L043B - Wed 14 Oct 1998 / Mer 14 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
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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 Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please check if we have quorum.
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside.
Mr Lessard: Thank you, Speaker, for ensuring that there were enough people to listen to the sequel to the debate with respect to lobbyists registration legislation. I know that last night members were listening quite intently to what it was that I had to say. They were quite enthusiastic about having to be here, especially the member for Nepean. I know he hangs on every word I speak. I wish sometimes after listening to me that he paid attention and took into account some of the worthwhile advice that I had to offer him.
When I left off last night, I was talking about the impact that this lobbyists registration legislation might have had if it had been implemented three years ago after this government had been elected. They made the promise that they were going to introduce this legislation. We've waited all this time to finally see it and now that we see it and have a chance to scrutinize it, we have to ask ourselves, would it have made any difference if it had been introduced three years ago?
One of the things we have to ask ourselves is, would it have stopped the consultants involved in the Niagara casino bid from advising both the government and the successful bidder on the project? Would it have stopped 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 the 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 this privatization initiative?
Would it do anything to rein in the many, many former aides and advisers to Premier Mike Harris, starting with Bill King, Ed Arundel, Mitch Patten and many others who are now either seeking government contracts or working as consultants for companies that seek out government contracts? I ask whether this legislation -
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): What about you getting government contracts?
The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean.
Mr Lessard: I ask whether this legislation would have made any difference whatsoever with respect to those incidents that we've raised time after time after time in this Legislature.
Before I came up this evening to speak, I was downstairs at the Canadian Co-operative Association lobbying efforts and we all know that there is a necessity for there to be people who are organized, who are going to try and influence our decision-making, and we want to ensure always that when we're making decisions in this place, we're doing so in the public interest.
There are always people who are going to organize and to try and exert greater influence on the decisions that we make in this place. That's to be expected. We're in the business of making decisions, passing legislation, passing regulations. People who are going to be impacted by those decisions are going to want to try and influence the decisions that we make. But it's important to us to ensure that when we're making those decisions, we're doing so in the public interest and we're not doing so for our own personal financial interest or for the financial interests of those lobby groups which may benefit from it but for the public at large.
The Canadian Co-operative Association is involved in many important endeavours that I believe are in the public interest. One of the things that they're involved in are the Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada. Their role is to be involved in providing affordable housing for Canadians, something that the NDP government when they were in power agreed with. We see now that there is a crisis in social housing. There are people living on the street. This winter, I'm afraid that people who are without housing are going to die as a result of not being able to have access to affordable housing. Why? Because this government doesn't see the role of government in providing affordable housing for people in Ontario, and I say shame. They should recognize the importance of that role.
In Windsor we have a great example of a co-operative housing initiative. We have Solidarity Tower, for example, an initiative that was established by Charlie Brooks, the president of CAW Local 444. As one of his most prized initiatives he pursued the provision of affordable housing for people in our community, a very lofty goal. He didn't benefit from it personally. He wasn't in the construction business. He wasn't in the development business. He was in the business of ensuring that people were provided with affordable housing.
Also, the Canadian Co-operative Association is involved in the Co-operators Group Ltd insurance companies, Credit Union Central - I'm a member of a credit union myself; I was formerly a board member of Motor City Community Credit Union in the city of Windsor - who ensure that any profits derived from the business they do are reinvested back into their community and don't provide benefits for shareholders in other parts of Canada or in Europe, Japan or Asia or other parts of the world, but make sure that their reinvestment is in our own community. I think that's important.
1840
They also represent the Ontario Worker Co-op Federation and the Ontario Natural Foods Co-op and also were involved in the initiatives to provide co-operative energy. As well, there's a major wind-powered project they're involved in on Toronto Island that I'm quite interested in as part of my responsibility as critic for the Ministry of Energy and the initiatives that are taken with respect to Bill 35.
We want to make sure that people who are on the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-op have an opportunity to be able to participate in the opportunities this government says are going to present themselves as a result of Bill 35. They're going to present opportunities for renewable energy.
Green power: This government says the marketplace will determine whether green power is going to have a market in Ontario. We all know that when it comes to the unfettered marketplace, things like protection of the environment and the provision of social benefits like health care, education and even housing are going to go by the wayside.
Direct government involvement, encouragement and intervention is going to ensure that those opportunities remain available for people like the Toronto Renewal Energy Co-op, because we know that the energy they produce is probably going to be more expensive than energy that's produced by dirty, coal-fired plants in the Ohio Valley or maybe even in Detroit, like the Conners Creek power plant that we fought so hard to prevent from starting up running this summer.
When it comes to the marketplace, the marketplace will determine that people will try to choose the cheapest source of energy available. Unless the government provides encouragement or opportunities for people who are going to provide green power, the prevalence of dirty, coal-fired power is going to emerge. That's going to be bad for our environment. It's going to present a tremendous impact on our health care system, because people are going to get lung-related or bronchial-related illnesses as a result of bad air, and we're all going to have to pay the price for that, because they're going to need health care services as a result.
Everyone has an interest in the outcome. The public has an interest, but of course there are many who can benefit directly, financially, from the deregulation of Ontario Hydro, and that's where lobby groups are going to become involved. Because of the incredible sums of money that can be raised or will become the result of the deregulation of Ontario Hydro, there are going to be a number of well-paid, well-organized lobbyists who are going to be involved. We've seen that during our committee hearings this past summer.
We need to balance the public interest against the interests of lobbyists and their clients. This is what the government tries to present to us as the rationale for introducing this bill, Bill 69, the lobbyists registration legislation. I think people need to scrutinize that. Would it make any difference in the way the government has initiated its legislative agenda in the last three years? I'm not sure it really would.
I have some real concerns with respect to Bill 69, and they're concerns I'm expressing not only on my own behalf but on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of my family, on behalf of my young son, Brett, who I hope is watching this evening to see his father in action in the Legislature.
Mr Baird: Hi, Brett.
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Hi, Brett.
Mr Lessard: Hi, Brett.
I believe I do the work that I do here on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of my family, and when I look at Bill 69 I look at some of the concerns I have. I think the regulation of lobbyists by and large is a good idea. I think we need to try to control those vested interests, those special interests that this government attacks on such a regular basis; it attacked them during the election campaign, saying we were too much influenced by special interests. Maybe that's the case, but is this lobbyists registration bill going to make any difference with respect to that? That's the question we need to concern ourselves with.
Some of the things I'm concerned about are in clause 3(2)(c). That section of the legislation talks about who this act doesn't apply to. Specifically, it says that it doesn't apply with respect to "any oral or written submission made to a public officer holder by an individual on behalf of a person, partnership or organization, in direct response to a written request from a public office."
That means that any time the government asks for somebody's opinion, they're not covered by this legislation. That opens the door wide to anybody whom the government decides they want to ask for their opinion to provide whatever opinions may be in the best interests of their clients without any restriction whatsoever. That is a section of this legislation that needs to be amended. That is a major loophole, that if somebody is invited to make submissions to the government somehow they're completely exempt from the operation of this legislation. That's wrong.
Subsection 4(1) says, in respect to the registration of consultant lobbyists - and I think there's one thing we agree to, and that is that lobbyists should register. We don't have any problem with that. But let's determine what the responsibilities are of lobbyists who do register, what sort of regulation they have to comply with when they do and what sort of criteria they need to meet.
In this subsection, it says that a lobbyist needs to file their return with the registrar not later than 10 days after they start their lobbying. Well, who knows what happens within that 10 days? By the time they need to file their registration, they could have done all of their lobbying, achieved the decision they set out trying to achieve on behalf of their clients, contracts may have been signed, sealed and delivered, and by the time the public becomes aware of what has happened, it's game over, it's too late for anybody to be able to have any influence. That's a section that needs to be changed. There shouldn't be any 10-day grace period for the registration of lobbyists who engage in campaigns. They should have to register before or, at least, when they begin their lobby campaign.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we don't have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Could you check if we have a quorum, please.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
1850
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Riverside.
Mr Lessard: I was referring to the legislation, Bill 69, An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998, and talking about some of the concerns I had with this bill, notwithstanding that we in the NDP think the registration of lobbyists is a good idea.
In subsection 11(3), it talks about access to this registry. Once the lobbyists have to register, there is a requirement. There should be an opportunity for the public to have access to this information. There should be a positive duty on the government to ensure that people have access to this information. There should be an obligation to do outreach into the community, the way the Environmental Bill of Rights operates, for example. I was pleased to be part of the putting into place of that. It puts on to the Environmental Commissioner a positive duty to do outreach, to go out into communities to make sure that people are aware of the ability they have to respond to environmental legislation, regulations, policies and applications.
In this legislation, it says simply that "The registry shall be available for public inspection in the manner and during the time that the registrar may determine." That is a real restriction on public accessibility, to find out who is lobbying the government, why they are lobbying the government and what they expect to achieve as a result of those efforts. That section of the legislation should be amended to place a positive responsibility on the government to make sure that they outreach into communities to make sure that people have an opportunity to find out who is lobbying the government.
The other sections I have concern with are the regulation sections, and that's not unusual with this government. On occasion, we have seen them try to pass regulation-making powers that actually override the legislation. We know how inappropriate that is. Luckily, they didn't try to do that in this bill, but what it does say is that "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations" - this is section 18, Speaker, that I am referring to. I know you are following along closely. It says in clause (a) that they can pass regulations exempting any person who is appointed from the definition of "public office holder." This means they can say that any person who is in government, who is on a crown board or commission or agency, can be exempt from the operation of this legislation. They pass this legislation, tell us how good it is and how much it's going to protect the public interest, and then they give themselves the opportunity to exempt everybody from its operation. That is wrong and needs to be changed.
Clause 18(d) says they can pass regulations requiring a fee to be paid for the filing of these registrations. As I indicated, we don't have any objection to legislation that requires the registration of lobbyists. But I mentioned the Canadian Co-operative Association as a lobby group which was lobbying all of us this evening for many of the fine initiatives they are involved in. There are a number of lobbyists who lobby on behalf of the homeless, for example; lobby on behalf of health care providers; lobby on behalf of people who are providing public education; lobby on behalf of initiatives we think are important taking place in our communities.
The setting of fees must ensure that people who are doing work like that aren't eliminated from the process by setting those fees so high that they don't have any opportunity whatsoever to be able to lobby governments. If that's what this government is trying to do, to say that the only people who are going to lobby the government are the ones who can pay these fees, and "We're going to be the ones who will set these fees, and we're going to set them so high that only the people who have the most money are going to be able to register and lobby the government," that is wrong. I hope that's not what this legislation is trying to do. We want to ensure that there is some limit on the fees lobbyists have to pay to register so that the fee-making power doesn't become an impediment to people who want to have some ability to influence the decisions of government but who may not have the financial resources to do so.
That's really what it comes down to, and that's really our concern: that far too often we see that the decisions made by this government are influenced by people who have the money, who have the power, who know the people who know the people who can direct the decisions that are made by this government. Quite often that isn't in the public interest, and it's those people who are directly impacted by the decisions of government who don't often find the ability to come here, to meet with their MPP, to meet with a cabinet minister. They don't belong to any organization. They're not affiliated with anybody who is able to get meetings with ministers. They are just impacted by the decisions we make here and feel quite often that they don't have any influence whatsoever on the decisions being made except at election time.
We in the NDP feel that people need to be able to influence the decisions we make here on a regular basis. This is a democracy that we are involved in. We need to encourage people to be involved in that democratic process. If we don't do that, then I don't think we are serving the public we represent.
We have seen this government get elected on the basis of promising to provide a tax cut. Their phony tax scheme really provides a benefit only to those who are the most well-off, and you can consider the people who are the most well-off to be the most well-organized, well-funded and the best-equipped to lobby the government. We need to make sure that the public in general get represented in this process and that people aren't marginalized in their ability to influence the decisions we make in this place. This shouldn't be a place where those who have the most money are the ones who are able to have the most influence on our decisions. That shouldn't be the case at all. Far too often I think this is the problem with the current government.
1900
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we've lost quorum again.
The Acting Speaker: Please check if we have a quorum.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I just want to thank the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside for his remarks. I know he was sincere in his comments on the Lobbyists Registration Act. I think it's a shame that his colleague twice in the last 20 minutes has interrupted him for a quorum call. Yes, it is his colleague's right to call a quorum, but there is a co-op reception going on, and members of all parties are trying to get down to that at the same time. But this is part of our government. We allow more time for debate than either the Liberals did during their time in office or the NDP during their time, so we will suffer through.
Although I think the member for Windsor-Riverside had some valid points to make about the legislation, I want to point out that the legislation is consistent with the federal legislation, which has been serving the federal Parliament very well over the past few years.
He talked about cost of registration. This legislation is for people who get paid - they're professional lobbyists - big dollars to lobby all of us in government, no matter what side of the House we're on, so believe me, they can afford the small registration fee. This registration scheme is about protecting the public and protecting the politicians from undue influence from such paid lobbyists.
The honourable member mentioned at the beginning of his remarks Bill King, Leslie Noble and Ontario Hydro. It's unfortunate he believes everything he reads. I have seen the Toronto Star, the Financial Post and CITY-TV do stories about those individuals lobbying me as Minister of Energy, Science and Technology about the Energy Competition Act and the opening up of the energy market, which has the consensus of the people of Ontario. It's a very positive thing for jobs and the economy.
I just want to place on the record that Leslie Noble and I have not spoken personally in some eight months. I don't know who she's lobbying, but keep up the good work, Mr Lessard and those media outlets that perpetuate this, because her fees go up every time she's accused of having the inside track with the government.
Secondly, Bill King is doing an honourable job in respecting his prohibition from lobbying the government during his one year out, and he has not spoken with me about his clients that are in the energy sector. I just wanted to put that on the record.
I don't know who they're lobbying except some fictitious scarecrows that -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Member for St Catharines.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It was interesting to hear the minister say that Bill King now has an honourable job. I don't know whether I'm supposed to infer from that that the job he had in the Premier's office was dishonourable or something. I'm going to tell Bill next time -
Hon Mr Wilson: He's doing an honourable job of respecting the law.
Mr Bradley: I'm glad you clarified that, because I was going to have to phone Bill to ask him what the difference would be between the job he had before and the one he has now and whether it's honourable enough.
I think the member for Windsor-Riverside raises a significant issue when he mentions the potential for a new tax increase, in other words, a registration fee. I have now counted some 397 tax increases by the Conservative government so far. He will remember, as I do, that Premier Harris, when he was in opposition, said that a user fee is in fact a tax, and any one of these charges is a tax. I have now counted 397 increases in taxes by this government, by their own admission, because the Premier said a user fee is a tax.
I get worried that if the amount were high enough - yes, I accept the fact that some of the rich firms that employ people at a high rate of pay might well be able to pay it, but some of the firms which are very modest in terms of the amount of money they might have available to them and are unable to pay their so-called lobbyist a significant amount of money might well feel that if the fee were large enough, it would be a deterrent to them, so that only those who represent the powerful and the richest people in our society could afford to have lobbyists working for them, while others of modest means would be left out in the cold.
Mr Bisson: I want to comment on one aspect of the presentation made by the member for Windsor-Riverside. I think he made a lot of really good points about some of the things that are somewhat problematic around the legislation. Although the legislation itself is going in the right direction, he talked about how yet again this government is using this registration of lobbyists as another opportunity to collect a user fee. I don't know, but I think most members around this House, especially in the opposition, and certainly the public are starting to realize that.
When the government talked about the tax cut they were going to give people, 30% of the provincial share, people really expected they were going to get those dollars and they were going to put them in their pockets. I think a lot of people voted for the Conservatives in the election of 1995 on the basis that they were going to get that money and they were going to put it in their wallets and they were going to go out and spend it.
People are starting to recognize that the 30% tax cut ain't going too far when you add up all the user fees that this government is putting on people. We're seeing tuition fee increases that are huge, prescription user fees going up. In my riding, I got a bunch of complaints last week from local business people who are seeing an increase. You know when you put a sign on the side of the highway that says, "Welcome to the City of Timmins," or "Woodgreen Trailers," or whatever you're trying to advertise? You used to pay $60 a year for the rental on that property so that you would be able to put the sign up there. Do you know how much it's going up to? It will be $275 next year, over $60 that you paid this last year.
People are starting to realize that when you start stacking all these user fees one on top of the other, that measly little tax cut you got doesn't amount to a heck of a lot, because you're finding out you're paying more in user fees and increased property taxes than you ever got with the tax cut. I think the member for Windsor-Riverside hit the nail on the head. This is another hidden tax increase.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to make some comments and questions on the speech given by the member for Windsor-Riverside. The member began his speech last night, and I'm glad he had the opportunity to -
Mr Bisson: On a point of order: I believe we've lost quorum again.
The Acting Speaker: Please check if we have a quorum.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.
Mr Grimmett: As I was saying, the member last night began his speech and he didn't seem to be on the bill very much, but I think overnight he read the bill. I will congratulate him. He actually made some decent suggestions in going through the bill, and I wanted to comment on a couple of those.
He mentioned clause 3(2)(c), which deals with the exemptions. That's specifically given to people who we as members would typically reach out to and ask for comments on proposed policy decisions or policy suggestions we have. As the member said while he was speaking, later in his speech, our job is to encourage public input, to encourage public discussion about ideas we have. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to require those people who respond to our written inquiries to register. That's why we have followed the federal legislation in setting up section 3. As was mentioned by my colleague earlier, the federal legislation appears to be working well and it has been in place for over 10 years.
The other issue with regard to access, I want to assure the member that the plan of the ministry, if this legislation receives the approval of the House, is to implement an Internet location for the registry to make it more available to the public, very similar to what is in place, the same provisions as in the federal legislation.
1910
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Member for Windsor-Riverside, you have two minutes.
Mr Lessard: I want to thank the members who responded to my remarks with respect to Bill 69. The member for Simcoe West was very eloquent in his defence of people like Bill King and the work that they've done in lobbying this current government to try and achieve the results for their big money interests, their corporate friends in making the decisions that this government has made, but I don't think he has been successful in his defence of people like Bill King.
He says that this legislation is modelled after the Liberal legislation in Ottawa, but that's not legislation that's without criticism. In the time that this legislation has been introduced, there hasn't been one single example of any contraventions of it. I would say that is legislation that is without teeth. The other is that I guess it's had such an incredible deterrent impact that nobody would ever think of infringing this lobbyist legislation, but I don't think that is possibly the case.
The member for St Catharines makes a good point in the fact that this government has said in the run-up to the campaign that a user fee is a tax, but now we see the downloading of the government deficit on the students, we see it on the hospital boards, we see it on the school boards, we see it on the municipalities. How can it make any common sense to download the provincial government debt on to the backs of those who are least able to pay it?
The member for Cochrane South talked about the user fees that this government has brought into place -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I'll be sharing my time with the member for Nepean.
This legislation, as has just recently been pointed out by the member for Simcoe West and the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, is consistent with federal legislation. One of the few things that the federal government has done in the last few years that I agree with is the registration of lobbyists. With the passing -
The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you. You need unanimous consent to share your time with the member for Nepean. Just ask for unanimous consent.
Mr Barrett: I wish to ask for unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed?
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): No.
The Acting Speaker: I heard a no from your side. So that's it, it's not unanimous consent.
Mr Lessard: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Would you check if we have quorum.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Norfolk.
Mr Barrett: With respect to the federal legislation it was 1989 that the Lobbyists Registration Act was passed and this statute was amended in 1996. At that time, the federal government became the first political body in Canada to legislate this type of registry for lobbyists.
It is fitting that Ontario becomes the second jurisdiction to enact this type of legislation with Bill 69, the Lobbyists Registration Act, and indeed it is time. I believe that the debate on Bill 69 last night and today from the member for Windsor-Riverside has been helpful and constructive. I too have a young son named Brett, although I feel by now he and his little sister are probably watching The Simpsons after what's gone on in the last hour or so in the Legislature.
I wish to speak from my previous experience when I was a newly elected MPP and I arrived at Queen's Park. I had never seen so much mail from so many special interest groups. As MPP, I soon came to learn that almost every occupation had an association or a union or a hired gun who knew their way around the Pink Palace better than I did.
For me, it started with the swearing-in ceremony in June 1995. I remember the would-be lobbyist with a megaphone out front. All through the ceremony this person would repeat over and over again the mantra, "Embarrass Harris." It is obvious to me now that that person was probably one of those who stood to lose if the Harris government did what it said it would do.
We said we would cut taxes. This meant there would be less money for lobbyists to tap into.
We said we would cut non-priority government spending. Again, less choice for lobbyists to figure out which grant to go for next.
We said we would cut government barriers to job creation and cut the size of government, less government. Again, lobbyists would have a positive -
Mr Bradley: What's this got to do with the bill?
Mr Barrett: We're speaking about lobbyists. It would be a positive effect for them and enhance their ability to find their way through the previous maze of bureaucracy and red tape more easily.
We said we would balance the budget. This meant government will stop spending money that it doesn't have on programs that aren't essential.
I'm sure there are a number of lobbyists who have lost out because of the Common Sense Revolution. Because the Ontario government is determined to balance the budget and break away from the lost decade of taxing and spending money we didn't have as taxpayers, many lobbyists knew that there would be less money available for their specific cause.
In August 1995, right after the election, I wrote to the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Justice at the time, questioning procedures for lobbying Ontario MPPs. Many letters forwarded to me had been stamped "Received by the Minister of Justice." I wish to read one letter that I sent to Mr Rock, and I quote:
"I, along with at least one other member, have been supplied with a package of information regarding Bill C-68 by the Coalition for Gun Control. The Coalition for Gun Control provided over 72 letters and other documents which support their position. Another one dozen letters included in their package are stamped as being `Received by the Minister of Justice.'
"...the question arose, `Is the Coalition for Gun Control being assisted by the Minister of Justice while lobbying provincial politicians on the minister's behalf?'
"...Now that I have the letters favouring gun control I would therefore request that the justice minister provide to this office copies of all correspondence received from municipalities, groups and organizations who have opposed Bill C-68."
This intrusive legislation from the federal government was justified on the basis of unscientific opinion polls sponsored by the federal government and the anti-gun lobby. A MacKenzie Institute study, entitled Canadian Attitudes Towards Gun Control: The Real Story, provides compelling evidence that these polls were designed to manufacture consent for the government's policies by deliberately misleading the public and the media.
Therefore, because of these lobbying tactics there is an element of intellectual dishonesty about this legislation. It allows the federal government to give the appearance of action on an important social issue without doing anything substantial to deal with the real problems of violent crime and violent criminals.
I go back to when I was newly arrived at Queen's Park. I was amazed at the number of receptions, meetings, requests for interviews, letters, conversations, packages, submissions, faxes, demonstrations, e-mails and phone calls that my staff and I had to deal with. However, I was not quite naive enough to believe that all of these people were just as happy about my election win as I was. Many of these people, whom I had never heard from before, were often after one thing: either the public's money or perhaps the public's favour.
1920
I remain proud to be a Mike Harris Conservative. To this day, I can say that our government is acting in an open and accountable manner and doing what it said it would do. I am proud to be part of the group that helped break Ontario's tax-and-spend habit. After a decade of tax-and-spend governments - governments that kept two sets of books - the public now has a much broader and informed picture of how the province spends its money.
With Bill 69, we are asking that anyone who receives funding from the government or a government agency discloses the fact, including the amount of funding. Is the group itself doing the lobbying or has it hired a professional lobbyist? Is this where we are paying government money to be lobbied to pay more government money? This has to be to the biggest insult to all taxpayers. Some of these organizations have been investigated and some of these groups exist to get more money out of government to pay their salaries so they can come back and get more money out of government to pay their salaries again in subsequent years. We are asking that this be made open. We want to know whether government is paying people to try and get more money from it. This should be out in the open. If this is happening, we want to know about it.
One issue in my riding concerns the anti-tobacco lobby that has developed in recent years. A couple of key lobby groups especially raise the ire of constituents in Norfolk, most notably the Non-Smokers' Rights Association. I have here a report on the Non-Smokers' Rights Association that I got through the federal registry that's already in place, the registry to register lobbyists.
Just to give you an idea how useful the information can be, the executive director of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association is a fellow named Clifford Mahood. It's a non-profit, public health organization. It also has a related charitable status organization titled Smoking and Health Action Foundation, whose mandate is to conduct research and public education. This organization is funded by taxpayers' money through Health Canada to the tune of $350,000.
There is much work to be done by lobbyists that is in close connection with charities. I don't feel any member here would argue that we want charities to be very transparent and upstanding community citizens. The separation of the two very different types of organizations is very important.
I have a report as well from the MP for Hamilton-Wentworth, John Bryden, who in 1996 put together a presentation. He talks about the Non-Smokers' Rights Association and a charity, the Smoking and Health Action Foundation. These two organizations shared the same address and were run by the same chief executive officer.
In his report Mr Bryden stated that it appeared that the charity's revenues, mostly in the form of government grants, were also being used to pay the salaries for the lobbyist group. These two organizations, one a lobby group and one a charity, were sharing offices, personnel and funding. These people were contravening the federal income tax law, I understand, and this story appeared in the media. Again without the openness into the actions and funding of lobbyists like this, we can never know what's really going on.
In Norfolk there's another group that's growing. It's basically a lobby against the anti-tobacco lobby because of the importance of tobacco farming in our area. This group calls itself Citizens for Rights and Freedoms and is led by a local Delhi business person, John Varga. As MPP for tobacco country, I represent the views of tobacco farmers and business people. Many area businesses and municipalities in my riding want the decision to smoke or not to be left up to adults, not necessarily politicians or lobbyists. More specifically, some businesses want the choice of not posting no smoking signs. This group would be happy to register as a lobbyist and also bring to everyone's attention the fact that they do not receive $350,000 from the federal government as does the Non-Smokers' Rights Association.
Again, so many of these lobby groups have a very narrow focus. I feel it hampers our decision-making. They cannot see the big picture and cannot necessarily give government sound advice that applies to anything beyond the small sector of their concern. The anti-smoking lobby, largely funded by governments, has had a tremendous economic impact on my riding. Smoking is a risk-for-pleasure trade and again the feeling is, leave that decision up to politicians, leave it up to adults, not to lobbyists.
What if we didn't have this legislation? I do not know at this time, at second reading, how many lobbyists are trying to influence government decision-making in Ontario. I do not know who they are and, more importantly, to whom they are speaking.
Let's consider the issue of so-called grassroots lobbying campaigns where a large number of members of the public may be persuaded to send letters or make telephone calls or send in faxes. I'm thinking of the megacity debate and also the efforts of teacher unions to influence Bill 160. In both cases, my fax machine at Queen's Park was tied up for days on end. Many such grassroots campaigns are organized by lobbyists. Under Bill 69, lobbyists will be required to indicate if they used or expect to use grassroots communication in an attempt to influence the government.
Having an open system requires achieving the right balance. This bill is about balance. It is about achieving the proper equilibrium. If we do not want any lobbyists at all, I am quite prepared to admit this bill does not go far enough because it does not outlaw lobbying. But it is intended to ensure that the activities of lobbyists are sufficiently transparent to ensure the integrity of our system and yet to not impose upon officials or bureaucrats obligations that are so onerous that they would be in a position where they'd rather not talk to anybody in the outside world.
We all know that it is sometimes necessary to get professional advice or assistance from organizations. This is a useful function. Often governments need to consult organizations like the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or in my area the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, for example.
It is very important in dealing with this issue to preserve openness so that ordinary citizens can see very clearly that elected officials responsible for running the government are free of any dishonest or undue influence. Legislation in this area must be very clear and there must be specific rules to ensure this openness. The key principle is that decisions must not only be proper, they must also be made openly and legally without any undue influence.
This has an impact not only on the quality of decisions but also, in my view, on the quality of democratic life in any society because citizens who believe that parliamentarians are influenced by all kinds of hidden forces over which they have little control may feel that their role as citizens is less important than it should be and that they may not take part in democratic life to the extent that they should.
Our aim is to rebuild trust in government which has been eroded to a considerable extent over the last number of years under previous governments, both Liberal and NDP. We want to increase the openness, the accountability and the disclosure required so citizens can see more clearly what is happening. Hopefully, the more they know the more we will move forward towards a more true democracy.
We are elected and sent to the Legislature to represent our constituents, but sometimes the decisions are being made in smaller rooms elsewhere. How did lobbyists gain such a large influence, as described last night by the member for Renfrew North? The way one influences government policy is by getting to the decision-makers. The decision-makers are the top bureaucrats, the deputy ministers, ministers, our Premier.
1930
Taxpayers and constituents from across Ontario have lost some confidence in government for several reasons. One only has to look to the past - the lost decade - to find many reasons to lose one's confidence in government. Bill 69 is designed to ensure a certain level of openness, to show everyone what the power brokers in Toronto or Ottawa are really doing behind the scenes. In any case, the objective of Bill 69 is to make all lobbyists or influence peddlers, as some people refer to them, accountable; to make their work at Queen's Park more transparent; to show people that in the end government was justified in doing business with a given individual, whether it be through changing regulations, drafting a bill or anything else, bidding on a contract, by way of example.
The United States pioneered legislation on lobbying many years ago. Its emphasis is on disclosure, the bringing out into the open of particular interest groups involved in any piece of legislation and trying to assess what that interest group represents. Are the interests they represent substantial or are they merely vocal?
One thing that is objectionable is covert lobbying, the covert exercise of pressure. I do not think this is what is involved for most of this.
I want to make clear that what we are targeting here is more accountability and less backroom politics. The bill recognizes the reality of interest groups. They do bring forward a particular cause or case to parliamentarians; secondly, they are entitled to do so; thirdly, they should bring forward proper information, properly researched, and members themselves should exercise the necessary care in reading reports and making decisions.
Intelligent legislation demands that interest groups bring forward their claims and their causes. I have no problem with the professional interest groups, with companies, trade unions, public housing groups, as has been mentioned, or with other groups that come forward to me. I do have some problems with so-called umbrella organizations, which claim to represent much broader segments of society.
Once again, our goal is for people to say they believe now those lobbying activities are transparent. They will be able to find out about them. They will be able to find out who is lobbying whom, what they are being paid, what the conditions are and what their connections are.
The average Ontarian has lost trust in government, lost trust in our bureaucracy. Bill 69 gives us an opportunity to ask ourselves, who exactly is running this government and past governments? Is it the people represented through elected representatives or is it special interests?
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Bradley: I noted some of the points the member made and his favourite lobbying groups as opposed to those who are not to be favoured. I guess how we define whether we like these lobbyists or not sometimes depends on what they're saying.
The question I ask is, if this legislation was so compelling, if it was so urgent, why did it take the government so long to bring it into effect? Here we are in the fourth year of the mandate now, very close to an election. I can tell it's close to an election, because I was watching the Minister of Health on TV tonight being interviewed on CBC, and where she had made an announcement six months ago about some allocation of funding for emergency care in hospitals, she was very close, she said, to making a very definitive statement within the next couple of weeks. So I can tell an election is near.
As the election comes near and the government has been so much under fire for the kind of lobbying that is going on behind closed doors and elsewhere, the government finally, after being badgered by the opposition so often, and after announcing this about four different times, has finally brought forward legislation, which in some respects is supportable and in some respects needs some considerable improvement.
I should say to the member, and I'll elaborate on this in my own remarks later on, that we have to worry much more about the lobbyists lobbying the unelected members than the elected members. You'll know who I mean: the whiz kids in the Premier's office and in the offices of various ministers; the people who would claim, when the members are not listening, to be much brighter than they and much more knowledgeable and much more in tune with what is needed for the future of Ontario. So I'll be looking carefully at them lobbying those unelected people.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have just a few comments. The previous speaker talked about the lobbying act. We have to understand that this act deals with another piece of legislation as well, which hasn't been debated very much - and I don't know why; the two pieces are included together, revising the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, and bringing in a new act at the same time. The member talked about his concern that he was being lobbied so much by different organizations and agents out there.
Mr Bradley: The Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
Mr Len Wood: Sure. There will be all kinds of lobbying going on, as the member for St Catharines mentioned, as we get closer to an election and we find out that a year and a half ago announcements were made about health care funding and funding for education and it's all being withheld. I watched the same TV program where the Minister of Health was saying, "Yes, we announced it six months ago, but in a few more days, maybe a few more weeks, we'll be able to lay it out and set a date for it."
As we get closer to the election, we're going to see more and more announcements being made and the people who have been lobbying this particular Conservative government, whether it's the elected members or whether it's the backroom boys, the whiz kids, lobbying them to make sure they can be in good shape to get elected again.
We don't have a real concern with people registering as being lobbyists so that people will be able to open up the binder and take a look and say, "Oh, yes, so-and-so has been a lobbyist, and he's working for this person or that person or this organization." But it's the ones who have benefited from the large tax cut who are really happy with what this government is doing.
Mrs Johns: I'd like to congratulate the member for Norfolk. I thought his presentation told us a lot about how he felt coming to Queen's Park and his introduction to the lobby groups that are very strong around the Pink Palace here. His story about the election, about the people outside the building, about the people who come into the building to talk to us, is something the average Ontarian is very concerned about in the province. They're concerned about accountability and transparency, as the member for Norfolk talked about.
Each of us, before we came into politics, was cognizant that some of us could call up our MPPs and say what we thought but other people might be exerting influence that was above and beyond that call. The member for the NDP talked a few minutes ago about how this might include people who want to call their MPP and talk, and of course that's not the case. We're trying here to talk about the lobbyists who are out there trying to change decisions, trying to talk to government and bureaucratic people and change the course of policy in the province.
The people of Ontario will be pleased when they get a chance to look at this legislation because, as the member said, it will give us a clearer understanding of what true democracy should be about if we know who is coming to an agent or an elected individual whom we elected, how much they're being paid and what they're lobbying for. It will also give accountability and transparency. It's my hope that it will give us a confidence in our elected officials that seems to be waning at this time. It's important that we clear the air and let everyone know who we're talking to and why we're talking to them. I think the people of Ontario will be pleased with this legislation.
1940
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'd like to comment briefly on the member's comments as well. I have to say that if this legislation had been introduced three and a half years ago, perhaps everyone would have been much happier and would have looked at this piece of legislation from a different point of view, and perhaps we in this House, in the opposition, and even the people outside would have given more credit to this piece of legislation than three and a half years later.
There must have been a reason why this legislation was not introduced three and a half years ago. But they said this thing, that they introduced it now but they won't do anything until we are in the lead-up to the next election, only under the pretence of doing the best for the public. But this solely will be serving the purpose of the government, for no other reason.
It's funny. It's so hypocritical when they say that this is following the guidelines of the federal plan. It is not following the federal plan. There are loopholes in this piece of legislation to drive 10 Titanics through. It means there is a lot of room for the Premier, the minister, the deputy minister to say, "We are going to make some exceptions."
Isn't that wonderful that we can talk to the people out there who elected them and elected us and we can say that we introduced this piece of legislation for the benefit of the public. Then they say, "Oops, we are going to give ourselves some loopholes so deputy ministers, ministers and the Premier can do at any time whatever they want by simple regulation." I beg to differ.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Norfolk, you have two minutes.
Mr Barrett: The member for St Catharines posed the question: What took us so long? My observation over the last three years has been a consistent delay of legislation and slowing down of progress in the House. I return the question not only to the past Liberal government but also to the NDP government: What took us so long?
I understand this kind of legislation has been discussed in Ontario over the past 20 years. It's legislation whose time has truly come. I suggest that governments of all parties are responsible for not getting out of the gate sooner in this kind of approach.
It is a good approach. It's a check and balance against the kind of corruption that can so easily enter an open government system. What is happening in here right now is public debate. People like young Brett, on both sides of the House, can observe this if they wish. It's not going on behind closed doors or in small rooms. It can be read in Hansard; it can be read in the media. However, when it comes to lobbying, that is often not public. Therefore we require a mechanism whereby the people at home can realize that lobbying is open and that taxpayers know that it truly can be a valid process.
I believe this bill deserves support of the Legislature without delay. When the bill comes back at third reading and we vote on it, can we rely on the support of all members? Otherwise, it would mean some of us would have sabotaged the bill ourselves. We have to make it work. This is about parliamentary integrity. This issue not only concerns the government; it concerns all of us in the House and concerns us in our role as MPPs.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, albeit only for 20 minutes under the new rules of the Legislative Assembly imposed in August.
Applause.
Mr Bradley: The Reform-a-Tories are all applauding wildly. The people who have been around here a while and recognize the importance of the democratic process haven't, but the rabid Reform-a-Tories are eager to simply shove all legislation through as quickly as possible.
I want to say that I too wonder why, since this is supposedly such a high priority, the government did not choose to bring this legislation forward earlier. Already we've had a little over three years of lobbying by some of the best-known Conservatives, who have made hundreds of thousands of dollars through their lobbying efforts, all of them I presume legal, because there is not legislation dealing with it, but have certainly had an influence of some considerable excess, I would say, on the legislative agenda of the government.
The people from the farm community would relate to this, that in fact the horses are out of the barn - or at least, if there are 10 horses, nine are out of the barn - before this legislation is being brought forward.
The legislation itself is supposedly patterned after federal legislation. I have never heard in this House so many Tory members latching on to something that has to do with the federal government as I have tonight. Perhaps there's a change of strategy, because of course the most recent strategy is to try to project blame elsewhere, to some other level of government. If it's the local government that has raised property taxes, Tory members are actively out saying to those members, "Well, of course, it's your local members. Go and see Niagara regional council," when in fact the downloading of responsibility from the provincial government to the local government is the cause of the need for more revenues for local government. Or they blame the federal government for something. They have to find somebody else to blame, the NDP or the Liberals or somebody else.
Legislation of this kind is, in my view, certainly overdue, and I think there are some changes that can be made to the legislation which would make it a better piece of legislation for all.
The legislation, it is said by the Conservative members, mirrors the federal standard, but it falls short, if you look at it carefully, in three key areas.
First of all, unlike the federal legislation, there is no code of conduct to cover lobbyists' activities. I think that's exceedingly important, that all lobbyists play by the same set of rules.
It reminds me of the circumstances we face in the environment today. Back when environmental legislation and regulations were in effect, were enforced, were followed through on, at least everybody knew there was a level playing field.
What I find interesting today is the number of people in the business sector who will complain not that the regulations are too onerous, but that somebody else has been able to, as a result of lobbying this government or for some reason, not live up to the standards that were established for these other companies which have already spent the money on a change in operations, a change in procedures, more staff, more resources and more equipment to avoid fouling the environment. When they see others getting a break, a new deregulation of some of these activities and a wink and a nod at some of those onerous responsibilities that are contained in legislation, they are annoyed, just as the general population is.
So I truly believe there is a need for a code of conduct to cover the lobbyists' activities.
It's interesting, the lobbyists that are chosen. The special interest groups, according to the government, are members of trade unions or other groups which may oppose this government. We don't hear them mention the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or the Fraser Institute or the taxpayers' coalition. By the way, I'm waiting for them to complain about your bombardment of the airwaves with advertising. I haven't heard them yet; I'm sure I will. Or the Canadian federation - what is it, the one Mr Brown was the head of, the Canadian federation which always complains about government expenditures?
Mr Grimmett: The independent business association.
Mr Bradley: No, not the independent business association, another one. Anyway, the national one where -
Mr Grimmett: The National Citizens' Coalition.
Mr Bradley: The National Citizens' Coalition. That's it. It seems to have a penchant for chasing NDP and Liberal governments but seems to be somewhat mute when it comes to criticism of Conservative governments, even when those governments are squandering millions of dollars on self-serving, blatantly political propaganda ads both in print and on the electronic airwaves.
So I believe there is a need for a code of conduct to cover lobbyists. That's contained in the federal legislation which you people are trumpeting. It's not in this legislation.
1950
Unlike the federal legislation, there are exemptions that can be granted by order in council. Order in council, for the people who watch and perhaps are not familiar with the terms of government, means the cabinet. By a simple cabinet decision, the entire Premier's office, ministers' offices and other sensitive departments can be exempt from the terms and conditions of the legislation, creating a huge loophole in that legislation.
I am distrustful of anything that involves governments being allowed to pass regulations instead of dealing with something in a legislative manner. What that means for the public and for those interested in the democratic system is that they do not have input ordinarily into the change of regulations. When we come to this House, even under the new draconian, strict rules which crunch debate, which limit debate, which remove from the opposition the opportunity to have some influence on the legislation which is passing, even with that, at least it comes before the House when it's in the form of a bill, to be debated in this House.
A regulation is not debated in this House. It is debated, if at all, behind closed doors, with cabinet and perhaps a few other members of government who have input, and of course that large retinue of whiz kids, the unelected 20-something and 30-something ideologues who dominate the Premier's office and the offices of various cabinet ministers and members of this government. So this exemption is something that I would like to see removed, very much.
Also unlike the federal legislation, there are no specific duties for the Integrity Commissioner to be responsible for. The role of the Integrity Commissioner to investigate and review complaints under this new lobbyist legislation is totally subject to the direction of cabinet. How can you possibly have the cabinet giving those kinds of directions? You know there are certain offices in government that should be totally independent. There are some things that shouldn't be; cabinet ministers are political people, and I understand that. For instance, the Minister of Health is going to have her own retinue of advisers and so on, political staff. I understand that. That's part of the process. That's not what I'm making mention of.
The Ombudsman, for instance, should be completely outside of the undue influence of members of government, of the cabinet simply dictating; or the Integrity Commissioner or other officers of the assembly, who are usually appointed, I might add - and this is good for our system - by consensus of the three political parties. What I believe we're seeing here is the politicization of this process, because the role of the Integrity Commissioner to investigate and review complaints under this new lobbyist legislation is totally subject to the direction of the cabinet. Obviously that should be changed.
The federal code of conduct, which was established to measure the activities of lobbyists, was drafted in a public process, first of all, not in a behind-closed-doors process, and provides a mechanism to monitor specific allegations of lobbying improprieties. The provincial legislation has no such code and therefore is much weaker.
The provincial legislation contains exemptions, as I have mentioned, which are not included in the federal legislation. Section 18 of the act allows for regulations to exempt "any person who is appointed to any office or body" and "exempting any officer, director or employee of any agency, board or commission of the crown." This is a huge exemption and, I suggest to members of the House, an unhealthy exemption.
If you wish to trumpet this bill as somehow blazing the trail for other provinces, you should take note of the lack of teeth in it and some of the loopholes that are contained in this legislation.
The federal bill specifically included a role for the commissioner to review allegations of improprieties under the legislation. In Bill 69 there are references to expanded powers for the existing Integrity Commissioner with regard to the lobbyist provisions, but the specific duties are left to be requested by the Chair of Management Board and are precluded from being mentioned in the commissioner's annual report - once again a huge exemption.
What the government could have had before it would have been a piece of legislation of which it could be justifiably proud, and I think those of us in opposition would have had considerably more praise for this legislation had it not contained the lack of provision for teeth and the exemptions that are available. When it says the Chair of Management Board, that in essence means the Premier's office dictates what's in that.
This is certainly needed, but it doesn't prevent people from lobbying at the many fundraisers held by the Conservative Party, and it seems to me there's one every night. One thing you can say they're successful at is bringing in the dough. I've got to say that. I want to compliment you in some way I guess for being able to get all of the powerful interests, the very wealthiest people in the province, to contribute to your fund. Why wouldn't they? The policies that you have brought forward favour huge business interests, the corporate elite - the oil barons, for instance, that you refuse to call to account when they raise gas prices on the long weekends, and others.
Not only do we have the lobbyists, as I mentioned before, we have to worry about the lobbyists phoning their friends. When you have people who have served in the Premier's office or in ministers' offices who then phone that same government they served, you have to be worried that they have more influence than the average person involved in perhaps a community organization who wants to lobby. I'm sure the development industry has much more clout with this government over the Oak Ridges moraine, which is a beautiful area that should remain for the most part as it is. I'm sure the development lobby will be there large as life to try to persuade this government to remove the kind of restrictions which would preserve that kind of territory. So I understand why those coffers are full, and I worry that nobody will have to register when they head to the Tory fundraiser to be able to try to influence people.
I remember the club - what was the club? - the Cornerstone Club. The member for Kingston and The Islands raised in the House in a question to the Treasurer what happens when you join the Cornerstone Club. People say, "Don't parties have that?" Yes, they do. They have these clubs where people give a lot of money and they feel that they are part of the government, supporting the government. I understand people can do that, but you should have read the fine print. They had in italics the special consideration you get. You pay your 500 bucks first of all to join the Conservative Cornerstone Club. Then, if you paid $350 more, you got to sit in on a special session with the ministers and with the policy advisers to those ministers.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): To make decisions.
Mr Bradley: To make decisions, it said, and to get answers to the questions you always wanted to ask and couldn't. This is a special category. I don't mind them raising money, and people want to support the various political parties, I understand that. But boy, when you get into this, I wonder how this legislation is going to influence those people. Will it cover members of the Cornerstone Club who will show up at the Conservative convention, not for the regular session with everybody else but for this special session they'll have - I can't remember whether it's before or after the convention - with the Premier and the cabinet ministers and the policy advisers to help make the decisions?
I think there are probably more than 10 million people in Ontario now and they are wondering how they wouldn't have equal access. So does this legislation cover the Cornerstone Club where members pay $500 and $350 more to attend this special session? That's what I worry about when I see legislation of this kind which is trumpeted as being so useful.
This all fits in with the whole theme of what this government is about in terms of the exemptions I see in this legislation. It fits in because it fits in with the legislation the government brought forward which allows political parties in Ontario to receive far more in the way of donations from special interests out there, regardless of what those interests would be. All kinds more money may now come into the treasury, and of course, since the Conservative Party is in power and since it is serving the interests of the most powerful and richest people in our province, they're bound to get a lot of money. They have made a provision so they can collect even more money to be able to dominate the process. Not only that, they can now spend more on an individual candidate's campaign or on the province-wide campaign, so you can expect a bombardment of simple, hot-button TV commercials during the campaign. They'll saturate the hockey game or the baseball game, whatever it happens to be, or put them around newscasts, because that's what their American friends tell them. The Republicans tell them, "Put them around newscasts because that's when they're most effective."
2000
There they are, having lots of money to do this, allowing people to spend far more on a campaign, to shorten the length of the campaign so the kind of grassroots door-to-door campaign is replaced by an expensive television campaign and full-page ad campaign that only this government and the Conservative Party can afford; that, when they've already got Conrad Black and his newspapers on their side, his owning a majority of the daily newspapers in this province.
Of course they've exempted, Mr Speaker, as you would know, many of the items, events and expenditures that used to be caught under the Election Finances Act, in other words, the restrictions on how much you can spend. Now the sky's the limit. They can spend as much as they want in those areas. They've abolished the election finances commission, which was specifically set up by the Conservative government of Bill Davis to monitor election expenditures.
We're going to see money play - and I say this is unhealthy - a far greater role in our political process. Just look south of the border to see if that's healthy, where the moneyed interests, or those who make donations, are able to influence the policy of government, or in that case, because you have your individual members of Congress, you can virtually buy members of Congress as individuals and have them vote the way you want, if you're a political action group of some kind.
Combine that with the government advertising program. I want to get into that, and I know, Mr Speaker, you also wanted me to get into the saturation bombing of the airwaves now by this government. I hate to suggest this, because they're liable to do it, but I'm wondering if, after this legislation passes - and it will, because the government has geared the rules of this House to make sure it'll pass just as they want it, complete with the exemptions, complete with the loopholes - there will be a huge propaganda campaign out there, full-page ads saying, "Look what we've done now."
This is all done with taxpayers' dollars. It is unethical, it is an abuse of public office and it is an abuse of the taxpayer, and I'll tell you, when the Ontario Taxpayers Federation gets wind of this, they are going to be on your case, and other groups of a national nature. I'm telling Jason Kenney about this and I'm going to tell Stephen Harper. I'm going to phone him and say: "Stephen, do you know what they're doing, what a Conservative government, a Reform-a-Tory government is doing in Ontario? They're squandering millions of dollars on self-serving, clearly political propaganda ads in the newspaper, on the radio and the airwaves and who knows where else?" Oh, yes, the pamphlets: Every time you open up the mailbox there's a new pamphlet coming from the government. I tell you, it's an abuse of the process, an abuse of public office.
This legislation, with some improvement, would be the kind of legislation that could pass with a pretty good consensus of this House, but there must be those improvements which I have outlined if the legislation is to be truly effective and truly serve the purpose that all of us want it to serve.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?
Mr Len Wood: The member for St Catharines has raised a number of valid issues. If this Mike Harris government was so much concerned about bringing in lobbying legislation, why was it not brought in three years ago? We've had lobbyists around and lobbyists have been registered throughout all the provinces in Canada since back before 1800. Now all of a sudden, as we're getting closer to an election, the Mike Harris government has privatized, they've contracted out, and a lot of money has gone into private hands as a result of this government downsizing and giving away government jobs to contractors and other organizations out there. There have been millions of dollars that have changed hands over the last three years. Now, as we get closer to an election, which we could hold within the next few months - whenever Mike Harris figures he's up enough in the polls, there will be an election and he'll be out there saying, "I brought in lobbying legislation," but we know for a fact that they have had it at the federal level for the last 10 years.
Even though we support this lobbying legislation, there might have to be some amendments or some changes to it, as the member for St Catharines has said. But in principle we think there's nothing wrong with it being out there. It's kind of weird that this government would wait until just before the election is being called to try to get first, second and third reading on lobbying legislation, just before they go out to the polls to ask for another mandate and after privatizing and contracting out a lot of services to their friends in the private sector, as they have done over the last few years.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's interesting to listen to the meanderings of the learned member for St Catharines. First off, he wants to contrast the difference between the codes of conduct, the one that is missing in the Ontario legislation with the one in the federal legislation.
Let's take a practical application of what that means in terms of code of conduct. I'm sure the honourable member for St Catharines has a fairly passing acquaintance with the previous defence minister federally, the Honourable Doug Young. The code of conduct there in Ottawa says - really, it's a big deal - that if you're a minister and you get defeated, you can't lobby your previous department. However, if you get a partner in Summa Strategies called Paul Zed, who helped to form the code of conduct, they can lobby the ministry of defence.
Secondly, and consequently, the member seems to forget that the Honourable Doug Young, in setting up Summa Strategies, which seems to be OK - it seems to be OK for a "Glib" to set up a lobbying organization, but there's something criminal when a PC sets up such an organization - managed to lobby Human Resources Development Canada and also the previous transport ministry. That's quite acceptable; that's part of the code of conduct. That's why we don't have it in this particular piece of legislation, because it's absolutely nothing but sugar-coating. It's useless when you look at the practical application of it.
The member for St Catharines is always going on about how we've changed the fundraising rules for campaign financing. I'm sure the Ontario "Gliberal" Party will take advantage of the new rules under which they can get more money. I'm waiting to see that they'll turn back the money from their corporate sector when we get to the campaign.
M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Je tiens à féliciter mon collègue de St Catharines. Il est toujours intéressant à écouter, surtout lorsqu'il soulève des points comme il vient de soulever ce soir.
Il a soulevé le point que ce projet de loi aurait dû être présenté il y a trois ans. Depuis mon élection de 1995, le 8 juin, j'ai pu constater que nous avons de différents groupes qui viennent soulever des points, qui viennent faire du lobbyisme. Et puis toujours, nous nous apercevons que des anciens députés du gouvernement sont embauchés par des municipalités afin de faire du lobbyisme auprès des ministres afin d'obtenir davantage, et aussi, après avoir reçu des confirmations qu'il était impossible de recevoir les subventions additionnelles, les lobbyistes ont rapporté à certaines occasions, mais il faut dire que ça coûte très cher aux municipalités.
Aujourd'hui, avec ce projet de loi, nous allons pouvoir vérifier les documents et nous apercevoir qui sont les personnes payées directement par les municipalités, par les différents groupes de lobbyistes qui viennent faire de la pression auprès des ministres de ce gouvernement.
Nous savons que l'élection s'en vient peut-être dans six mois, peut-être dans 12 mois, peut-être même dans 18 mois, mais de plus en plus, si nous aurions mis en place ce projet de loi-là, le projet de loi 69, qui aurait contrôlé jusqu'à un certain point le lobbyiste, aujourd'hui peut-être que les municipalités auraient reçu leur juste part. Aujourd'hui nous voyons des municipalités qui ont reçu certains montants et d'autres qui n'ont pas reçu leurs montants. Nous n'avons qu'à regarder la formule que nous avons utilisée dans le domaine de l'éducation. Dans le secteur du premier ministre, dans le secteur du ministre des Finances, nous nous sommes aperçus qu'ils ont reçu des montants substantiels.
Ce sont les points, monsieur le Président.
2010
Mr Lessard: It's a pleasure to respond to the remarks from the member for St Catharines. I was watching very closely on the television monitors. Even though I wasn't here, I was paying close attention to what he had to say and I know he made some very important points. One was about this legislation being brought forward after the Tories have given out so many of their goodies through their privatization and deregulation agenda. He also mentioned how this is going to be introducing more user fees by the registration fees for lobbyists.
The member for Prescott-Russell was responding and making some good points about why it is that the Tories have waited so long to finally introduce this legislation. There's a good reason for that, and that is because the Tories wanted to make sure they were well on their way in their privatization agenda before they brought this legislation in. They wanted to make sure that their big corporate interests were able to benefit from their agenda.
The member for St Catharines talked about the influence of big, moneyed interests in the lobbying of government and how the average citizen, the residential consumer, the ordinary taxpayer, is going to be left out of this process while the rich are going to benefit.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for St Catharines, you have two minutes to respond.
Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for the kind input from all members of the Legislature on my remarks this evening.
Certainly the privatization agenda of this government will prove to be a bonanza for their friends in the private sector, those who are lining up, rubbing their hands, waiting for all the favours that will come from privatization.
Mr Hastings: You sound jealous.
Mr Bradley: The member says I sound jealous. That is revealing in itself. Sometimes the interjections I hear are most beneficial.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Are you saying you don't like the private sector? Is that what you're saying, that you don't like the private sector? Is that what Jim Bradley says?
Mr Bradley: I hear Bill, the government man. My friend Bill, who used to be the independent-minded, cussin' fella from Grey county, is now a government man. He's a government man now. He stood up in the House today and voted for a closure motion, and Bill never used to do that, never did that before.
When he mentions the private sector, my good friend from Grey county would know about privatization. How many severances were granted by my friend Bill when he was in Grey county?
Mr Murdoch: Quite a few.
Mr Bradley: He says thousands of severances were granted up in Grey county when he was there. But he gets me off-topic.
Interjections.
Mr Bradley: For a change. You know how I assiduously stay on the provisions of every piece of legislation. You know I do that. However, when I am provoked, I sometimes have to respond.
If the legislation federally is not good enough to catch Conservative Senator Michel Cogger, for instance, or - there was a Conservative member of Parliament who was just sentenced today to a jail sentence for influence-peddling. If it doesn't do that, improve on the provincial legislation so it's even better than the federal legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Bisson: With the new rules of the Legislature, I have a mere 20 minutes to talk about what is fairly significant legislation when it comes to what this government plans on doing with the Members' Integrity Act, and I would want at least a half-hour to talk about that, but also what it means to the conflict-of-interest legislation and the Lobbyists Registration Act.
I want to say up front that our caucus generally is in support of this legislation, but I think a number of questions have to be raised. The first question we have to ask ourselves is, where has the Tory government been for the last three years? This government, in opposition, talked about the importance of having lobbyists registration legislation to try to contain the lobbyists of this province in some sort of fashion that would be squeaky clean, as we might say. The government touted this in opposition. I remember. The then third party and Mike Harris were saying how important this was. Three years have gone by and this government all of a sudden has come with this legislation.
I raise this point for this reason, and fairly simply this: This government has seen fit to ram all kinds of legislation through this House; they've changed the rules of the House to allow a bill to go from first to third reading in merely about a week, so certainly to God the members on the government side could have had this legislation in place two years ago or a year ago. You have to ask yourself -
Mr Lessard: Bill 31, 21 days.
Mr Bisson: Exactly: 21 days on the Hydro bill and I'm going to come to that in a -
Mr Lessard: Bill 31, the Wal-Mart bill.
Mr Bisson: Yes, the Wal-Mart bill. I want to come back to that in a second. But the point I make is that this government has waited three years for a reason, and I think it's a fairly simple reason: This government has embarked on the largest privatization exercise this province has ever seen. They're in the process of privatizing everything that moves in government. They have a belief that the private sector is smarter than everybody else and that the public sector and government in general can't do anything right. So we're going to be saved from ourselves, the people of Ontario, because that's who the public sector is, and we're going to give everything to the private sector.
This government has set up a privatization agenda. They have started the privatization of our health care system. One of the first things this government did when it came to power under Bill 26 was to change the rules in this province that allow, for the first time, American corporations to move into Ontario to offer specific health care services in Ontario. There are big dollars in that. The province spends about $20 billion per year on health care. Imagine the private sector wiggling into its way into those coffers. They'd be able to make themselves a pretty significant return on that investment if we get into the privatized health care system that Harris is trying to set up.
Look at what the government has done when it comes to education. We know that the government, through a lot of bills they've passed in this Legislature in the past three years, are setting up the privatization model to allow - what do we call them?
Mr Lessard: Charter schools.
Mr Bisson: Charter schools in Ontario. This government is going to allow, for the first time, in a big way, the opportunity for the private sector to move in and say, "We're going to offer education to your kids who are below grade 12 in a charter school." Why? Because this government is going to underfund education -
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: There we go again. The government is espousing exactly what its policy is. I hear the member across the way heckling what I'm saying. We've hit something here.
The government is underfunding education. Why? For a very simple reason: They want it to break down. They want to do what Mr Snobelen said he would do when he was appointed a cabinet minister in 1995: They've created a crisis in the Ministry of Education and Training; they've underfunded the system and they've put it into crisis. When the system of education at the pre-college or university level goes into crisis - and I'll deal with that in a second; it's a separate issue - parents will be saying: "All I want is the best education possible for my kids. If the public sector doesn't offer a good education for my kids, I'm a parent and I want to do the right thing. I'll pay to send my child to the charter school." There's another opportunity for the private sector to get involved in government business in Ontario, utilizing our tax dollars.
I look at Ontario Hydro. This government is embarking on a whole scheme to privatize, over a period of about - it's not going to happen in a short while, but over a period of about 10 years they're going to privatize much of what we understand as Ontario Hydro today. Again, the government is creating an opportunity. Ontario Hydro, the large corporation in Ontario, is being opened up to the private sector. The Conservative Party, which is ruling the province of Ontario, is going to make it possible for the private sector to get involved in making some dollars out of yet again what is a public corporation, Ontario Hydro. They're going to allow them to get into the generating business. They're going to allow them to get into different parts of the business of Ontario Hydro, yet another opportunity for their friends and business to make a few dollars.
Mr Lessard: Big dollars.
Mr Bisson: Big dollars, huge dollars. We're not talking about 10,000 bucks. We're not talking $1 million. We're talking literally billions of dollars. That's what you're going to give them an opportunity for.
So why is it that the government didn't introduce this legislation two years ago? It's very simple. They had to put the mechanisms in place to allow the privatization agenda to move forward way before lobbyists registration was put in place because they wanted to make sure they lined up their friends at the - I can't say the word; it's unparliamentary. I was going to say "trough" and I withdraw that before I say it. They were going to -
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: No, I withdraw it because I don't want to be unparliamentary here in the House tonight. I want to be as polite as I can with the government members because I owe them that respect. The government members - not the government members per se; the cabinet of Ontario, Mike Harris and his friends in the circle - wanted to make sure they lined up their friends so that they can go in there and line up their opportunities when it comes to the privatization initiative in this province.
2020
This government is now coming forward with what is not, frankly, a bad piece of legislation. Generally, there are some good parts in this legislation that I can support, and on the principle of the balance of the thing I will support it in the end, but I want to raise the point: Where have they been for the last three years? They've been setting up the privatization agenda to make sure they set up the business opportunity for their friends in the private sector to profit from what are tax dollars, and now they come in three years later and introduce the legislation. By the time this thing is proclaimed, which if we're lucky will probably, at the very earliest, be January 1 next year, the government's going to be in a position of being pretty close to an election, so nothing happens.
I wonder where the government's been for the past three years. I listen and the government touts and says: "We're the first government in Ontario, the only provincial government, to ever have done this, blah, blah, blah." It's more of the same rhetoric. Listen, since 1792 we've been talking about this issue and we haven't done a lot about it in Ontario.
Mr Hastings: Why didn't you pass that bill when you were in government?
Mr Bisson: For a simple reason. Because up to this point there has never been a need to protect ourselves from lobbyists. There hasn't been billions of dollars to be made out of the public purse, but the government of Ontario is making it possible for people in the private sector to come in and make substantial amounts of money through the privatization initiative. So yes, this legislation is now apparently becoming needed, because the government is creating the need, and that's the point I want to make in the debate.
I support the legislation inasmuch as it's going to make sure that we deal with those business people who are trying to set themselves up to lobby for profit. I support the initiative because, I tell you, it's going to be needed big time, as my friend Mr Pouliot from Nipigon says, when it comes to what this government is doing.
Just to finish on that particular point, because there are a few more points I want to make, basically the Harris Conservatives are setting up the privatization agenda. It's an American agenda they're bringing into Ontario, and yes, we'll probably need this legislation to protect ourselves.
Second point: These guys are a bunch of Americans in Canadian clothing. That's what they are. I listen to Mike Harris and his Republican gang that he has on the other side of the House and I watch -
Mr Baird: We're all monarchists.
Mr Bisson: You're far from being monarchists, let me tell you. I listen to that Republican gang of Newt Gingrich across the way and I watch the stuff they do in this House. They so much admire what happens within the right wing of the United States and in the politics of the United States that they import a lot of their ideas on this side of the border. I don't need to go through it, but much of what we see in the Conservative agenda of the province of Ontario is stuff we've been seeing happen in the States for the last 10 or 15 years. It's this whole shift to the right that we've seen in the United States. A move towards privatization, a move towards deregulation, a move towards the private sector: All of that stuff we've seen in the States. They figure, "Jeez, the Americans have got themselves some lobbyists registration legislation, so we need some too."
I've been around this House longer than most members on the government side, which is not saying a lot; I've only been here eight years. But the point I make is this: In eight years - five years in government, three years in opposition - I have never once been approached by anybody, private sector or public sector, to come and try to advance a position for profit on their part. I don't think any member in this assembly has been up to this point. I would hope not because I haven't seen it.
The point I make is that this is like Americanism creeping into what we see in the mindset of the government. This is not the United States of America. This is Toronto, Canada. In Canada we have a system of parliamentary democracy that I would say is far different and I would say far superior to what we see in the United States of America. This whole notion of what happens with lobbyists is a totally different experience in Canada than it is in the States. I look at my friend from Nepean. He has travelled to the United States, the same as I have. He has met with American congressmen and senators, same as I have.
Mr Baird: No, I haven't.
Mr Bisson: I'm sure you have, being in government.
They have a system down there - let me tell you what they do. In the United States of America, at the state legislature level, most of those politicians work on a part-time basis. They get very little salary from the state legislatures or the state senates. Do you know why?
Mr Lessard: Who do they get paid by?
Mr Bisson: Exactly. The member for Windsor-Riverside says, "Who do they get paid by?" They get paid by the big companies. They get paid by the pharmaceuticals. They get paid by the large companies in the United States to advance their cause within the legislatures in the United States of America when it comes to the state legislatures.
Mr Hastings: It sounds like Great Britain.
Mr Bisson: Again, Great Britain is not Canada. It's a different experience. I say to the members across the way, in Canada we have a much different approach. There have been very few examples in this country, provincially or federally, where governments have been on the take when it comes to advancing an interest of the private sector. There have been a couple of examples that I don't want to go into because they're black marks on the politics of Canada, but they've been few and far between, and there's good reason for that. Our system doesn't operate the same way as the American. We have a system that's much more transparent and much more open. We have a different political culture here in Canada, all across Canada in the various provinces, in how we deal with this whole issue of lobbying.
I hear the members across the way. I was listening to the speeches last night from the government side talk about, "You've got all kinds of people who come here and lobby and try to affect public policy." That's what we do for a living. It's called democracy. The people from the co-op housing movement, the people from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the chamber of commerce, and yes, the unions, approach governments of all stripes, at all times, to advance their view as to where they would like to see public policy. How is that a bad thing? I say it's not a bad thing.
Mr Murdoch: What's your point?
Mr Bisson: The member doesn't get it. He says, "What's your point?" My point is very simple. You have this legislation split into a couple of sections. You are, on the one hand, saying we have to register lobbyists who are trying to lobby for money, and I agree with that point. I think that's the good part of the legislation. But on the other hand, we're saying we want to register lobbyists within the Canadian independent business federation who are here to lobby us on their view. It's a different view from mine, but it is their view nonetheless. We have the chambers of commerce, the unions, the co-op housing movement, various movements that are out there trying to advance their cause, and we're saying we have to register these people as lobbyists.
Excuse me, I have a bit of a problem with that because I look at those people and they're not in it for the money. Ms Swift and the independent business federation is in that for money? Did anybody ever see her salary lately? The people at the chamber of commerce, the people at the OFL, the Steelworkers, the co-op housing movement or whatever organization is out there? They're paid by their associations that get it from the dues from their members, of all types, businesses and whatever, to come here and to say, "Listen, Mr Baird, we have a problem," or, "We support the legislation you're putting forward," or, "We would like your government to do X, Y or Z."
The point I make is that we should have separated that out of the legislation. I don't believe those people should be registered lobbyists. I don't see the independent business federation, the chamber of commerce, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the co-op housing movement as needing to be registered under this legislation. I think those kinds of people have very specific mandates. They're there to advocate policy in regard to their members when it comes to the policy of Ontario. They will bring forward their positions, just as every other group does out there, to whatever the government is, and they will try to affect it and governments will all deal with it the same. They'll listen to what has been said, they will try to take into consideration what has been said to them and they will give effect to public policy according to what they've heard overall.
I say to the members, I have no problem with registering private individuals who are trying to advance taxpayers' dollars to advance their particular economic projects, but I have a problem -
Interjections.
Mr Bisson: There's a huge difference and the government members don't understand. How is the co-op movement, how is the union movement, how is the chamber of commerce in conflict in trying to lobby for what is public policy?
I'll give you a good example. The chamber of commerce in the city of Timmins has positions they're trying to advocate on behalf of the small business community in Timmins. They come to me as the member in government in opposition and they say, "Gilles, we believe the government should do X, Y and Z to assist the business community." How is that a problem when it comes to lobbying? I don't understand why we have to register the chamber of commerce as lobbyists. They're advocating for the business community in Ontario, and you say you want to register them? What is this? Are you guys only for the big business sector and you're opposed to the small business sector? I wonder.
2030
Interjection: No, you're opposed to small business.
Mr Bisson: I come from the small business sector. I have no problem when it comes to trying to lobby for small business. But on this particular point I only say, yes, register those people who are lobbying to get dollars from the government for the personal advancement of their company. I understand that. I understand the logic. But to register the chamber of commerce for trying to advance the cause of the small business community, I don't know, I have a deep problem with that one.
I also want to raise another issue in the three minutes I have left, and that is subsection 18(d) within the legislation having to do with this. It says, "Requiring a fee to be paid on the filing of a return or a return of a class..." blah, blah, blah. Tax grab. I remember Mike Harris in opposition. What did he say? "A user fee is a tax is a tax is a tax." That's what Mike Harris was saying. He advocated in opposition, on this side of the House as third party, that anybody who imposes a user fee is imposing a tax on the people of Ontario.
You know what? I see Mike Harris every day just grabbing those tax dollars, left hand, right hand, just going after it. Why? Because he has decided he has got to give a stupid tax cut - and by the way, people making over $80,000 a year benefit the most out of this. Now he's saying: "Oh, I lost a whole bunch of revenue. How am I going to make up the revenue?" So he goes in and charges a bunch of user fees, other taxes.
I see, for example, when a child wants to go out and play hockey nowadays in our communities, the service clubs that sponsor the hockey teams or the baseball teams or whatever it might be have to pay larger user fees to their municipalities to rent the rinks or rent the baseball diamonds. Why? Because the government went and cut the funding to the municipalities, so there goes another user fee. They passed legislation in this place to allow municipalities to have all kinds of user fees. There was a whole host of them in one piece of legislation.
We see the government charging user fees now, from $60 per year to $275 per year, when it comes to posting advertising signs on the side of the highway. I had a letter that came in the other day from Gerry Cochon, from Camper City out of Timmins. He said: "Listen, I need to advertise my business. Part of what I have to do is put these signs on the side of the highway to indicate to people that I'm in the business that I have of selling trailers etc. I used to pay $60 per year in order to be able to advertise with those signs." The government raised it from $60 all the way to $275 when it comes to that particular user fee. I remember, when we were in government, Gerry talking to me and saying, "Gilles, you moved it from $40 to $60," and he was pretty mad. I remember that, $40 to $60. But this government has gone from $60 per year to $275 when it comes to that particular fee. I'm telling you, that's a tax on small business, because by and large it's small business that utilizes those.
I look at the tax on seniors when it comes to the prescription drug program. I've got seniors in my community who are so mad at you that if Mike Harris walks in my riding he's going to have to duck, because seniors are saying: "Gilles, I'm having to pay user fees on medication that I've never had to pay before. I've worked all my life, and Mike Harris is adding this extra tax on me." That's basically what he's doing.
Mr Len Wood: Even the kids booed him at the SkyDome.
Mr Bisson: I'd love to go that way, but anyway, the point is that this government, by way of this legislation, is creating yet another tax to be able to charge people. I say to the government, I can understand and support the general direction of the government when it comes to the legislation, but when it comes to certain points of the legislation -
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for setting up this finale. I would only say, general support, yes. I have a problem with your registering lobbyists such as the chamber of commerce. I don't think that's right; I think it's wrong. I certainly oppose yet another user fee or hidden tax by way of this legislation. I look forward to the comments of the members.
Mr Murdoch: We've had a very interesting speech from across the side there. The member asked, "Where has the government been for the last three years?" He asked that question. He should know where we've been. We've been here cleaning up the mess that was created for 10 lost years in this House. We had a coalition of Liberals and NDP, then we got the Liberals, then five years of socialistic government that brought this province almost to its knees. Where have we been for three years? Trying to clean this mess up. They created a mess in education, in the health care system, the roads; anything you want to talk about, this government over here, they created it. That's where we've been for the last three years. You wanted to know. Well, we can tell you where we've been for the last three years.
Then you go on; you and the Liberals are against private enterprise. No wonder you brought this government down; no wonder you brought Ontario to its knees. You're against private enterprise, the people who create jobs in this province. The people who create the jobs are private enterprise, and you're against them, and the Liberals over here. We heard the Liberal member speak against private enterprise. No wonder we're in trouble. Where have we been for three years? Cleaning up your mess, that's where we've been. Cleaning up the mess that you guys created, you and the Liberals, the two of you. You got into bed 10 years ago, and you were bedwetters, and you've been that way ever since. You've created so much mess around here that that's what we have to clean up. That's what we've been doing the last three years, cleaning up the mess that the bedwetters on the other side, the accord, made 10 years ago. For 10 years they messed this province up. Now we're cleaning it up.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I move that the member for Grey-Owen Sound get another two minutes and another response.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. He will get his turn as it comes. The member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Gerretsen: I am sure the people who are watching this must be saying, "What are these people doing about getting us ready for the 21st century?" Talking about what happened in the early 1990s or late 1980s certainly isn't part of that. The government almost seems to be talking with glee about what happened many years ago. Let me tell you something: The people of Ontario aren't interested in that.
I would like to follow up on one thing the member for Cochrane South was talking about. He talked about these kinds of organizations like the chambers of commerce and the boards of trade etc that now have to register as lobbyists. Of course, it's absurd. Some of these organizations that are set up as lobby organizations, that we all know as lobby organizations, shouldn't be registered.
But it goes even further than that. Let me just refer you to clause 1(1)(e), which says that not only should those kinds of organizations be registered as lobbyists but also "a government, other than the government of Ontario." Here we have now a ridiculous situation where, if your local government is not happy with something that's happening at Queen's Park and wants to make a legitimate beef to Queen's Park about something or other, they now have to register.
Interjections.
Mr Gerretsen: Look at the act. They now have to register.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr Gerretsen: I'm sure that what the people of Ontario want is to register those people we don't know who are lurking around Queen's Park here but not legitimate other levels of government that come here to air their grievances.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to just remind the members that it's not proper behaviour to heckle. Comments and questions?
2040
Mr Lessard: I want to thank you very much, Speaker, for reminding the members of the House that heckling is never in order. I hope that whatever I have to say is not going to encourage any heckling by the members on the other side, especially the member for Nepean, who always seems to have an interest in having the last word.
I want to thank the member for Cochrane South for his insightful remarks about this bill this evening - not only insightful, but obviously they have generated the interest of the member for Grey-Owen Sound, whose speech I was captivated by, but I was wondering when he was going to get to the point. Maybe he'll have an opportunity later this evening to tell us how he feels about this legislation.
The member for Cochrane South talks about some of the loopholes in this bill, some of the user fees that are going to be imposed as a result of it. My concern is that some of these user fees, the fees for registration, are going to be a restriction on those who really have an interest in lobbying government on behalf of the public interest. We want to make sure this isn't a restriction on those people, that everybody has an open and transparent opportunity to lobby government, because that's the reason we're here: We're here to make decisions in the public interest, and we want to make sure the public interest is paramount and it's not only those who are the most well-off, who are the most wealthy, who are the most well-organized who are going to have the opportunity to have the most influence on government. We think that is wrong. The government is moving in the wrong direction - not too far, too fast, but in the wrong direction.
M. Hastings : J'ai écouté soigneusement la présentation, les mots et les idées, du député de Cochrane-Sud. Quelle absurdité. Quelle absence de logique concernant les idées sur le projet de loi 69.
I've never listened to such illogical comments from the NDP regarding this bill. First off, they're concerned about the costs of running the Internet and the fees attached to it, but they conveniently forget the costs the federal government requires for electronic registration of their particular lobbying bill. We never heard anything from the members for St Catharines or Cochrane South regarding that.
Then we have the member for Windsor-Riverside speaking about wanting to have a transparent and open process. He just turned around and said, "It's a bad bill, having lobbyists register," yet we heard the member for Cochrane South talk about never once having had a lobbyist, anybody from the government relations field, contact him regarding any concerns about labour relations. Are we in this House to believe that Mr Sid Ryan, Ontario president of CUPE, or Bob White of the CLC has never contacted the member, never a phone call? How far isolated is the member for Cochrane South? Why is it that we see him appearing so often at government relations fests, where he has a meal like I do? Admit it, monsieur le député. Be truthful for once over there.
M. Bisson : Le membre d'Etobicoke aurait dû continuer en français. Il faisait beaucoup plus de bon sens avant qu'il n'ait viré en anglais. C'est tout ce que j'ai à dire.
Aussi, au même membre, j'ai besoin de dire que je n'ai jamais dit que personne dans le mouvement syndical ou la chambre de commerce ou autre groupe ne m'ait jamais approché afin d'avancer une politique provinciale. Du tout. Tout ce que je dis, c'est qu'on doit avoir de la législation pour se protéger contre ceux qui veulent faire un profit financier eux-mêmes dans leur poche, par comparaison avec ceux qui essaient d'avancer la politique provinciale. C'est tout ce que je dis.
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: No Ed Philip, indeed.
I also want to say to the member for Windsor-Riverside, he's quite right: This is yet again within the legislation another attempt to garner a hidden tax. The government, legislation by legislation, has gone forward and imposed all kinds of user fees within the province of Ontario. Why? Because they're trying to offset their tax cut. Why don't you just be clean and say what it is? It's very simple.
The member from Owen Sound accuses both the Liberal Party and the NDP of bedwetting. I have to say there's no bed that's big enough to let me jump in with them.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Nepean.
Mr Baird: I want to compliment the member for Cochrane South on a good finale. That's undoubtedly his best finale. But when he says there's no bed big enough that he could get in, this is a place they've been before. We remember 1985. They know just how comfortable that bed was and how much debt and regulation and how many jobs were killed during those two years.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on the Lobbyists Registration Act. This is an important piece of legislation, as it's an important part of maintaining the integrity not just of elected officials but the public's integrity and confidence in their entire governmental process - not just elected officials, but indeed within the public service as well. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of the elected government to maintain honesty and integrity in their dealings with others in a pluralistic society. That's something that's very important.
Lobbyist registration, we must be clear, is not the answer to all the challenges that face elected officials in this area, but it's a very important spoke in the wheel of honesty and integrity in government. We're constantly, as elected officials in this place, trying to raise the bar, to make the standard even higher than it was in previous years. It's important to note that while some 38 states south of the border have some sort of lobbyist statute, Ontario is leading the way in Canada. We're the first province to propose, and hopefully pass shortly, lobbyist registration. That's something important to note, that Ontario is leading the way in setting the bar higher than other provinces.
Lobbyist registration would be part of a number of important statutes that will help inspire confidence in the governmental process. We have the Election Finances Act, which not only sets expense limits but sets the rules on who can give and how much those individuals can give. Most importantly, it makes public donations of more than $100 so that the public can see who is giving money towards campaigns. I think public disclosure, public access to the facts, is even more important than any integrity law, so the public can know how much an individual gave an individual candidate or an individual party. Shining the light in will certainly assist the process and force all political actors to act more responsibly. That's extremely important.
We also have, in the province of Ontario, some of the most strict members' integrity requirements, which is extremely important. I want to give some credit to the NDP government. They passed the Members' Integrity Act in 1994, which is some of the most stiff requirements for elected officials. That is something we all take extremely seriously. The NDP government of the day brought that in, and we have the toughest integrity act of any jurisdiction.
2050
The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay asks why they did that. I will tell you why: Evelyn Gigantes, Shelley Martel, Anne Swarbrick, Mike Farnan, Peter North, Jenny Carter, Zanana Akande, and I could go on and on and on. Under the NDP government, more cabinet ministers had to resign per capita than just about anywhere in Commonwealth history. In just a few short years they were losing - at one point they were losing a minister about every three months. That's why. They saw that the Premier's informal guidelines just didn't cut it, that they had to go in legislation. I want to give them credit that they put that in law, that it was important.
When the NDP was elected in 1990, they had to clean up the mess of the Patti Starr years. They had to clean up for Patti Starr. The Patti Starr scandal left a very unpleasant odour in this place and in the political discourse of the province. It infected the Liberal government of the day.
If anyone wants to talk about integrity, it's the member for Simcoe West. When he was in opposition he spoke very highly and called for the highest standard of integrity from the NDP government of the day. He talked the talked and he walked the walk. Not one member of this Legislature was ever able to stand in their place and demand his resignation, because he did the honourable thing and held himself up to the highest ethical standard seen in this province in many years. If we can all be held to that high ethical standard, we will be well spoken of. The member for Simcoe West, while he spoke highly when he was in opposition, he walked the walk.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are conversations going on. It would be better if you removed yourselves to carry those on rather than have me do it for you.
Mr Baird: The conduct and high standard of the member for Simcoe West is something that was not always the case in previous governments. Day after day, members would come to this place to demand the resignation of an NDP or a Liberal cabinet minister who had clearly broken integrity guidelines and rules, and day after day they would be yanked out one at a time, and that was of course the wrong way to go. So I can understand why the Members' Integrity Act of 1994 was passed: to try to clean up the mess of the NDP years and of the Patti Starr scandal, which really rocked integrity. No one in this government has ever got a free fridge from a fundraiser.
Mr Gerretsen: Not that we know of, anyway.
Mr Baird: I say to the member opposite, I go to many Conservative offices and there are little stickers and little magnets on the fridge saying, "Patti Starr did not buy me this fridge," just so that people know about the high standard of this place. No member of this caucus has ever -
Mr Lessard: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is raising some interesting points. He is referring to the Patti Starr book, Tempting Fate. I think that we should have a quorum to hear him speak about this and I don't believe that we have one.
The Deputy Speaker: Would you check and see if there's a quorum present.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nepean.
Mr Baird: Donc je dis à mon collègue le député de Prescott et Russell qu'il reste ici pour qu'on puisse avoir le quorum. Je lui rappelle une petite partie de mon discours en français et c'est quelque chose qui était très important. Je voudrais parler du projet de loi que le gouvernement NPD a appuyé et que notre parti aussi a appuyé, sur l'intégrité dans le gouvernement.
Just to read from that act:
"3. Members are expected to perform their duties of office and arrange their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of each member, maintains the assembly's dignity and justifies the respect in which society holds the assembly and its members.
"4. Members are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny."
This lobbyist registration seeks to enhance these tough guidelines, with respect to integrity in members, by raising the bar because, for Mike Harris and this government, we want to raise the bar and to require even a higher standard of conduct from public officials That is something we all take extremely seriously. This integrity act was passed in 1994 and has gone into effect and is very important.
There has been a terrific amount of discussion on this issue with respect to who should have to qualify to register. Some of our friends in the NDP don't believe that someone who is paid and works as an in-house lobbyist should have to register. Let me give you an example of why this is important. In 1995, after the Ontario Legislature was dissolved, the NDP government of the day, after the writs were issued and after this House was dissolved, gave a $4-million or $5-million grant to a labour union, with no public participation in that process.
I would like to know which union leader lobbied; I would like to know which union leader lobbied whom in the New Democratic Party government. Was that union leader's union affiliated with the NDP? How much money from that union went to the New Democratic Party of the day? But to give that size of a grant after the Legislature has been dissolved, let alone try to attempt to flow the money after they've lost the election, I find is absolutely reprehensible. So when the NDP members opposite ask us why an in-house lobby should have to register, that's the example I'll use: because I want to know which union leader lobbied for that grant and I want to know whom they lobbied. If they did, we would have a trail to get to the bottom of that outrageous activity.
Would the members opposite say that the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, which might have in-house lobbyists, shouldn't have to register and that we should let that go unregulated? Apparently so. I think they should have to register because I'd like to know who is lobbying whom on either side, the smokers' rights or the tobacco manufacturers'. The public has a right to know, and to leave that would be too big a loophole. That's why it's covered in this legislation and is something that I believe is exceptionally important.
There has been a significant amount of debate going on in this House by other members: "Why did it take so long? Why wasn't this done years ago?" I ask, in five years of Liberal government, was it done?
Mr Barrett: It wasn't.
Mr Baird: It wasn't done, the member for Norfolk said. It wasn't a priority. Patti Starr didn't want the Lobbyists Registration Act. Patti Starr said, "No, this would make it too public." Ask Alvin Curling why Patti Starr didn't want lobbyist registration. The Liberals had five years to do lobbyist registration but they chose not to.
Then the New Democratic Party had five years to bring in a Lobbyists Registration Act. I think they must have been so busy trying to put small businesses out of business and so busy trying to relocate most industries to Buffalo, they didn't have time to do it. I looked at their legislative calendar. They only sat 20 days in the last year. With the 345 additional days in the year, they could have called the Legislature back to deal with lobbyist registration, but they chose not to because they didn't want to be accountable to the opposition of the day. They didn't want to be accountable in this place.
That's the one thing you'll say about Mike Harris and the provincial Conservative government today: that they are very accountable. The Legislature is in session and they answer questions in the Legislature, something we didn't see under the previous government. The House didn't even sit, and that was wrong.
Why didn't the NDP government do it? People say, "Why has it taken so long for Mike Harris to do it?" He's doing it in his first term, which is very important to note and it's something that bears notice. Why didn't he do it right away? Because he had to clean up after five years of socialist mismanagement of this province: five years of excessive regulation, of excessive taxation and excessive debt that was rung up by the socialist government for five years. When we finished that, we had to clean up the NDP mess too, and that is something that is important. We had to make priorities to clean up the five years of NDP mismanagement after the five years of socialist mismanagement from our colleagues in the Liberal Party. I should give the NDP credit for at least two of those years. They were co-managers at that time.
2100
When we were sitting down to make priorities and we talked to some of the whiz kids like Barbara Colantonio across the way, we had to decide, would we bring in mandatory work for welfare first. We thought mandatory workfare is very important, so mandatory work for welfare had priority, because the welfare system had got out of control under Treasurer Robert Nixon and the NDP. We're guilty. Mandatory work for welfare was a real priority for this government. That came first.
Getting rid of quotas and restoring merit-based hiring practices in Ontario: That too was more important.
Scrapping and repealing Bill 40, the job-killing labour legislation, was a real priority and was very important.
I don't play golf. There's a golf tag from the credit union given for the NDP members who play golf. I want to know who from the credit union is lobbying the government. I want to know, not like my colleagues opposite, who is giving these trinkets. More importantly, our constituents want to know. I'll save these golf tees for my socialist friends in the Liberal Party who love to golf.
What else did we have to do after repealing the job-killing labour legislation, Bill 40? We had to promote workplace democracy to allow every worker in the province a vote on whether they chose or did not choose to join a union. That was important for the worker, a pro-worker bill.
We had to cut taxes for working families because the tax burden was simply killing jobs. So cutting taxes to create jobs was very important.
I'm a little bit puzzled to hear my NDP friend suggest that this government just isn't going fast enough, because we want to take the time to get it right. That's something that's very important for our government: to go slowly. I take with a grain of salt their criticism that it took so long. The fact is we're the government to do it in our first term, and that is more than either opposition party can say. That is something that is exceptionally important.
To inspire integrity, to open up the process, if you could just let a little light in, that's half the answer to these problems. I think the public has a right to know who's lobbying the member for Scarborough North. They want to know what type of decisions they're going to get out of the member for Scarborough North.
Mr Barrett: What's going on in those backrooms.
Mr Baird: What's going on in those Liberal backrooms, the member for Norfolk says. We want to know. The public, our constituents, have a right to know. It's not just for what they'll find out; I think it will help govern conduct in the future, which is even more important. That is exceptionally important to know.
This legislation that we've introduced will require lobbyists to register their identity. It will require them to identify the names of their clients and declare the lobbying activity on a government registry. Different from some government registries, this is not going to be in an office tower in Toronto that someone from Nepean is going to have to visit to get that information. It will be available on the Web at any library and at any school or home. The public will be able to look into what lobbying is done on their government, because we mustn't forget that this is not a Conservative government, an NDP government or a Liberal government, this is the people's government and they have a right to see what's going on and to shine lights in.
Mr Barrett: Democracy at its finest.
Mr Baird: The member for Norfolk says, "Democracy at its finest." Absolument. Exactly.
People who try to lobby office holders to influence government decisions about legislative proposals, bills, regulations, changes to policies and programs, the awarding of contracts, contributions and other financial benefits, and indeed about privatization activities, will be required - we think that will add to the public process and instill not just integrity, but public confidence in the system, which is extremely important, not just among elected officials but among the public service as well, which is an important partner in the governing process. That is something that is extremely important.
I say to the member for Cochrane South that it is extremely important that in-house lobbyists register. The public has a right to know who is lobbying this place, regardless who pays for their freight.
Mr Hastings: Disclosure.
Mr Baird: Disclosure, as the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale says, will be an important part of the democratic process. This bill raises the standard of public integrity. This bill raises the standard of instilling confidence in government because that is extremely important. We must do that every day. That's something the Mike Harris government has sought to do, first and foremost by living up to the promises we made. For too long politicians said one thing at election time - "We'll scrap and axe the GST" - and did quite a different thing after election day.
Mr Hastings: Who said that?
Mr Baird: "Who said that?" the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale said.
Mr Hastings: Monsieur le Premier Ministre?
Mr Baird: Monsieur le Premier Ministre Chrétien a dit ça. He said, "We will scrap and axe it."
To instill some integrity in the process, to live up to our campaign promises, which this government is doing, is important, and as well to lead by example.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Sergio: I would like to respond to the comments from the member for Nepean. He has given an account of the bill presented by the government, and that's fine. I wish they would listen to the opposition side when we are about to comment on their bills as well.
This is one of those that is flawed, but if I have to give them some credit, it is for introducing the legislation, although three-and-a-half years late. Yes, it is here and we are saying to you that it is good, fine, that you have introduced it, but you didn't go far enough. If you really are concerned about maintaining integrity, then do the right thing and change those three particular things in the act here.
First, it does not give any direction other than what the government imposed on the Integrity Commissioner. Can you believe, Mr Speaker, that we don't have one person out there who can act on their own, but only under the rules and direction of the cabinet? Well, gee, thanks a lot. We have an Integrity Commissioner who will oversee complaints, but only under the direction imposed by the government. Isn't that nice? I think the member should take note of that.
Second, if you really want to preserve the true spirit and gain the confidence of the public out there, then for goodness' sake close the loopholes. Don't give yourself: "Just in case we are going to be here three years from now to make decisions, we want to reserve the right to have the cabinet, the Premier, the minister, the deputy minister and anybody else down the road make exemptions."
Pardon me, but as a taxpayer I resent that the government cannot present legislation fully complete, with no loopholes.
Mr Bisson: I listened intently to the member for Nepean and at the end of the speech he wrapped up by saying that people are tired of seeing governments that don't hold to their commitments. I propose that the people of Ontario are going to be mad in the next election, are going to be pretty tired of this government that has gone against most of the major commitments it made in the election of 1995.
The Tories seem to have a short memory. I remember, because I, as other members in this assembly, was present in the last provincial election when the Mike Harris Conservatives promised, what? Not one cent was going to be taken from education. I guess they kept their promise. They didn't take out a penny; they took $1 billion out of the system of education. They said they weren't going to close any hospitals in the province of Ontario. They were going to make sure everybody had a hospital in Ontario. They didn't close one - I guess they kept their promise - they closed 27 hospitals across Ontario.
Mr Gerretsen: Thirty-four.
Mr Bisson: Thirty-four. Actually, it's gone up from 27 to 34 in the last couple of months.
Mr Hastings: You closed 10,000 hospital beds.
Mr Bisson: He says we closed 10,000 hospital beds. Thirty-four hospitals: That's what you closed. And you talk about holding your commitment, the government that said in the last provincial election they weren't going to close any hospitals?
I remember that candidates like Mr Saunderson and Mr Leach, the Minister of Housing, in the last provincial election had posters all over saying, "We're not going to scrap rent control." What did the Minister of Housing do? He scrapped rent control. Talk about keeping his commitment. I remember that provincial election. Mr Saunderson, Mr Leach, Mr Shea and a whole bunch of other Toronto members campaigned on preserving rent control. And environmental legislation, let's not go there; it's a disaster. We'll deal with that one in the next election.
2110
Hon Mr Wilson: The member from Cochrane does a great disservice to the member for Nepean, who gave a very thoughtful discussion about the Lobbyists Registration Act. There are two things; one is that you would think the NDP, of all parties, would support the fact that we're asking people to pay a fee to register, just to cover the cost of the public service of registering, the government cost, people who are professional lobbyists. Please read the bill. These people make a lot of money. If it's a charitable organization, they don't have to pay these fees. If they get paid big money to lobby you and I, then they can afford this very small fee. That's one thing.
The second thing is with respect to hospitals.
Mr Lessard: Why are we discussing that?
Hon Mr Wilson: Because the member from Cochrane mentioned that.
When the NDP was in office, you supported, along with the Liberals, half-empty hospital buildings in this province to the point where you closed 13,000 hospital beds during your time in office. You left my local hospitals half empty. You left 126 hospitals in this province half empty. We were paying the maintenance, the overhead, and do you know what? The number one complaint in our hospitals was that there were no nurses and doctors to look after the patients. By God, we're putting the nurses and doctors back in, we're closing half-empty buildings, we're amalgamating them and we're putting the patient first. That's what our health care policy is in this province.
Mr Gerretsen: Let me just say that is a tough act to follow. For the first time in my three years here, I was actually scared to be on this side of the House, looking at the minister go absolutely ballistic when he got all his facts wrong. Anyway, we'll deal with that later on.
The member for Nepean said that the reason this bill wasn't brought in earlier was that they wanted to get it right. I wish this government had shown the same concern for the property taxpayers out there. It has taken you, so far, six bills, and you still haven't got the property taxation situation right in this province. There are thousands of small business individuals out there whose businesses you are absolutely ruining because of the tremendous increase of taxation that your policy has levied on them. We all know of individual business people whose property taxes have gone up 200%, 300% or 400%. What are we trying to do about it? Absolutely nothing.
We were supposed to come back here on September 28 in order to deal with the property tax bill immediately, so that people could appeal their assessments. What has happened? Two and a half weeks later, the bill still hasn't cleared the House. We have asked the Minister of Finance to bring the bill forward. We want to discuss and debate the bill, and so far that hasn't happened. Why didn't you get that right? Why are you trying to ruin the small businesses in this province? I know that each one of you knows what I'm talking about, because it's happening in all of our ridings. It is totally and absolutely unconscionable for this government to basically try to ruin small business in this province.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nepean has two minutes to respond.
Mr Baird: Seeing the member for Simcoe West go after the members opposite makes me want to have been here when we were in opposition. He was obviously trying to outdo the member for Grey-Owen Sound in his performance.
I want to thank the members for Yorkview, Cochrane South, Simcoe West and Kingston and The Islands for their comments.
To the member for Yorkview, I certainly have confidence in the Integrity Commissioner's ability to undertake this act. I think the new Integrity Commissioner, like the old one, is someone with extraordinary abilities who will be able to more than meet the challenge set out in the legislation.
To the member for Cochrane South, this government can go on record as being the government that has kept more promises than any government in Canadian history, and the member for Cochrane South will agree with me that we probably kept more commitments in the Liberal campaign platform than the Liberals would have kept had they formed the government.
Mr Bisson: You're right, that's true.
Mr Baird: He says we're right and it's true. I know even the member for Cochrane South would agree with me. The Liberal platform said: balance the budget, cut taxes, cut spending by billions, cut red tape by 50%, reform the WCB, work for welfare, cut corporate taxes. They promoted all that, and then they voted against it. But our government made a lot of similar commitments and met those promises.
I was a young person in university when the NDP were elected, and I remember the promise to abolish tuition.
Interjection.
Mr Baird: In Kingston, of all places.
Mr Gerretsen: They should have kicked you out.
Mr Baird: I remember the commitment to abolish tuition. I looked on my bill in 1991 and 1992, and they didn't abolish tuition, and they didn't bring in public auto insurance, and the government brought in the social contract, stripping the rights of workers across the province.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Gerretsen: It's hard to know where to start, with everything that has been said in just the last 10 or 15 minutes, but there are just a couple of points I want to pick up on, and they deal with the fact that the member for Nepean stood up and basically took credit for the Election Finances Act.
If he really thinks that democracy is served well in this province by increasing the spending limits in each and every riding from roughly $45,000 per riding to well over $70,000 per riding, which means that each one of us will have to raise more money, which I don't think is all that good for the system, and if he really thinks that it is good for democracy in this province for the central party organizations to be able to spend about twice as much as what they currently can - I believe the old limit was something like $2 million, and now it's going to be $4 million - and if he thinks it's good that the individual contribution for political donations can be increased from $750 to $4,000 per individual or per organization, he has it dead wrong.
What the people of Ontario want is not an Americanization of our democratic institutions and our democratic system. We all know of the problems they run into in the States, where congressmen, both at the federal and at the state level, are continually fundraising. I don't think we need that kind of a system here, and I don't think our system is well served by it.
There's the other aspect as well, of course, that in addition to all that, we all know that the government just within the last two or three months has spent something like $6.4 million on purely partisan advertising. I've had calls in my office and many of my colleagues have had calls in their office from people who want to know whether the propaganda they're getting in the mail, whether it's from the education ministry or from the health ministry, is actually paid for by the Conservative Party or whether it's paid for by the government. We all know that most of it has been paid for by the government. Some $6.4 million is what we have just calculated in a few of the brochures that have gone out over the last two or three months.
I ask each and every one of you, and each and every Ontarian, wouldn't it have been better to spend that $6.4 million on, for example, making sure that the emergency wards are open in Metro Toronto here? Isn't what we read in the paper this morning a horrible situation, that over the holiday weekend 17 out of the 19 hospitals in Metro Toronto had their emergency wards and rooms closed? How would each one of us like to be placed in a position where we needed those services and we went to a hospital and we could not be helped in emergency basically because of underfunding, because they didn't have the funding to keep those emergency rooms and wards open?
I say that the people of Ontario would much rather have seen that $6.4 million spent for those purposes, to make sure the health care that all of us need out there at some time or another is available to them, rather than the cheap kind of propaganda advertising that you have shoved through the doors in the advertising campaign just recently. I don't want to dwell on that particular aspect of it.
2120
There are so many issues one can talk about, but I would like to deal with the bill itself. I would like somebody from the government to deal with an issue that has been talked about now by a number of different members: why you found it necessary, in section 18 of the bill - "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, (a) exempting any person who is appointed to any office or body by or with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council..." - to exempt people and organizations from this legislation. Why did you find it necessary - it's not in the federal legislation - to actually exempt people and organizations from this legislation where the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which in normal parlance means the cabinet, feels that it's not required?
What this smacks of is, yes, this is a good piece of legislation, generally speaking, but any time it suits you and you want to exempt a certain situation, you can just do that through cabinet. Why do you find that it's necessary? Would somebody in an intelligent way like to answer that question? Without any of the hysterics, without any of the name-calling, just explain that to me. It's not in the federal legislation. Why did you find it was necessary to allow cabinet to exempt, to give free and overall exemptions to this? That's the first point I want to raise.
The second point is, why did you not include in the legislation a code of conduct as is contained in the federal bill? I took it upon myself to get a copy of the federal code of conduct and I can tell you it is not a complicated document. It is a document that is about five pages long, and on most pages it only contains about two or three paragraphs. For the life of me I cannot understand, if you really want this to be meaningful legislation, why you wouldn't include a code of conduct.
Let me just read you some of the sections. I would invite somebody from the government side to get up and tell me why you didn't include this in there. It says:
"The Lobbyists' Code of Conduct is founded on four concepts...
"Free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest;
"Lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity;
"It is desirable that public office holders and the public be able to know who is attempting to influence government; and
"A system for the registration of paid lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government."
That is their preamble.
What are the principles, then, of this code of conduct that are contained in the federal act?
"Integrity and honesty.
"Lobbyists should conduct with integrity and honesty all relations with public office holders, clients, employers, the public and other lobbyists."
Why wouldn't you include that statement? That's what the act deals with. Why wouldn't you include the code of conduct?
"Openness
"Lobbyists should, at all times, be open and frank about their lobbying activities, while respecting confidentiality.
"Professionalism
"Lobbyists should observe the highest professional and ethical standards.
"Transparency
"Lobbyists shall, when making a representation to a public office holder, disclose the identity of the person or organization on whose behalf the representation is made, as well as the reasons for the approach."
That's part of the federal code of conduct. Why wouldn't you include it in your act? It seems to me a reasonable request. If a lobbyist comes to a government department, and if you want to be totally open and transparent about it, that government official or department has the right to know whom exactly you're lobbying for, for what organization.
"Accurate information
"Lobbyists shall provide information that is accurate and factual to public office holders."
Surely you don't disagree with that. You don't think that lobbyists should provide inaccurate information.
"Disclosure of obligations
"Lobbyists shall indicate to their client, employer or organization their obligations under the...act."
Surely that's a reasonable suggestion if you want to make this a meaningful act.
"Confidential information
"Lobbyists shall not divulge confidential information unless they have obtained the informed consent of their client...."
That makes sense. You wouldn't want somebody to reveal the information of a client they represent without the client knowing about it.
"Insider information
"Lobbyists shall not use any confidential or other insider information obtained in the course of their lobbying activities to the disadvantage of their client...."
That surely makes sense. If you're there for one client, you wouldn't want to give any information that in effect would be doing a disservice to that client.
Finally, on the last page:
"Competing interests
"Lobbyists shall not represent conflicting or competing interests without the informed consent of those whose interests are involved."
In other words, you can't go there for two different groups at the same time, representing two different viewpoints. It's a reasonable suggestion. Why haven't you included that?
"Disclosure
"Consultant lobbyists shall advise public office holders that they have informed their clients of any actual, potential or apparent conflict of interest....
"Improper influence
"Lobbyists shall not place public office holders in a conflict of interest by proposing or undertaking any action that would constitute an improper influence on a public office holder."
This code of conduct as contained in the federal act is a relatively simple document.
Interjection.
Mr Gerretsen: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, without even listening to the debate, without even hearing any of the principles I've put forward, has an opinion. I would like somebody to get up and say why -
Mr Hastings: It's violated every day.
Mr Gerretsen: Oh, "It's violated every day," he says.
The point is, sir, this is your piece of legislation, and your piece of legislation is useless unless you include an accepted code of conduct. We have a code of conduct here that is very limited in scope and very easy to read, and I would seriously suggest that you include it in your legislation if you want to make the legislation meaningful.
There's one other issue that I quickly want to bring to the House, because I know it's getting close to 9:30, and that is: We have an Integrity Commissioner to whom each and every one of us reports on an annual basis, and I think the system works well. This individual, under this act, will now become the commissioner under the Lobbyists Registration Act.
The Integrity Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Provincial Auditor and the Environmental Commissioner are members of this legislative House. They are servants of this House. They are not servants of the government; they are servants of the House. If this bill is accepted the way you're proposing, in effect what you're saying to our own Integrity Commissioner, who is an officer of this House, is that he will now have to serve two masters. I have the highest regard for the Integrity Commissioner, I think he's a perfectly fine gentleman, but we are placing him in an untenable situation where he is both a servant of this House, like the Ombudsman, like the Provincial Auditor, like the Environmental Commissioner, and at the same time he is retained by the cabinet or management office as the officer who is responsible for the implementation of this act. It is not acceptable.
I know for a fact there are members in your own caucus, who I hope will step forward, who are very concerned about that. You cannot have an Integrity Commissioner being an officer to this House who is at the same time ultimately responsible to Management Board of Cabinet.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 9:30, this House stands adjourned until 10 tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 2130.