing of the business of government, whether it be on the regulatory, monetary side, how public policy issues get influenced by the interest groups and what their particular position will be, because up till now they haven't had to register the information.
It's going to have a very positive impact in terms of how a particular lobbying interest, particularly the not-for-profits and business associations, presents their issues, because in doing so they are going to have to communicate very clearly. They're going to have to look at a greater sense of public interest themselves, rather than the particular interest they represent from their membership, whether it be the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the food and commercial workers, probably arts associations, what have you. They're going to have to look out among whole sections of the public rather than just playing to their own particular interests. That's going to have a very major, positive impact on the way in which they present the information and also how they format it, because it will lead in the longer term, if not the medium term, to a more positive environment of people discussing issues.
I'm very hopeful that over the long term it will reduce some of the cynicism we have out among the voters when they see how the public issues are presented by these interest groups. That is going to be one of the key benefits that is very intangible but will have a very productive and beneficial long-term interest in terms of creating a very healthy discourse on public policy and all the issues that make up public policy in this province.
I am very glad to support this legislation. I think it's not only essential and significant, but it will make government more transparent, more open, more disclosing and particularly more accountable, leading to greater voter confidence and trust in us as representatives of a representative parliamentary system. I'm glad to have had this opportunity to make our views known on this subject.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I wanted to hear the member for Ottawa West.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You will.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean, order, please.
1930
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You'll have a chance to hear from the member for Ottawa West, but I'd like to say, coming from Ottawa Centre, which is the heart of one of the most active sort of lobbyist fervours that one might see with the federal government, the need for this kind of legislation is quite apparent.
To my colleague across the way, I'd say, first of all, that this is a good bill. Are there some suggestions that we have on this side? Yes, there are a couple we would look at, and my colleague the member for Ottawa West will address this, and perhaps my colleague the member for Renfrew North as well, in terms of the Integrity Commissioner and the role of that, which will be dealt with, the nature of regulations and what this might exempt, whom it might exempt, on what basis and whether it's as transparent as it might be. We have those suggestions.
Perhaps not since the Irish heritage bill was in the House did we have as strong a degree of consensus around both the need and the manner in which we can go about having people register for the purposes to which they are approaching government. I applaud the initiative. I believe it is a good one. It is long overdue.
Other governments have other schedules of dealing with their legislation, but in this particular case I believe we would look forward to a much easier time of debate and discussion than on other bills such as the closing of schools or the -
The Acting Speaker: Further questions and comments?
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I came into the Legislature tonight intending originally a sort of blind support of this legislation. It's supposed to be lobbyist registration legislation and I think on the surface we all support that as far as making sure the business of the government is done in an open way is concerned so that everybody knows what's going on. But as I listened to the debate I started reading the legislation in a little bit more detail and I started looking at it, and I'm really wondering what exactly the government is trying to get at with this legislation.
As I said early on in my first part of the comment, I don't disagree generally, but I look at this and I say they want on the one hand to make it so that people have to register - and I'm just looking at the information - if somebody is trying to obtain government financing or assistance of some type for a project that they happen to be building. For example, there's a contract out to build a highway; it's millions of dollars. The lobbyists and the firms trying to get that money would have to register. I think I agree with that. I don't have a problem with that.
Then I look at other parts where we say we want to register lobbyists who are out there doing their job from non-profit housing corporations, from the chambers of commerce, from unions, from the independent business federation, because they would somehow have influence over the government when it comes to government policy.
This government doesn't listen to anybody, so why would this even be an issue? We've seen through the megacity debates, we've seen through everybody's debates, they don't even listen to their back bench. And they're worried about outside lobbyists coming out and having influence on this government? I wonder. I also predict that this bill's going to get lots of time at committee. It'll travel through the province. Unlike the Hydro bill and a whole bunch of other bills that are really important, this government's going to run it through the committee process and they're going to make sure that if you're living in Peawanuck or if you're living in downtown Ottawa, you'll have a chance to comment on this, but you won't have a chance to comment on very important public business that the government doesn't seem to want to listen to anybody on.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the remarks of my colleagues from Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Northumberland, Simcoe Centre and Etobicoke-Rexdale on the subject of Bill 69.
I think it's highly appropriate that the parliamentary assistant for the Chair of Management Board, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, led off the discussion this evening inasmuch as this bill is named after one of the more important highways in his riding.
I was interested, as always, in the remarks of the member for Northumberland who, although he was not quite as colourful this evening as he is customarily, did add to his speaking time in this House in the ongoing derby with the member for Durham East. I'm not sure who is the Sammy Sosa and who is the Mark McGwire of that duo, but the member for Northumberland did add to his speaking time tonight most admirably, and in his remarks he covered quite a great deal of history, beginning with the time of the Pharaohs and bringing us up to the present day.
The member for Simcoe Centre of course really hit the essence of the bill when he stressed the concept of transparency, which of course is what this bill is all about - who is getting paid and who is doing the paying. That's essentially what this bill is for. Whereas the member for Northumberland was less colourful than usual, I do, however, compliment the member for Simcoe Centre on his very nice jacket.
The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, as always, spoke with great passion and with great conviction this evening, and I think he touched on the key issues of disclosure, accountability, trust, openness and confidence in the system. He did speak at great length on the political process and the role of lobbyists in the political process and the importance of this bill in that process.
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further comments and questions? The member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: The people in the agricultural area would use this analogy. They would say that several of the horses were out of the barn before they finally brought this legislation in. In other words, several people well connected to the Conservative Party have benefited immensely until the government gets right near an election; then it decides for public relations purposes it must bring in this bill.
I hate to sound so cynical, but many people would think that's realistic. The reason it's a realistic assessment is, I look at what the government did on another bill which is associated with this bill. You will well remember that this government has brought in a piece of legislation, which I'll call companion legislation, which allows political parties to spend far more money than was the case in the past and allows corporate donators to give far more money to political parties than was the case in the past and removes many of the controls over the expenditures of those dollars.
I find it a contradiction - maybe it's conscience I should say - for the government to bring in a bill of this kind because they have opened up this process more and more to the influence of money. What it reminds you of is the United States where money is king or queen, whichever way you want to put it. Money is the top factor in the United States. They brought in this legislation that shortens the campaign time so that television ads are going to be the most important part of a campaign, not the door-to-door knocking, and to bring in legislation of this kind is a bit of conscience legislation. The government recognized how wrong it was to make money the king of the political process and so has brought this legislation in at long last to be debated in this House.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.
Mr Grimmett: I'm pleased to respond to the remarks. I want to thank the members for Ottawa Centre, Cochrane South, York East and St Catharines for their comments and questions regarding speeches that have been made by the members from our side. The member for Ottawa Centre indicated that his party will have some suggestions on possibly going further with the legislation or things that we might want to look at. I'm looking forward to that debate later on. They'll be speaking right after us.
The member for Cochrane South, I thought, perhaps needs to read the legislation in a little more depth. His concerns are about the type of lobbyists that are being caught by this legislation. Perhaps because he's from the New Democratic Party he had a rather predictable response that the more commercial type of lobbyists are the ones who should be affected by the registry. I think with all due respect that the legislation is modelled after the federal model which -
Mr Bisson: They are Liberals. How can you model anything after them?
Mr Grimmett: The legislation actually at the federal level was brought in by a Conservative government in 1988. It was amended by the Liberal government since then. It not only deals with commercial lobbyists, it deals with all kinds of lobbying. It's in the public interest to know exactly who has access to the decision-makers and just what kind of activity is going on.
Mr Bradley: Just go to a Tory fundraiser and you'll see that.
Mr Grimmett: That's exactly - the member for St Catharines agrees with me on this point. You need to have public disclosure of all of the lobbying activity that's going on. That's really what we're getting at. I would urge the member for Cochrane South to read the parts of the legislation that distinguish between the types of lobbyists because there is also some distinction between what degree of registration particulars those people have to provide. There is a distinction between the commercial and non-commercial organizations.
1940
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Ottawa West.
Mr Cullen: I'm pleased to join this debate to discuss the Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyists Statute Law Amendment Act, 1998, Bill 69, which is an act to require the registration of lobbyists. Listening to the debate here it's clear that we do have, in our opinion, a positive first step towards shoring up the integrity of government. We will have some suggestions to make this bill more effective.
But you have to wonder about the timing of this bill. As you know, "Timing is very important in sex, in humour and in politics." I'm quoting Will Rogers; I'm using a very important authority. The point is that here we have legislation that is finally coming to us after four ministerial announcements. After the first announcement was made by this government some two and a half years ago, finally we have lobbyist registration for Ontario. As the member for St Catharines said, "This is nothing more than an attempt to close the barn door after the horses have gone." The only reason that explains this delay is the government's desire to keep lobbying, up to this point, behind closed doors.
Let us remember why this legislation is being introduced. It's being introduced to protect the public interest, to ensure the integrity of the government process, to avoid the culture of preferential treatment on the basis of who you know and how much you're willing to contribute to the governing party. In this particular instance, we have lobbyists who have left the government and who are selling their expertise, their knowledge of who's in power to make what decision. Of course we're talking about such graduates as Bill King, Leslie Noble, George Boddington, Mitch Patten.
Quite frankly, this government has a record, has set a new standard for mixing government business with controlled access and preferential treatment. Indeed, this legislation should have been introduced at the beginning of this government's term, not now close to the end of it. This legislation should have been in place when the Mike Harris government was privatizing road maintenance contracts, when it was privatizing jails, when it was holding bids for casinos, when it was contracting out office management, when it was closing hospitals.
If we had had this legislation in place, we could have avoided the impropriety that clouded the Niagara casino contract. We would have known that Michael French, who was under contract with this government to advise on how the lucrative casino contracts were going to be awarded, was at the same time on a $100,000 casino contract for one of the bidders that was rated third and ultimately won the Niagara casino contract. Had this legislation been in place, as promised two and a half years ago, this clear, blatant conflict of interest would have been avoided by a responsible government.
We have to understand that lobbying is going on all around us. It's a multi-million dollar business. The purview of government touches automobile manufacturers; the forestry industry; the trucking industry; pharmaceuticals; the insurance industry; developers; brewers and wineries; oil; tobacco, and the list goes on. This is good business for the likes of lobbyist companies such as SAMCI, Murray Research, Policy Perspective, Hill and Knowlton, Government Policy Consultants, Strategy Corp and others. No wonder Tory hacks from the Premier's office have ended up there.
Yet when we look at who is being serviced by this industry we will find those companies who are greatly interested in government policy ranging from the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario; the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association; the Brewers of Ontario; the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario; the Fair Rental Policy Organization, an oxymoron if I ever heard one; the Ontario Forest Industries Association; Ontario Mining Association; Ontario Pharmacists' Association; and even a little hospital, Carleton Place and District Memorial Hospital, requires the services of lobbyists. It is a big business. No wonder those who have set up the policies of this government have moved out now to interpret, if that's the polite word, those policies.
Why do we need this legislation? We heard from the members opposite a number of good reasons: integrity in government, transparency of process. It's important for the public to know not only that lobbying is going on but who is lobbying for whom and with whom or why, so that the public can participate in the process on an equal playing field. Lobbyists who have connections to the political party that forms the government obviously can potentially have more influence over government decision-making than others. We need legislation to ensure that government decisions can never be, or appear to be, purchased by the lobbying process.
Already we know that the public has a very low opinion of government and its process and lobbyists. For some members of the public the suspicion is that lobbyists use personal connections with office holders to obtain special favours from government. This lies at the heart of most of the cynicism that's around the government process and lobbying.
We are concerned, all of us should be concerned, about the kind of lobbying that goes on, and we know it well. There is the lobbyist who arranges access. We have laws dealing with influence-peddling. We have lobbyists who seek to obtain inside information. Those lobbyists who obtain, on behalf of a client, insider information on pending government policy decisions or regulatory decisions that are not available to the public at large clearly create an unfair advantage for their clients. Such action would create an unlevel playing field, and that is part of the purpose of ensuring that there's regulation for the industry. Then there are lobbyists who have expertise in the area and can provide advice to clients, which indeed the majority of lobbyists are.
We have to make sure that the whole process is above-board. We have to make sure that our policies are in place so that we do not perpetuate the perception of cronyism and backdoor access to government insiders. Unfortunately the lay of this legislation leads one to the conclusion that there is the perception of cronyism and the backdoor access to government insiders.
I want to inform the House, despite the blandishments of the members opposite, that what this government is doing today is not the cutting edge of lobbyist registration. Quite frankly, the government members have acknowledged that this mirrors the federal legislation that was introduced 10 years ago, but you must also look at the broader North American context. Not only have there been laws in place in the US Congress since World War II, but every state in the United States has lobbyist registration. As a matter of fact, most states, over a third of the states, have updated their lobbyist registration to require even more disclosure than what we're seeing here today. I will speak to this point later on.
The fact is that we have to deal with the issue of how to ensure transparency of the process, how to ensure to the taxpayer that there is indeed integrity to the process. In this particular instance we look at the legislation and, yes, the members opposite have commented on how there is a requirement to ensure that all members of industry who deal with government do register with government, and indeed that is a good thing. But there are still some flaws with this legislation.
For instance, there is only a requirement within the legislation to ensure that if you are a lobbyist consultant you must register if you are lobbying on behalf of "any relevant legislative proposal, bill, resolution, regulation, policy, program, decision, grant, contribution, financial benefit or contract," all things that we on this side of the House believe belong in the universe of activities relating to lobbying. That restriction dealing with contracts only deals with consultant lobbyists, the hired gun. But for in-house lobbyists, whether they be for organizations or for persons and partnerships, there is no requirement to register if you're lobbying on behalf of your employer with respect to a contract.
Let's just look at the purview of all this. If Stelco is lobbying for contracts, don't you think the public ought to know that indeed they have someone in-house who's engaging in that activity, whom they are talking to, which ministry they're talking to? I think that's an important omission and something that should be corrected within the act that is being proposed before us.
We also have within this legislation a gaping loophole, a tremendous loophole. If you look at section 18 of the act, this is a new section very unlike what you have in the federal legislation: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting any person" who may be lobbying. Seeing that you are only required to register if you are lobbying a public office holder, then why in heaven's name would we exempt public office holders, any class thereof, from the requirements of this act?
1950
You could use this act to exempt, for example, the Ontario Energy Board. Why would you do that? A tremendous public responsibility involving billions of public dollars, yet you could exempt this particular institution from application of the act, which means that any person who lobbied the Ontario Energy Board, which after all sets prices for electricity, would not have to register. This is a glaring omission. In fact, you can even extend it to the Premier's office. It says here, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations...." There is no justification for this.
In the opening comments by the parliamentary assistant to the Chair of Management Board, who has responsibility for the carriage of this bill, he omits any discussion of this very important section or any rationale for this. I am looking forward to the opportunity at committee to deal with this glaring omission, because it needs to be corrected. It will make a mockery of this particular bill if this oversight is not covered.
That's not the only thing that is missing from this bill. The members of the government state with great pleasure that they're copying the federal legislation, yet they don't have in there any code of conduct that would help measure lobbyist activity. The federal bill does, and for good reason. The federal bill has it because of the lobbyist code of conduct which the ethics commissioner, another omission from this bill, has in the federal legislation. That is a public process that the ethics commissioner has in place to develop a lobbyist code of conduct through full public participation involving the lobbyist industry.
That lobbyist code of conduct that the feds have includes the requirement for accurate information, the requirement for disclosure of obligations, the requirement not to divulge confidential information, the requirement not to divulge insider information, the requirement to divulge where there are competing interests, a prohibition against conflict of interest, a requirement to disclose the possibility of conflict of interest and the requirement not to engage in improper influence.
These are things that are important to safeguard the public process. These are things that are important to ensure the integrity of government, yet they are missing from this bill. If the federal bill, which again is not the cutting edge of legislation in North America, is so good, then why does this government step backwards from those things that would protect the public interest?
I also alluded earlier to the fact that there is nothing in the bill that speaks to the ethics commissioner. I know what the parliamentary secretary is going to say in his comments: "But we've introduced amendments to the Members' Integrity Act to give the Integrity Commissioner the ability to deal with such matters that may arise from the interpretation of the act that would allow the government to say to the Integrity Commissioner, `Please investigate this.'" I'm sorry, but the ethics commissioner in the federal legislation has the impartial power to engage in that activity when it's in the public interest.
No way should the government, which is the subject of lobbying, be then able to turn to the Integrity Commissioner and say, "We think you should investigate how that lobbyist spoke to us." It's a conflict of interest. Not only is the Integrity Commissioner reporting to a member of cabinet, which is very different from the federal legislation, which allows for an arm's-length relationship, but the activity, which is to investigate the possible impropriety with respect to lobbying, is at the behest of the government. Where is the protection of the public interest? Where is the ability for an independent authority to listen to representations, make a judgment based on the evidence before it and then investigate a violation of the act? That needs to be corrected in this bill. These are some of the technical problems within the bill itself that need redress as we go through the legislative process.
The member for Cochrane South said that we would have an opportunity for this bill to travel and for us to hear from the public. I think it's important to hear from the public in all these matters. Certainly when the federal legislation went through, both in its first incarnation, when the previous government in 1988 produced it - there was a white paper, there was an opportunity for hearings - and indeed when the Chrétien government updated the legislation in 1993, there was again that opportunity for hearings, not only to hear from industry - and, by gum, did the parliamentary committee ever hear from industry, from all the industrial associations and other lobby groups - but they also had a chance to hear from ordinary citizens, because the object of the exercise is to ensure not only that the public's interest is being protected here but that ordinary citizens have the equal opportunity to approach their government as the private interests, the moneyed interests, whose own concerns they are presenting with their own ability to research, to provide documentation, in essence to provide a comprehensive approach to whatever viewpoint they wish the government to listen to.
This is why we need transparency. It's not only to see who's talking to government, for what reason and on behalf of whom, but it is also to allow for a level playing field so that citizens can see that this particular industry is taking this particular tack with the government department and be able to provide a balance to the system so that they can come forward and say, "Yes, when the automobile industry tells you not to reduce these emissions because this will affect the cost to their industry," there is indeed an ability for ordinary citizens to come forward and say: "But we need to reduce these toxic emissions that are coming out of the automobile industry. We need to protect the environment. There needs to be the appropriate legislation in place to protect environmental health."
Why is it that even today we still do not have the new emissions act that was promised by the Ministry of the Environment almost two years ago? Why is it that we have that problem? Does it have anything to do with the lobbying efforts by the automobile industry? We don't know. Had this legislation been put in place two years ago, we would be able to see the track record of those who speak to government.
It's not because we want to restrict anyone's ability to speak to government, but we understand that government is busy and that some people have better access to government than others. This, of course, is unfair when we're dealing with public policy that is supposed to affect the public interest.
We need this legislation. Yes, indeed, we do need this legislation. We do need integrity in government, absolutely. We do need transparency. We need to know who is lobbying whom, for what reason, and for whom. This is all-important. This bill is an important first step. It brings us closer to providing this kind of transparency. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it's a bit late, but I suppose better late than never. It is a bit late.
I gave the example of the still-anticipated - in fact, it is curious. Isn't it the Premier himself who has expressed some impatience about the arrival of this new emissions act? Haven't we heard the Premier say that?
There's a very interesting quote that was printed in the Lobby Monitor, which is a publication that looks after the activities of lobbyists who register up in Ottawa, in the federal capital, the federal government. The quote is from Minister Harvie Andre, who was a minister with the Mulroney government, a PC. At one of the receptions that he attended in the village of Rockcliffe Park, which is a very exclusive area within Ottawa-Carleton, he said, "Why does it pay better to know Harvie Andre than to be Harvie Andre?"
I think that's a very telling comment. It's a very telling comment about the role that the lobbyist industry has in terms of satisfying its clients as to ensuring that its clients are well informed about new government initiatives, making sure that its clients' views are well known to the government, and making sure that the government is at least aware of the implications of any proposed policy on its clients.
The government, as we must remember, is not there to serve individual private interests, whether it be of organizations or corporations or trade unions or special interest groups or what have you. Yes, it must be aware of the implications of its policy on all the players. It would be foolish if it did not go out and seek advice from these players. But the process has to be transparent.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the one thing that destroys or disturbs the public's confidence in the integrity of the government's process is the concept that there is an ability for some favoured few who have inside connections with the party in power to influence policy for the benefit of the few.
That is why we embrace this bill. We think this bill, by providing a registry, by ensuring that lobbying activities are recorded within the registry, that people can see who is registered, who are the clients and where they are lobbying - these are all important things.
2000
I'd like to give a small example of what the federal registry has. Just by happenstance I pulled out a name familiar to us all, one Robert K. Rae, a partner with Goodman Phillips and Vineberg. He has registered with the federal lobbyists' registry. His client happens to be the Disney corporation, and it gives the contact within the Walt Disney corporation, 500 South Buenavista Street in the city of Burbank, California. It gives all that. The subject matters, the areas of concern: arts and culture, taxation and finance; specific particulars, the Income Tax Act, policies dealing with film production services, a limited partnership program etc. The government institutions that are being lobbied or could be lobbied by Mr Rae include the Canadian Heritage Foundation, Revenue Canada, Industry Canada and Transport Canada. His organization receives no government funding and receives no contingency fees.
This is one other difference between what is being proposed to us today by the government and the federal model: the issue of contingency fees. The federal legislation has a prohibition dealing with contingency fees. This government apparently believes that contingency fees are perfectly all right, that a lobbyist's pay, as it were, is contingent upon their success in getting a policy adopted or accepted by the government. Again, there are serious concerns about whether we should permit contingency fees to be allowed within lobbying, because it certainly changes the whole context of lobbying.
The communication technique that is being used by Mr Rae when he lobbies on behalf of the Walt Disney corporation on matters of arts and culture with these government departments may include arranging one or more meetings, may include telephone calls, may include written communications or electronic communications or what have you - very straightforward, very up front, very appropriate; indeed I think a model I am pleased to see this government is going to include.
I cannot for the life of me understand therefore, when we have such a model in place that merely reports on who the lobbyist is, what area they are going to lobby and for whom they are going to lobby, that the government would conceive of giving itself the opportunity to exclude from its legislation through regulation any area within government. Why should the government be permitted to exclude the Ontario Energy Board or the Ontario Municipal Board, or indeed the Ministry of Community and Social Services when it is developing its policies with respect to disability, or the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture when it is developing its policies with respect to disability, or indeed any other government program or activity or policy or contract?
Again, I don't understand why the government would exclude the lobbying for contracts. We can think of the lobbying for the bus contracts within this particular government. There was a time when there was an open playing field with lobbying for the bus construction contracts, but then the government of the day said, "No, there will be one manufacturer." How did this come about? How did the government come to this decision that one, and only one, manufacturer should be so favoured? We could go on with the list.
This is an important bill. It's an important first step. I think I've outlined some of the deficiencies we hope to correct through the committee process. I think it's important that, as with all legislation, there be the ability to perfect the bill, and I hope the government will be willing to consider those aspects that would make the whole process of government meet a good standard, an appropriate standard of integrity.
But we have to understand that this legislation only deals with one shoe of the issue of lobbying. Again, I have to ask my colleagues to turn their attention to what's going on in the United States. This legislation only looks at registering who lobbies and their clients, and lists only the government agencies. Do you know what? For the lobbyist industry, this is great. The lobbyist industry thinks: "That's fantastic, because now I can go over and look at what my competition's doing. If they've got the trucking company, which is interested in speed limits, then maybe I can go and talk to some other organization and put together a partnership and maybe come in and either compete for the individual companies that are involved here or put together another proposal to again lobby about speed limits."
That's fine and dandy for the lobbyist industry to be able to see who's out there and raid each other's clients, but what's missing here in terms of protecting the public interest is who in government is being lobbied. Are we talking about the director of policy within the Ministry of Transportation? Are we talking about the assistant deputy minister responsible for trucking policy in the Ministry of Transportation? Or are we talking about a ministerial aide to the Minister of Transportation?
All these things have different implications, because if the lobbying activity is directed towards the minister's aide, there is clearly competition with the advice that's coming forward from the public service that is supposed to be neutral, serving the public interest, going forward to the minister.
If it is indeed at the working level of the public servant, of course it's important to hear from that industry with respect to this, but it's also important to make sure that that civil servant is hearing from all players, not necessarily just the trucking industry, but the people who are concerned about - I'll take Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the people who wish to stop people who run through traffic lights etc.
So this shoe has not dropped in this legislation, and it's an important concept. It's not here. I'm sure we'll hear representation about that at committee. But we are only covering one half of the lobbyist activity, because lobbyists lobby somebody, and that's missing from this legislation.
As my colleagues have alluded to earlier, this is indeed an important first step. Its timing is highly suspect, as we understand that many architects who put together the policies this government has in place have flown the coop and joined the lobbyist industry. It's their right to do so, but had we had this legislation in place, we would have been able to avoid the very clear example of conflict of interest in the Niagara casino scandal, with respect to the awarding of that contract. The independent panel rated the companies, and the one that was rated third ended up winning the contract, because the very person who provided the advice to the government was actually an agent for that third-rated company that ended up winning the contract. Quite clearly, if we had had this legislation in place, we would have seen that conflict of interest, we would have seen who was lobbying whom, and there would have been more transparency to the process and therefore more guarantee that there was integrity to the government process.
No government is ever immune from the need to ensure that the process must retain its integrity. That is why we see this legislation in place in many jurisdictions in North America, but I do have to tell you that this is no cutting-edge legislation compared to what's going on in other jurisdictions. The need to require disclosure to protect the public interest is paramount, because that is indeed the bottom line: protecting the public interest.
2010
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to join my colleague from Ottawa West in speaking to the second reading of Bill 69, a modest proposal entitled the Lobbyists Registration Act, and to indicate at the outset that I intend to support it. My colleague from Ottawa West and other members who have spoken to the debate have indicated that it is past time that we enact this as a minimum first step to open some light of public awareness and scrutiny on a fast-growing part of the political culture of our province, our country and increasingly of the developed world.
The question I want to address tonight is a more fundamental one, and that has to do with, what is it that's bringing about the exponential growth in lobbying activity? I want to say at the outset that lobbying has always been a part of democratic politics. It has to be acknowledged that in many cases the past - and I'm talking now about a past beyond yesterday, an earlier time. The history of this Legislature is coloured in some respects with some pretty scandalous behaviour of members who were clearly in the employ of certain lobbies.
Time doesn't permit tonight, but there's a famous story of a very powerful Premier of Ontario, Howard Ferguson, back in the 1920s - actually, he wasn't Premier; it was at an earlier time - when my party was embracing the temperance issue; we were out to ban the bar. Mr Ferguson was able to stand in his place on the Treasury bench of this selfsame assembly and literally undress one of the Liberal opposition members who had the stupidity to write a letter as to how willing he was to sell his soul to the liquor industry and for how much he was prepared to sell his soul. There are several examples I could cite about past lobbying practices, the odd one of which became public, most of which were private. Some of the lobbying was so powerful and so subtle it was not known to very many people indeed.
The point I want to make is that lobbying is certainly a growth industry, nowhere more so than in other jurisdictions, though it is certainly a growing industry here. I was struck a few years ago - not that many years ago - in Britain when we found out that a couple of government backbenchers were actually taking £1,000 from special business interests to write order paper questions. Can you imagine? Members of the British House of Commons were actually taking payment, I think £1,000, per order paper question. That was in the British Parliament about three or four years ago.
As has been mentioned earlier, nowhere is the great barbecue in lobbying more evident than in the United States. In the last couple of weeks there have been a couple of very telling analyses of the state of lobbying in the great American republic. I wanted to take a moment tonight to talk a little bit about what the New York Times reported in its editions of September 29 and 30, 1998, a marvellous pair of extensive front-page articles on the influence industry, on the notorious K Street in Washington.
I say as a member of Parliament, as a member of this Legislature and therefore as a member of the political class, that nothing was more embarrassing than seeing how many of our gang, former members of both houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, many of them very distinguished, people like Howard Baker and George Mitchell, to name two, both former Senate majority leaders, who had sold themselves, in one case to the tobacco lobby and I forget what it was in the case of Senator Mitchell - a shameless selling of political connections to, in some cases, some of the most nefarious lobbies in the United States. I certainly put the tobacco lobby in that category.
What did the New York Times tell us in the articles of September 29 and 30, entitled "The Influence Industry"? Quoting from that article, the article of September 29, from the New York Times:
"Some of the most expensive lobbying campaigns have sought to ensure that nothing happens, like the $100-million effort to kill the anti-tobacco legislation.
"`...the best lobbyists are like paid assassins,' said Jennifer Shecter of the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group in Washington.
"Lobbyists," the article goes on to tell us, "have always been a part of" the fabric of Washington's politics, but never before has lobbying been so intimately interwoven with government. "Twenty years ago," the Times tells us, "most Washington law firms did little or no lobbying. Now virtually all of them have bustling lobbying practices, and some have even hired non-lawyers to increase their political clout."
The well-known American political analyst Kevin Phillips, author of, among others, the book entitled Arrogant Capital, "worries that Washington has become what the founding fathers feared, a `capital so privileged and incestuous in its dealings,'" that the average person will believe it is no longer accessible to the average person.
According to this article in the Times of a couple of weeks ago, there are now at least 128 former members of Congress working actively and registered as lobbyists in Washington.
The article goes on to talk about a senior congressional staff person, a Mr Kies, who in his previous life was the chief of staff for the joint committee on taxation. He is now being paid something in excess of $1 million, according to this article, to lobby for corporate America, and according to this particular analysis, he is having very considerable success.
The article goes on to talk about Jack Valenti, Lyndon Johnson's former press secretary when Johnson was President. Valenti has been a very prominent lobbyist in Washington for 25 years, well known to Washington power brokers as the spokesperson for Hollywood, the Motion Picture Association of America. Valenti, who himself earns over $1 million, says, "I don't need any lobbyists for access or entree," but, he says, "I need troops" for the field work.
The article goes on to talk about how the new game in Washington is fabricating citizens' participation, creating citizens' movements for everything from tax relief to anti-gun or anti-tobacco legislation. It's incredible.
They talk in one of these articles about a Texan activist named Linbeck, "a lanky, bow-tied executive" who plans to spend $90 million over the next number of years to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax - $90 million he plans to spend over the next number of years. He tells you that he expects it to be a medium- to long-term campaign. He's got all the best Democrats and Republicans lobbying, and one of the things they're doing is that they're out creating citizens' movements.
These articles tell us something about the state of our civic culture. These lobbyists are thriving because much of our traditional civic culture is dying. We should be concerned about that.
Ursula Franklin gave the Kilbourn lecture the other night, and I thought she made a very powerful point about what was happening to citizen activism here in Toronto. It's not as healthy as it was some time ago. I think we're all experiencing that. The lobbyists, and the special interests they now represent, clearly are very happy to fill the void, to create the citizen movements.
Why, you might ask, is this happening? I'm no expert, but let me tell you, the lobbyists are thriving because, as I said a moment ago, our civic culture is in poor health. I would argue that some of the reasons for the failing health of our civic culture have to do with such things as the rise of television and the Internet, the dramatic growth of the suburban political culture. With things like the growth of the suburban culture, the power of television, the power of the Net, we find ourselves not going to the neighbourhood meetings, by and large, but we react to one another through independent third-party technology like the Net, like television.
Someone else who has been writing some very interesting things in a related fashion is a very noted Canadian political scientist, Professor C.E.S. Franks, Ned Franks, from Queen's University, who in 1987 wrote a book called The Parliament of Canada, and who last year authored a paper for the Privy Council office in Ottawa called Parliament, Intergovernmental Relations, and National Unity, a 75-page essay done last year for the government of Canada. What does Professor Franks tell us about the state of Parliament and Canadian parliamentary democracy? Basically, he tell us that our Parliament is sick and getting sicker, ineffectual and getting more and more ineffectual with every passing day. He also points out that our political parties are now not much more than fundraising organizations. I think we had better stop and take stock.
2020
I have been increasingly concerned about the health or the lack thereof of the parties in this system of ours, both nationally and provincially. We are, my friends, today witnessing the death throes of one of the great national parties of this country's bicultural, binational existence, and it is not a laughing matter. The party that Macdonald built 140 years ago as a national, intersectional political party in the pre-Confederation era of the 1840s and 1850s and 1860s is dying. That ought to concern us greatly. And we have a national Parliament that is the most dysfunctional national Parliament we have seen in the post-Confederation era. We have a national Parliament where the two principal opposition parties agree on only one thing, namely, that Quebec should go, leave the federation. These things matter.
As I say, the state of political party health - and I don't mean this as a criticism of the current government, because it is equally powerful as a criticism of my own party. They're in bad shape. They exist for not much more than raising money and trying to organize elections in this increasingly television-centred suburban political world.
The question you might ask is, what does this mean for Bill 69? I'll tell you what it means. It is a very fertile field for the lobbyists. They are flourishing, as Parliament gags and chokes and staggers to an ever more evident irrelevance, as the political parties become more and more pathetic in what it is they don't do and what they don't represent. If you think I'm making this up, Franks is a lot more brutal and blunt than I am. He goes on to talk about the very sick state of our political culture. I won't bother to read it, because time does not permit.
Is it any wonder that we've got people leaving Congress and leaving Parliament and leaving the Legislature to go and earn three and four and five times as much money and have real influence on public policy? I think not. My point in making this passionate plea tonight to this House and to the political system that it's supposed to represent and to the broader community that undergirds it all is that we had better understand that Bill 69 is truly one very modest proposal - a positive step, a step in the right direction, to be sure. But this political culture of ours, this parliamentary world of ours, is afflicted with a far more serious and more deadly virus. And let me tell you, Bill 69 is not going to provide the kind of relief that's going to bring this patient back from the edge of disaster and death.
I have spent this past number of weeks as a member of the standing committee of this Legislature dealing with the very important question of the restructuring of the electricity market in Ontario. A more important piece of legislation I have not seen in my lifetime here in the Legislature over 23 years. It is a hugely complicated, enormously important piece of economic and social policy. And what did we have? We had eight days of public hearings in the pit of August. We had some clause-by-clause last week. A lot of people who wanted to participate weren't able to get to the committee because the time constraints were so tight. I understand why the government would want to do that. It's part of a long tripartisan tradition of making the legislative and parliamentary process as irrelevant as possible.
If it ended there, I would not be as concerned as I am. I've been around long enough to see what I saw and to know what I know. I have never seen so much lobbying, and for good reason. The electricity market in Ontario is a $10-billion business. Fortunes will be made as a result of this Bill 35. It touches on absolutely enormous and hugely important financial interests. As was the case in California, Connecticut, Great Britain and Australia, those very powerful interests that are going to be affected with electricity restructuring are at the table with their lobbyists, with their lawyers, with all the power and might that you could imagine they would apply to interests that were so powerful and so evidently pecuniary.
I don't think there's any sense around the Legislature of how irrelevant we have been to that process and how incredibly important and signal has the lobby world been to the structure of the bill and, more importantly, its regulations. I don't think there are very many people in this chamber who have a beginning of an understanding of what has gone on and what continues to go on. You see, the argument - and sometimes I know I bore my colleagues by reciting the New York Times or the -
Interjection.
Mr Conway: I only mention it because, you see, we are in our own way sometimes predisposed to believe that it's just those Americans. I was in the House here a few months ago reading New York Times articles about what was going on in the Connecticut state Legislature when they were restructuring their electricity sector. There, of course, it is more open. It is a catch-as-catch-can kind of wrestling match, and they do have a somewhat more open process. It's brutal, but there was a far better understanding of the kind of water polo game that was being played, particularly underneath the waterline.
We in our own Upper Canadian sense of purity think, "Oh, we're better than that." In some ways I think we are, but we make a very big mistake if we think the kinds of shenanigans that have gone on in places like Connecticut and California as they restructure their electricity market are not going on here. It's just like the old Ontario way - we prefer not to see it. It's kind of like our liquor policy of old. We knew it was sinful, but as long as you bought it from a government store in the most inconvenient location in your community, signed a bunch of forms and walked out into the broad daylight with the demon rum wrapped in heavy gauge brown paper bags, you could sin in Ontario. That's the kind of mentality we sometimes apply to the workings of the lobby.
It's not just here, although my sources tell me that a very significant downtown management law firm effectively wrote this government's response to the old Bill 7. I happen to believe that. I think Hicks Morley had quite a lot to do with the rewriting of the labour legislation that the new government brought forward in response to -
Mr Baird: Put the evidence on the table.
Mr Cullen: They publish it. They're proud of it.
Mr Baird: Back it up. Tell us how you know that.
Mr Conway: Some people here who are barking loudly have much closer and more direct links to Hicks Morley than I, I can assure my friend from Nepean. I want to say, we have seen it before.
Mr Baird: You are the one making the accusations.
Mr Conway: I think somebody should cap the unnatural gas from Nepean while I try to make my point. I have to say that we have seen in Ottawa the lobbying around the defence contracts. We have seen lobbying around a variety of other very significant initiatives. I simply want to make the point that it's taking place in an environment where a number of the traditional instruments of our politics are not working, and I think we ought to take some very careful regard of that.
This bill is clearly flawed in that it allows the Integrity Commissioner to do only what the Chair of Management Board permits. That is clearly a serious deficit, default problem with Bill 69. As my colleague from Ottawa West pointed out, the legislation does not impose a code of conduct on the business, on the industry. I think that is also a deficiency. The idea that the cabinet, any cabinet, could exempt an individual or a class of individuals from the sanctions and the provisions of Bill 69: Let me tell you that it's pretty clear to me the very serious problem that presents.
2030
There's another issue as well that I'd like to touch upon in the time left me insofar as the role and the increased role of lobbying is concerned, and that is a trend that I think is truly alarming. Yes, it is true that the business of government, even in this age of retrenchment, is still complex and wide-ranging. I'll tell you, if you are dealing with electricity restructuring, if you are dealing with elaborate tax codes, if you are dealing with a variety of other issues that one could imagine - the regulation of the financial services sector, environmental regulation and protection, to name three or four areas - those are very complicated dossiers. The average legislator, the average generalist, is going to have a very real difficulty in coming to terms with that file.
The interesting thing about Professor Franks in his analysis of the unhappy state of Canadian Parliament is it turns on one essential finding. He says Parliament in this country is not working in significant part because parliaments, both nationally and locally in the several provinces, are peopled by, he calls them, short-term amateurs. I think that's probably a fair analysis. We're all amateurs here in the sense that few of us bring a specialized knowledge and often, when we do, the conflict-of-interest rules do not allow us to get very close to that area of public policy and debate. As Professor Franks points out, we have not only short-term amateurs, but he makes the point that many of these people, feeling completely unsatisfied with their work, leave, so the power of cabinet and specialized, highly focused, very disciplined lobbies has a much greater impact on the final design of policies in a wide range of areas, but particularly in areas where there are technical or other aspects of complexity.
One thing that is happening as a result of smaller government, and it's certainly happened here in Ontario in the last few years, is that we are to some real degree privatizing our public services. We are privatizing the old civil service. It is interesting when one looks at the New York Times article to see how many people have left the US federal public service, as well as Congress, to go and work in the private sector for lobbying or legal houses. Price Waterhouse, for example, in Washington, has developed a very strong competence in areas that had traditionally been the almost exclusive preserve of the public service. We are going to have to really seriously think about the implications, not just for the lobbyist but for the public good in general, of this growing trend to privatize the public service and the business of the public service.
Mr Hastings: That's what happens when you politicize the public service.
Mr Conway: My friend from Etobicoke-Rexdale makes a good point. He says that happened because we politicized the in-house public service, and I think he makes a good point. Much of what's happening today is clearly a reaction to what happened in the era of the Great Society of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and I understand that. The member makes a good point. But let me tell you that these changes will have, are having, a real, measurable and not always, if often, positive impact on the public good. That is the question we really have to turn our minds to. What is it that our society in 1998 would conceive of as a public good? It is clear from these articles in the New York Times that a lot of former politicians and former political aides in Washington, and yes, in Ottawa and Toronto, are deciding that private gain, the big buck - this Mr Kies, who left the House taxation committee where he was paid US$132,000, went to the lobby where he's been paid a million bucks, there to join a very distinguished crew, some of whose names I gave you before.
I want to say, the moneychangers are all about the temple and the public good is in some very real jeopardy here. If you think that a highly disciplined, highly financed lobby is going to write legislation on environmental protection, on financial service reform, on tobacco legislation in the public interest, think again. I can tell you that the big tobacco lobby is not hiring the likes of Howard Baker and a variety of these other senatorial and congressional luminaries because they are concerned about the public health of Americans. As was pointed out earlier, they are hiring these people to make sure that certain things don't happen.
Many things that we know are clearly supported by the broad base of the American community. The challenge in this new world of ours, this suburban political culture, this world where it's all about television and the Net, where the new game in Washington is to go out and hire the best and the brightest to fabricate - think about this, and I'm not making it up, it's reported in those articles I mentioned earlier. The new business in the lobbying game in Washington is to go out and fabricate citizens' movements. Who ever heard of such corruption? It is democracy inside out and upside down, possible only in this bizarre new world order in which we find ourselves.
I live in a part of the world where, happily, in small-town rural eastern Ontario - and my friends from places like Oxford and some others will know what of I speak because I believe it to be the same there - it is still possible in places like Dereham, Alice and Fraser and a number of these smaller centres to have some sense of that neighbourhood meeting with an ongoing purpose and some ongoing impact. But that's the exception now. The rule is television, suburbia, and you can see it everywhere in our politics and our public policy-making.
That's the change that's making the opportunity for the lobbyists so powerful, so lucrative and so promising. At the same time, when our traditional political institutions - and I say this very bluntly and not very happily: Franks is right. Parliament and the legislatures are generally a mess, and they're getting weaker and sicker with every passing month. The political parties, quite frankly, in some fundamental respects should be ashamed of themselves. Some of their problems are not easy to fix. But I'm going to tell you, when I see on the ground what now constitutes activity in a modern Canadian political party, I have some very real problems telling thoughtful, community-minded people to engage that process. I want to change it, I want to improve it but, I'm going to tell you, it is a core of our system.
Remember what our political system, at least in this province and country, turns on. Parliament was supposed to be a very important central place that elected a government, held it accountable and organized itself into competing political organizations called parties. Whether we like it or not, that is the informing logic of our system. Plainly, evidently, sadly, that theory is not working today. It's broken down. A lot of the tinkering that is offered by politicians and academics will not solve the problems, because, quite frankly, we have not sufficiently recognized that the problems are more basic, they're more cultural, they're more systemic. We have a growing crisis in our civic culture, and because that civic culture is so weakened it is very exposed to a takeover by lobbyists and other special interests.
I'm happy to rise here tonight and support Bill 69. I would like to see a couple of improvements like the ones I've mentioned, particularly around the establishment of a clear code, like withdrawing the directive power of the Chair of Management Board to the Integrity Commissioner. I'd like to see that fixed as well. But I'll tell you, my fellow parliamentarians, if we don't deal with the fundamental underlying problems with our civic and parliamentary culture, ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for us and this institution.
2040
The Acting Speaker (Mr John L. Parker): Questions and comments?
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): As always, it's a pleasure to listen to the member for Renfrew North when he recounts his own history of this place and his knowledge and experience and tries to impart some of that knowledge to government members, who don't have that benefit but seem, on occasion after occasion, to fail to take it into consideration.
I don't share his sadness about the death of the party that Macdonald built, however, but I do share many of the concerns he expressed, especially about the growth of the lobby business in the United States and the fact that there are so many Washington law firms that now find it as the biggest part of their business to be involved in lobbying Congress and why life inside the Beltway is now what it has become. There's a good reason for that development, and it's all because of the incredible amounts of money that can be made by engaging in lobbying activities. Of course, it does have an impact on the democratic process, because what it does, as the member said, is lead not only to more intense lobbying, but by the fabrication of citizens' movements. What that means, really, is that there are a lot of people who are involved in manufacturing consent.
We know that people like Hill and Knowlton are experts when it comes to that. We all remember the example of the campaign that led up to the invasion of Iraq by the United States, which was based on that very principle. It's unfortunate if our democratic process becomes subject to being used like that on a regular basis. This is a modest proposal to try to address that.
Mr Grimmett: I'm pleased to provide some comments and a question regarding the speeches given by the member for Ottawa West and the member for Renfrew North. There's certainly a contrast in style, in listening to the two speakers, and we've come to enjoy the comments made by the member for Renfrew North; I certainly have. I've been here a lot less time than many of the members, but the member for Renfrew North spoke at great length about a number of things that perhaps are well understood by a lot of us, some of the frustrations with the political process.
The member for Ottawa West was perhaps a little bit more on topic in terms of dealing with the details of Bill 69 and had some good questions. I'll try to answer some of them. The matter of excluding the code of conduct that's in the federal legislation is certainly an issue the member for Ottawa West raised, and I would like to indicate that the federal code of conduct covers the relationship between lobbyists and their clients. It deals with the relationship between a lobbyist and a person who employs that lobbyist. This legislation is designed to deal with the relationship between the lobbyist and the person in public office. There is quite a significant difference there, and it certainly is felt that the relationship between the lobbyist and the client, the person who's employing them, is something that is beyond the purview of legislation designed to provide the public with some idea about who is lobbying and what they're lobbying about. I think there is quite a distinction there.
I did want to ask the member for Renfrew North if, in saying that the civic culture has weakened and that we're subject to a takeover, he means that at one time, when Premier Ferguson was in power, the people in his riding knew the difference between the federal and provincial member and which went to Toronto and which went to Ottawa?
Mr Patten: It's a pleasure, actually, to comment on the presentations of the member for Ottawa West and the member for Ottawa - not Ottawa, but he visits us from time to time; the member for Renfrew North.
The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale said earlier that he looked forward to some positive, concrete, constructive suggestions. We have, I believe - I took notes on both speeches - a number of suggestions that would ameliorate the legislation, as identified quite specifically by the member for Ottawa West.
My friend the member for Renfrew North, in his Churchillian persuasion, tends to elevate the discussion to the bigger questions or perhaps the more fundamental questions that legislation of this nature raises; I believe them to be of vital importance on a personal basis as well. If we ask ourselves, "Do we have today the kind of quality of government, in its operations and in its behaviours, that we believe is the best of what we are or could be?" I would hazard a guess that most members would say, "No, it is not." Therefore, that question has to be behind some of the reflection that a bill of this nature raises for all of us, because in the final analysis we must admit that because of a certain approach or denigration of the Legislature itself, it's provided a heck of a lot of room for lobbyists to come and present points of view where the procedures of the House have failed and have been denigrated or diminished somewhat before the people.
Mr Bisson: Commenting on the member for Renfrew North being described as Churchillian, I didn't even know he smoked cigars, and he'd probably have to put on another 30 to 50 pounds to get to that status. Anyway, I don't want to go there. I'll just stay away from that one.
There are two things I'd want to put on the record to what the member for Renfrew North had to say. I agree with him, although he didn't state this categorically, that my sense of part of why the government is doing all of this has little to do with trying to get at what they are perceiving to be a big problem but more to do with the aesthetics or the sense that they are trying to do something about lobbyists as if it's a big problem in Ontario.
I've had the privilege of serving on both sides of the House, both in government and in opposition, and I can tell you that the problem of lobbyists is nowhere near the problem here in Ontario that you'll find in the United States of America or maybe even to a certain extent what happens in Ottawa on the Hill. Here in Ontario there's not a lot of activity that way. You don't see a whole bunch of fancy-priced lobbyists going around the halls of Queen's Park trying to influence the decisions of cabinet ministers or influence the decisions of other members of the Legislature. It's not the way the Legislature operates.
I somehow have a sense that part of what the government is doing is trying to send a message out there in the image of what they want to be able to present in the next election, and that has more to do with why this legislation is being brought forward.
I would also want to hear from the member for Renfrew North when it comes to, does he believe his eyes that this bill is going to get lots of committee hearings? Does he believe his eyes that this government is going to travel this bill through a whole bunch of committee hearings in different town across Ontario? We're going to have all kinds of committee hearings. They're going to be probably in Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto and all over, but they won't travel something like the Hydro bill to the same extent. I'd like to hear what he has to say about that.
The Acting Speaker: Response? The member for Ottawa West.
Mr Cullen: I'd like to thank the members for Windsor-Riverside, Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Ottawa Centre and Cochrane South for their contributions to this debate.
I really want to underline, I hope adequately, the point that the member for Renfrew North is making. That is, in terms of his meta-analysis, if indeed government is being captured by private interests, then we need to have a mechanism to restore government to the people who elected it, to the people who spent this money, to the people who must hold it accountable for its policies. This is but one small step towards that. I think that's very important, and I think the member for Renfrew North said it best.
In terms of the comments from the member for Cochrane South, all I can say is, it's a $56-billion industry that we have here called the government of Ontario. When the government of Ontario spends $56 billion, when it has so much responsibility in all the areas that it legislates and regulates, then obviously there is a lot of stuff going on that we don't see, that the public doesn't see. It calls into question the whole process of government.
Specifically to the issues that the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay raised, he talked about the code of conduct and how it was something between the lobbyist and his or her client. Well, it's important to have these things in place because it's what he's doing on behalf of his client that is affecting the public process. To make sure that there is accurate information, disclosure of obligations, no confidentiality of information being disclosed, insider information not being disclosed, conflict of interest being disclosed, improper influence being disclosed protects the public interest.
I would like the parliamentary secretary, when he next has the opportunity, to address the other two issues that both the member for Renfrew North and myself raised, including why it is necessary to have regulation to exempt classes of public servants - we think this is totally wrong - and to ensure that there is true integrity for the role that the Integrity Commissioner is going to play with respect to this legislation.
2050
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Windsor-Riverside.
Mr Lessard: The government might be surprised to hear what I have to say with respect to this legislation, because most of the time I accuse them of going not only too far and too fast but also in the wrong direction. But with this legislation, as has been said earlier on this evening, this is really a modest attempt to try and regulate lobbyists. It's something that the government has been promoting as part of its agenda for over two years now, and it is only now finally bringing this to light. Why that is so is something that I hope to emphasize in my remarks this evening.
Lobbying is not something new. Lobbying has been going on far longer than this place has even been here. All of us are in a position where we're approached by people because they want us to make decisions in a certain way. I like to think, at least for myself, that the decisions I make have the public interest at the forefront on all occasions. That's probably what everyone here, and I'm sure the members in the government, would say is the basis for all of their decision-making as well.
Records with respect to lobbying date back to at least 1792, but something has certainly changed here in the last three years to necessitate some real, sincere efforts to regulate the lobbyist movement. The timing of this legislation is quite telling, I would submit, three years into the government's mandate, after they had referred to this legislation a long time ago. Why are they bringing it forward now? It's because of some of those changes that have taken place that the public has seen in the last few years. They have seen that under the Harris Conservatives there is an agenda of privatization and Americanization that has had the potential to pour millions of dollars into certain people's pockets. That's one of the reasons the government sees fit to require lobbyists to register.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): On a point of order, Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum in the House. Would you check, please?
The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk advise us if there's a quorum?
Acting Clerk at the Table (Ms Donna Bryce): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Acting Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Riverside.
Mr Lessard: I was referring to some of the examples that we have seen in the last three years of the Harris Conservative agenda that have really necessitated the introduction of lobbyist legislation, and I was talking about the privatization and the Americanization agenda that is being pursued by this government. I can also think about the millions and millions of dollars that can be made on the deregulation and privatization of Ontario Hydro through the initiative of Bill 35. That was referred to by the member for Renfrew North earlier this evening.
I had the opportunity to be on the committee hearings that looked into Bill 35 and to hear the submissions of many people who came before us. Although we did hear a great many submissions, we knew that there were a lot of people who stand to benefit from the deregulation and reorganization of Ontario Hydro that we didn't hear from. As the member for Renfrew North said, there's a lot of work happening below the waterline when it comes to Bill 35 and Ontario Hydro. There are people who can benefit not only from the privatization of Ontario Hydro, but also from the financing of it. That's why we were so concerned when we saw Mr Farlinger going to Newcourt Credit, for example, because that's a financial corporation that is going to be able to benefit substantially from the opportunities of providing financing for those who are going to take advantage of the opportunities of the breakup of Ontario Hydro.
I think as well of the money that's being dreamed of by operators of private jails, for example. We can see the privatization of jails in Ontario. We heard an announcement just a few weeks ago about the superjail that is going to be located in eastern Ontario and a number of smaller jails that are going to close as a result of that. I have no doubt that there are going to be more and more private operators of jails here in Ontario.
I think as well about companies that win contracts to maintain highways. That happened in southwestern Ontario between Chatham and Windsor. The work that was done previously by the Ministry of Transportation was contracted out to a private consortium. It's interesting to note that notwithstanding the fact that the government promoted the privatization of those maintenance contracts as a way to save millions of dollars, it hasn't really turned out that way. Those savings haven't been there, but there certainly have been people who have profited from that exercise in any event.
We also have the example of Casino Niagara. I know the member for St Catharines has a keen interest in what happened surrounding the bidding process at Casino Niagara and who it was that finally ended up with that contract and how it was that they ended up with that contract.
We're also going to be seeing the leasing back of public schools as the school boards find themselves strapped for funds and need to look at more creative ways of building those schools. No doubt those will be schools that will be built primarily by the private sector, which will then lease them back to public school boards and will benefit financially from that.
Those are some of the changes we've seen in Ontario in the last three years that have necessitated this type of legislation, as we see in Bill 69. As I said, corporations, trade unions and citizen groups have always lobbied to influence government policy in government legislation, but the difference we see today and have seen in the last few years is that the result of those lobbying efforts and of many of the decisions we have seen this government make is that they mean huge profits for corporations and specific individuals. Millions of dollars are to be made by the efforts of lobbyists in this case. Rather than making sure that decisions are made in the public interest or to protect the public interest, more and more often we're seeing decisions being made based on who is going to benefit the most financially.
That, I submit, is wrong. It makes this legislation necessary, and I guess it's about time that this government finally found the time to introduce it.
2100
They say it models the federal legislation, which I heard the member for Ottawa West tout as an example we should look towards, as something this government should strive for. However, I should indicate that people like Democracy Watch, for example, have been quite critical of the federal Liberal lobbying legislation, and there is good reason for that. That is because many of the changes that have been introduced by the Liberals haven't gone far enough to deal with the advancements that have taken place in lobbyists' efforts. As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that we're at the forefront of making sure that there is close regulation and close scrutiny of lobbyists.
I have a document that was prepared by Democracy Watch several years ago that was the result of some of their lobbying efforts on the federal government to make changes in the lobbying legislation. They refer to a Liberal Party campaign document called Creating Opportunity and mention the Liberal promises. They say, "Liberal candidates likened lobbying to the crime of influence peddling and promised to `end the backroom power' of lobbyists." That's what they intended to do when they enacted the changes they did.
What Democracy Watch calls for is the enactment of more stringent restrictions on the activities of lobbyists, as many US jurisdictions have. They talk about the consultations the federal government had been conducting and mention an interesting example. It says that most of those consultations "involved industry representatives and major corporations but few, if any, citizen groups or individual citizens." Perhaps there is a flaw in the process that led to this lobbying legislation.
It goes on to say: "There are approximately 27 million people in Canada, spread across the country. Most Canadians, despite the recent hue and cry about a so-called `proliferation of special interest groups,' do not have their own lobbyist advocating for them on every issue the federal government addresses."
I think that really is one of the keys. The key element we need to look at here is the fact that the people involved in the drafting of the lobbyist legislation or involved in any public hearings, if they do take place, will be the people who are going to be directly affected by it as an industry. It's not going to be the average residential consumer or ratepayer or small farmer who has a voice in this process. It's got to be somebody who is going to look out for their interests.
One of the recommendations that came about from Democracy Watch is interesting. It says: "In order to bring effect to Prime Minister Chrétien's promise of a `government that listens to the people,' the Liberal government must determine how to consult with all interested parties, especially members of the public without their own lobbyist in Ottawa, and then must use these consultation methods in every government decision-making process."
That was what Democracy Watch was calling for from the federal Liberal government when they were contemplating changes to their legislation several years ago. Although they did make some of those changes, I have to ask myself whether people consider those changes to have gone far enough.
I think a good illustration of how effective that legislation has been is the fact that since it was enacted, there hasn't been one single example of a violation of it. That means one of two things: that it's had an incredible influence in making sure that people don't violate the act, or that the act really doesn't have any teeth, that there isn't any ability to find out who might be violating the lobbyist legislation and making sure they get charged with an offence.
Somehow, I tend to think that the process of governing in Ottawa hasn't been so squeaky clean in the last 10 to 15 years that there hasn't been a single, even perceived, violation of this lobbyist legislation, which even this government is touting as an example that should be followed and has been followed in the drafting of this legislation.
We need to ask ourselves, if this legislation had been brought forward exactly as it is today right after the election in June 1995, would it have made one single bit of difference with respect to the way this government has managed its agenda in the three years since they've been elected? If this had been in existence three years ago, would it have changed at all any of the questionable activities that we've been raising questions about here in this Legislature day after day after day? Would it have stopped the consultants involved in the Niagara casino bid from advising both the government and the successful bidder at the same time?
We raised those questions on numerous occasions. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, and also our leader, Howard Hampton, the member for Rainy River, have mentioned the perceived improprieties with respect to the granting to the Falls Management group the project in Casino Niagara. On May 28, my colleague Peter Kormos was asking about Leslie Noble, who was one of the chief architects of the Common Sense Revolution, and her involvement as one the chief players in the Tory-led consortium that lobbied the government after it was elected, to persuade it to change its position on privately run casinos here in the province of Ontario. Would this legislation have made any change in the way that activity took place?
We also raised questions about Bill Noble, who worked for Bill Flaherty and now works for the Gaming Venture Group that was awarded a permanent charity casino. We asked a question about the fact that the Latner family donated $48,000 or more to the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario and the benefits they enjoyed after having made that contribution. Some say that may be a coincidence. I suppose it could be, and I guess it's up the public to try to decide whether that's the case or not.
We asked over and over again whether the government thought there was anything improper about that. In fact, the government finally agreed to having an investigation of the process surrounding the granting of the contract at Casino Niagara. It's no surprise that it wasn't found to be improper. One may wonder whether that had something to do with the person who was appointed to do the investigation.
We also asked whether this legislation would stop Conservative insider Leslie Noble from selling her lobbying services to Ontario Hydro for $84,000. Would it have stopped Conservative insider Tom Long from getting a contract for $250,000 - US, I might add - to find a new chief executive officer for Ontario Hydro? Would it have stopped the scandal of contracts for highway repairs going to a company that hired the ministry official who set up the privatization initiative? Would it have done anything to rein in the many, many former aides and advisers to Michael Harris, starting with Bill King, Ed Arundel, Mitch Patten and many others who are now either seeking government contracts or are working as consultants for companies that seek -
Mr Baird: Or Robin Sears or David Agnew. What about David Agnew?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Come to order, please.
Mr Lessard: I've raised the interest of the government members. I'm pleased to see that government members are as concerned as I am about these perceived improprieties that have taken place in the three years that have led up to the introduction of this legislation. Some may argue that that's the reason this legislation is being introduced now, or else that that's why they've waited all this time, to ensure that their privatization-deregulation agenda was well underway so that many of those instances wouldn't be subject to the scrutiny of the spotlight of legislation like this.
We believe this legislation can be strengthened as well, and I am sincerely hopeful that it will be.
2110
As I indicated, one of the things that I think is paramount in my decision-making, and I would hope for the decision-making of everyone who is here, is the protection of the public interest, not the interests of the lobbyists or the people they represent but the public interest, the people who don't have the millions of dollars to influence the decisions we make here today but are impacted by them.
I know that on September 9, 1998, the minister released a press release and talked about the legislation that he was going to be introducing. He says, "This proposed legislation supports our commitment to ensure government activities are conducted openly, fairly and transparently while protecting any provincial government from undue influence." He goes on to say, "Lobbying is part of the government process and if this legislation is approved, it would help ensure that the public interest is protected." That is the question we need to consider as we're debating this legislation: At the end of the day, will the public interest be protected?
When I see how the public interest has been protected by this government over the last three years, I have some real concern whether this legislation is going to have any impact whatsoever. We've gone through public hearings on Bill 35, as I referred to earlier, the bill to deregulate Ontario Hydro. We have been saying all along that even though this government says their interest in deregulating Ontario Hydro is to ensure that all consumers have lower energy rates - it even says that in the title of the bill - nowhere in the legislation is there any protection or any statement that the objective of the bill is to ensure that lower rates are enjoyed by all consumers. We pushed for that amendment and that was denied. We wonder how that legislation is going to ensure all consumers have lower rates when the government won't even put it in the bill.
In his remarks when the bill was introduced, the minister talked about how his agenda is not privatization of Ontario Hydro. He said that's not on the agenda. We suspect that it is. That's really where this is all going. However, the Market Design Committee that was looking at ways to ensure there be some stability as far as prices for Hydro are concerned, when they gave their report, they were instructed to make that report on the basis that Ontario Hydro would remain, by and large, intact.
We heard from representative after representative before our committee who said that even though the government's intention through Bill 35 is to introduce competition into the energy market, this bill isn't going to do it. If it's not going to introduce real competition to Ontario, it's not going to result in lower energy prices for consumers either.
It was interesting to note that on Friday the Market Design Committee introduced their third report. It's interesting to note that the recommendation in that report is that Ontario Hydro should only control 35% or less of Ontario's electricity supply. If they're only going to control 35%, and they have about 85% to 90% right now, that could only mean one thing, that they're going to be selling a big part of Ontario Hydro to the private sector. My concern is that there is going to be a whole lot of people who are going to make out very well as a result of the privatization of Ontario Hydro, and a lot of them are waiting in the wings to cash in.
This lobbying legislation will give us the opportunity to find out who those people are, and that's about it. It's not going to be able to tell us anything more than a lot of us already know around here, that people like British Energy PLC, who have been openly lobbying for the opportunity to purchase Ontario Hydro's nuclear assets, have set up a 15-person office here in Ontario waiting for that opportunity.
People may think that people like British Energy may have been trying to exert some influence on the government of Ontario as they were trying to go through the steps they did with respect to Bill 35. One can only imagine why the Market Design Committee is now talking about its recommendations to sell or privatize a big part of Ontario Hydro. Perhaps that could be the influence of people like Sir Graham Day, who was appointed by this government to the board of directors, who is known as the "serial privatizer" in Great Britain, and companies like PowerGen have been involved deeply in the privatization of energy. Those are the people this government has brought on board to help guide them through this process.
The legislation that is being introduced here, Bill 69, wouldn't make any difference as far as the activities are concerned of people like British Energy and other people who want to get their hands on that huge consumer market that is going to result in millions of dollars of profit through the deregulation of Ontario Hydro.
That's one of the great concerns I have: Who is out there going to be looking after the public interest? We know the lobbyists are going to be out there working for a profit on a commission, making millions of dollars from their employers or the people who they work for or the people who may benefit from the result of their lobbyist efforts. That's why we need something to prohibit contingency fees. It's outrageous that lobbyists can base their fees on a contingency basis, that they can be rewarded by ensuring the government provides the benefit they're looking for through their clients.
2120
The difference in philosophy between myself and our party and the government is where I think we need to address our concerns and determine whether this lobbyist legislation addresses those concerns. This government is convinced that the privatization route is the way to go. What that means is that the private sector is going to end up being able to buy a lot of money-making opportunities at bargain basement prices, things that used to be done by the public sector, and all we're going to know about the people who are lobbying on behalf of those special interest groups is their names and who it is they're working for. There's a whole lot more that we need to know about the people who are working for those who are going to be benefiting from the decisions of this government, and also who is going to end up paying for them. When it comes to Ontario Hydro, I'm afraid there are going to be a lot of large corporate energy consumers who are going to be able to benefit from lower rates, but there's a whole lot of small residential and farm consumers who are going to end up being stuck with the bill.
Why is that going to happen? Because those large corporate interests are going to have lobbyists who are going to ensure they have that ability, whereas small residential and farm consumers aren't going to have a lobbyist to represent them, and that's the responsibility we have.
What happened in New Zealand provides an interesting example of what can happen when a government decides they want to pursue this privatization agenda with such zeal. I'm reading from the Parliamentarian of July 1998. It says, "Defending the Public Interest - `Free Market' or free-for-all?" It's written by an MP in New Zealand, Jim Anderton. He talks about the privatization of electricity in New Zealand. When he was writing this article, four of the main electricity cables leading to the city of Auckland had failed. They failed because, as a result of the privatization of the hydro system in New Zealand, those cables were poorly maintained, the infrastructure wasn't kept up. They all failed, sending the entire city into darkness as a result.
He also talks about who wins and who loses as a result of free market policies they've pursued down there. The problem with pursuing the free market policies that the large corporate lobbyists would like us to pursue is that "continuous restrictions in social spending...have left large gaps in coverage. It is usually the people who have lost their incomes or their security, because of free market policies, who are left most vulnerable. The free market is unable to provide adequate social support services." That's part of the problem with having large corporate sector lobbyists trying to determine what the government's agenda has been.
One example is that "One mental health policy has been to deinstitutionalize people with long-term mental illness." That means that many New Zealanders who are mentally ill are just abandoned. He asks the question, "Why has New Zealand implemented such a bad set of policies as the so-called `free market' reforms of the last decade and a half?"
The explanation is quite simple: Self-interest. There are a few people who have done very well indeed as a result of the reforms they have pursued in New Zealand. My fear is that there are a few people who are going to benefit a great deal from the reforms this government is pursuing. They're going to be assisted by people who are in the lobbying business. They're going to be represented quite well by those people. As a result of being influenced by those lobbyists, we are going to have public policy decisions made in Ontario that are going to be detrimental to our social policies and detrimental to the protection of the environment as well.
There was another example that came up recently in the spring, and that was the permit to sell Great Lakes water from Lake Superior. You wonder whether there was some lobbyist who had some influence in ensuring that a permit was granted to sell water from the Great Lakes to Asia, notwithstanding the serious ramifications that decision may have, not only on protection of the environment, but also on the sale of fresh water from the Great Lakes. We all know that as soon as fresh water becomes considered a commodity pursuant to the North American free trade agreement, it could be subject to being exported to other places as well. In addition to Asia, it could be sent down to New Mexico, Texas or California, where the appetite for fresh water is simply voracious and the ability to pay for it is almost unlimited. But is that the sort of policy we should be pursuing, trying to find out who has the most money to pay for our natural resources, fresh water? I don't think that's the sort of policy we want to pursue.
The Acting Speaker: It being 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.
The House adjourned at 2126.