Bill C-15 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Bob Nault, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, be read the third time and passed.

Privilege

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of Justice with contempt in regard to his release of material to the media that was intended for Parliament.

Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board tabled the main estimates in the House. The estimates reported that the government was seeking more funds to keep the firearms registry running.

Despite the urging of the Auditor General, the government has failed to provide a proper accounting of the program, a program that the Auditor General considers a major crown project. Apart from an $18 million item under Department of Justice, contributions to provinces and territories, there is no mention of any other funding for the firearms registry in the estimates.

However some cost estimates and details not mentioned in the estimates were revealed yesterday in a government news release. The release reads:

Firearms Program Funding 2003-04 (Main Estimates)

Treasury Board material on the Main Estimates mentions $74 million for the Canadian Firearms Centre. What is this for?

It goes on to say that:

The $74 million is part of the $113 million sought in the Main Estimates for the Canadian Firearms Program. These funds are needed to operate and administer the firearms program for fiscal year 2003-04.

The $113 million figure is arrived at by adding the $74 million to the A-base estimate for the program ($35 million, which was included within the Department's Main Estimates figures for the 2003-04, tabled last year). The $113M includes employee benefits and accommodation costs.

I am not sure what the A-base is. The news release goes on to detail how it was spent.

The $113M consists of the following major elements: $21.5M to the “Alternative Service Delivery”; $8M to operate the Miramichi facility (costs for the Quebec processing site are included in provincial contributions); $16M in contributions to provinces that are administering the program (eg. Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, etc.); $11.3M to administer the program in opt-out jurisdictions; $4.6M for NWEST; $16M in other contributions to federal partners involved in the program; $14.4M for maintenance of the current Electronic Data Processing system and current business operations; and $9.2M for program administration.

The NWEST may be the Northwest Territories but I am not sure. The news release then goes on to provide details of the $74 million. The latter half of the release concerns itself with program funding of $59 million for 2002-03 supplementary estimates.

Mike Murphy, a spokesman for the Minister of Justice, reported to the National Post that the more detailed breakdown contained in the news release would be tabled in Parliament in late March. Mr. Murphy is admitting that the information in the news release is intended for Parliament and that Parliament will be provided with the information later.

Later in March would mean that the detailed information in the news release would be provided to Parliament when the reports on plans and priorities, or part IIIs of the main estimates, are tabled in the House as required under our rules. As you are also aware, Mr. Speaker, those reports are intended for the House.

The Minister of Justice has decided to release this information to the media one month ahead of providing it to Parliament. His spokesman has made the link between the information in the news release and information intended for Parliament in an interview with Bill Curry of the

National Post.

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Provencher on March 14, 2001. His question of privilege was in regard to the Department of Justice briefing the media on Bill C-15 prior to its tabling in the House.

On March 19, 2001 the Speaker ruled on the matter and stated:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.

We had another case on October 15, 2001. The opposition House leader raised a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-36. The National Post had reported the contents of Bill C-36 and indicated that it was briefed by officials from the Department of Justice. The article published on October 13, 2001 entitled “New bill to pin down terrorism” described the bill in detail and quoted officials from the department.

The Speaker ruled that the case of Bill C-36 was similar to Bill C-15 and that there had been a breach of privileges of the House and the matter was sent to committee.

I would argue that the reports on the plans and priorities are material placed before Parliament and like legislation, if they are to be released, the House must take precedence.

The supply process deserves the same respect, integrity and protection as the legislative process. I would argue even more so than legislation because the estimates are the fundamental reason that Parliament exists.

The minister's attempt to appropriate money through a news release is an affront to Parliament.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, supplementary estimates (B) 2002-03 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003. were also tabled by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday. On page 82, the Canadian firearms program will receive another $59,447,000. In addition to that it also has with an asterisk, “Incremental funding to address operational requirements, Vote 1, at $16,436,000”. At the bottom the asterisk states:

Funds in the amount of $14,098,739 were advanced from the Treasury Board Contingencies Vote to provide temporary funding for this program.

If I go back to the 2002-03 main estimates, part I and II, the government expenditure plan in main estimates at page 1-54, for the vote 5 of the government contingencies for the Treasury Board it states:

Subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, to supplement other appropriations for paylist and other requirements and to provide for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses not otherwise provided for, including awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act and authority to re-use any sums allotted for non-paylist requirements and repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations.

Note the word “unforeseen”.

We do know that the Minister of Justice has been telling us that he has been funding the firearms program through cash management after the government withdrew a request for $72 million last December.

I am raising this point with you, Mr. Speaker, at the earliest opportunity because supplementary estimates (B) were only tabled in the House yesterday. I have not been able to verify whether that $15 million was for the Canadian firearms program as the $72 million was in December 2002.

If we find that this money actually was used for the firearms program to replace the money that the government did not request in December 2002, it was not unforeseen. It was to replace a request that was withdrawn which is a significant difference. Unforeseen we can understand; to replace a request that the government withdrew from the floor of this House, for reasons we do not know, cannot under any circumstances be classified as unforeseen.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will find that the Minister of Justice is in contempt of the House for the total disregard for the historic and constitutional role of the House in financial matters and the business of supply. If you agree and if you do so rule, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the business statement and I will have two motions which relate to that immediately afterward, with the permission of the House.

This afternoon we will consider the Senate amendments to Bill C-12, the sports bill. I understand this will be brief. This will be followed by third reading of Bill C-15, the lobbyists legislation. If time permits, we would then turn to Bill C-20 on child protection, and then possibly Bill C-23, the sex offender registry. I think by then the day will probably have exhausted.

Tomorrow our plan would be to commence with Bill C-2, the Yukon bill, which would then be followed by Bill C-6, the first nations specific claims bill.

When the House returns on March 17 we will complete the budget debate on that day. I will have a motion to offer to the House in a few minutes to defer the vote on that.

March 18 shall be an allotted day, as shall be March 20. I will give an update to members of the House in terms of legislation to be called on March 19.

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I wish to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, if on March 17, 2003, a division is requested on the main motion for government order, ways and means proceedings No. 2, the said division shall be deferred until the conclusion of the time provided for government orders on March 18, 2003.

For the benefit of members, that refers to the budget motion.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-15.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Business of the House

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of expediting the vote tonight and after consultation with the various parties, I think you would find unanimous consent to withdraw Motions Nos. 2 and 3 that are now on the Order Paper for Bill C-15. That would leave only Motion No. 1 to be voted on tonight.

Supply

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak on this very important issue.

Chapter 10 of the 2002 Auditor General's report dealt with the Canadian firearms program. We have heard a lot in recent weeks about the administrative problems that the Canadian firearms program has had in the past. It is not my intent to, nor will I, downplay these problems, but I do think it is time to hear something about the changes the government has proposed to improve the Canadian firearms program.

I want to thank the hon. member for South Shore for the opportunity to remind Canadians about the gun action control plan that the Minister of Justice announced last week. This plan will deliver a gun control program that provides significant public safety benefits while setting the program on the path to lower costs. The plan will streamline management, improve services to legitimate users of firearms, seek parliamentary, public and stakeholder input, and strengthen accountability and transparency to Parliament and, through Parliament, to all Canadians.

A key element of the action plan is the passage of Bill C-10A and the adoption of consequential regulations by the end of this year. During the debate on what was then Bill C-15B, the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville told the House, “...the amendments given here may in some small way improve the original errors in Bill C-68”. I share that view and I associate myself with those remarks.

Unlike certain members of the opposition, however, I believe Parliament exists to, and has a duty to, make an engaged and constructive difference. Despite the overheated rhetoric of the gun lobby, Canadians, I am convinced, are committed to the principles of Canada's Firearms Act. Opposition to the Canadian firearms program is neither as broad nor as unanimous as opponents would make us believe. Canadians want meaningful, effective gun control delivered to them in an efficient, cost effective manner. Poll after poll demonstrates this deep commitment.

If we have listened to a lot of the rhetoric that has gone on in the House, in the newspapers and on radios and TV in the last month, we would think that Canadians do not want anything about gun control. I disassociate myself with those remarks. People in Canada do not want a situation where any person can go out and buy a gun, store that gun and use it in whatever way they want.

I am a poster boy for gun control. I have never owned a gun. I have never fired a gun. I have never stored a gun. I would not know how to shoot a gun. I should not be allowed to go out to Canadian Tire later this morning, buy a gun and store it under my living room couch. That is not what the Canadian people want.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

The Bloc Quebecois will support the amendments, but we do not support the act as introduced by the Liberal government. We are opposed to it, because this legislation does not give more teeth to the rules governing lobbyists. There is nothing in the bill to compel lobbyists to mention the type of public officials they meet, the type of work they are involved in, and the money paid for their services. Moreover, lobbyists are not required to disclose the amounts of money that they spend while lobbying.

This makes me wonder why Parliament is now discussing the issue of lobbyists. The reason is simple.

The work of parliamentarians has been impeded. The role of parliamentarians is no longer to listen to the public. Their role, particularly for members of the Liberal Party of Canada, is no longer to listen to those who represent their communities and who come to Parliament Hill to discuss issues with them. No, this is too complicated; they have to meet too many people and they have to deal with too many problems.

Since the Liberal Party of Canada has been in power, it has been holding discussions with representatives of influential companies and with influential people representing influential groups. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has seen the Boisbriand GM plant close. The Liberal government is not here to listen to representations and grievances from the GM workers at Boisbriand. No, it is here to be lobbied by GM Canada. That is the reality. That is the way things work.

Today we are discussing lobbyists. My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm is currently experiencing problems in agriculture in his riding. Everywhere in Canada there are serious problems in agriculture. But they are not listening to the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec in Berthier—Montcalm. They are listening to the powerful lobbyists. That is what they are doing. There are utterly ignoring what the workers' representatives have to say.

Often, in agriculture, where international relations are concerned, in the dairy industry for instance, Canada will sacrifice Quebec's dairy producers. It will put supply management, which is so staunchly supported by all agricultural producers in Quebec, on the table. In this case, the lobby is the Government of Canada.

Today we are discussing a bill on lobbyist registration. Lobbying has now become a tradition. To gain the Liberal government's ear, one has to go through middlemen. That is what the bill we have before us is all about, dealing with middlemen. That is a harsh reality for the Quebeckers and Canadians who are listening to us.

The opposition parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, are the ones pressuring the government. We have not stopped harassing the government about the agricultural question. My colleagues from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and from Laurentides continue to do the same about the GM plant in Boisbriand. They constantly demand that the government get to work to keep the only auto plant in Quebec open.

This is a plant in the region, in the country, of Quebec. One of the biggest producers of aluminum and magnesium in the world is unable to keep an auto plant operating, and why? Because the industry lobby is pro-Ontario. That is the situation.

The Liberal members of this House, the ministers responsible, including the Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, those with responsibility for Quebec, are the ones who come to give us the bad news.

When the GM plant in Boisbriand closed, the minister himself said, after a meeting with GM Canada lobbyists, “That's it. It's over. There is nothing we can do”.

Now, he is Minister of Justice. He is a member from Quebec and he told Quebeckers that, in the end, the GM lobbyists won and that the GM plant in Boisbriand would be closed. The same thing will happen with agriculture.

I would encourage my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm to keep up his good work, and not to let up in badgering the Liberal government here in the House and to defend supply management in Quebec's dairy industry. It does exist.

Quebec farmers have set up a supply management system in the dairy industry that is unique. It ensures revenues for farmers that allow the industry to thrive. This is not an industry that is getting rich off the backs of the people; but they do make a decent living.

Once again, the Liberal Party, through the Minister for International Trade, will negotiate all kinds of measures that could threaten Quebec's supply management system. Once again, this government is bowing to pressure from multinational corporations. In agriculture, it is under pressure from processors, because they are the ones, in the end, who want to be able to do as they please with the industry, to the detriment of farmers. That is the reality.

So, once again, the lobby for dairy products processors is more important than the representatives of those who work in the industry. That is what happened with the GM plant in Boisbriand, and that is what will happen with the Union des producteurs agricoles, supply management in agriculture and supply management in the dairy industry.

Obviously, we will support any amendments to limit the role of lobbyists as much as possible, to provide transparency regarding their work, and to limit their election campaign contributions to the ruling party. That is the reality.

So, we will support amendments to limit as much as possible the work of lobbyists. However, you will understand that we are against this bill, which does not go far enough and which should likely never have been drafted.

As a matter of fact, representatives of every association and group can meet members of Parliament. Bloc Quebecois members' office doors are always open. Why do we need lobbyists? Because the office doors of Liberal members and ministers, of the government in power, are not open to Quebeckers and Canadians. They are open to lobbyists who have money to dole out. That is the reality.

You will have understood that every amendment and every proposal made by the Bloc Quebecois at report stage was defeated in committee. Naturally, Liberal members succeeded in defeating every suggestion by the Bloc Quebecois to try once more to place stricter controls on lobbyists' activities. Our proposals were defeated at report stage. Of course, the few amendments moved by our colleagues are important, and we thank them, but those amendments do not go far enough to put controls on the political structure.

You will have understood it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Lobbying is a political structure that parallels everything members do, both Liberal members and members from the other parties in the House. Ministers would rather deal with lobbyists than with members, irrespective of their ridings or political allegiance. That is the reality.

People are confused because the most influential lobbyists on the Hill should be the members of this House. It is our role; our job is to stand up for our constituents, various associations and groups.

Again the problem is that the few members who are ministers find there are too many people to listen to. They prefer dealing with a few so-called experts in fields in which their expertise definitely has more to do with the money they can give to campaign funds than with the quality of the work they can do. That is the reality.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles experienced this when the GM plant in Boisbriand closed down. The hon. member for Laurentides also experienced this. And the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm is experiencing it with agriculture. It is difficult to defend the interests of Quebec farmers when in Canada efforts are being made to eliminate supply management and wipe out the work of an entire generation of farmers in an attempt to bring the standards down to what they currently are in Canada. Naturally, not all provinces are as far ahead as Quebec in terms of management.

However, care should be taken not to penalize Quebec farmers. We would not want either to penalize those processors who are trying not only to expand plants but, more importantly, to increase quarterly profits for their shareholders.

So, all we in this House wish is for workers, whether in the automotive industry or in agriculture, to be able to earn a decent living in this state known as Canada and in the country of Quebec.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my hon. colleague for his efforts, not only on this legislation but I think in general he has been very concerned about the issue of influence and the issues of accountability and transparency. I see his motions in the spirit of that.

We do see some merit in the three motions proposed today. I will go over each of them generally and then each of them in particular.

The motions aim at revealing the presence of connections between former public officeholders turned lobbyists and the departments where they previously served or had contact.

As an initial point, it is worth noting that there already exists in the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Former Public Office Holders, time based prohibitions on former public officeholders lobbying back the departments where they worked. I know this is not in any specific motion but is worth noting. These amendments appear to be aiming a spotlight on those friendly relationships that might exist between former and current public officeholders and which might lead to undue influence.

I will turn specifically now to the three amendments before us today.

Motion No. 1 would apply to in house lobbyists employed by corporations and organizations. A corporation or organization is required to make a filing if the corporation or organization employs one or more persons who engage in lobbying, for example, communicating with public officeholders with respect to certain types of public business. This is listed in clause 7(1) and the aggregated time spent by all the employees constitutes a significant part, for example 20%, of the duties of one employee or would constitute a significant part of the duties if they were performed by only one employee.

Motion No. 1 would add to the information that must be disclosed by the corporation or organization to include disclosing the name of any employee engaged in lobbying activities who is a former public officeholder, as well as indicating what office they formerly held. The purpose of the motion, as we can determine, is to permit the public to identify those individuals who have greater influence as a lobbyist as a result of having held public office.

While the proposed motion would broaden the disclosure requirements, in our view this addition would appear to be not too onerous. Clause 7(3) already requires that organizations and corporations name all employees who do any lobbying. In addition, corporations must also name the senior officers of the corporation.

Bill C-15 would not require identifying those individuals as former public officeholders or the office that they held. The identity of public officeholders is of course public information and members of the public could, with some research, find out that information. They could make this connection. Still, having this information set out in the registry would save them research time.

It is my intention to support the first motion.

The second motion would require any former public officeholders turned lobbyists to name the particular public officeholder with whom they intended to communicate. The motion would require former public officeholders to name the person who is, so to speak, on the inside, whom they are attempting to influence. In our view this would represent a significant departure from the current approach of the act which requires only that the department itself be named without naming individuals.

In my view this does present some conceptual problems. Former public officeholders would have to know the identity of the person to whom they intended to speak before initiating contact. One thing that the member may want to clarify is what would happen if the former public officeholder went to speak to someone in the department and was then referred to someone else? How would this motion deal with that type of situation? From a practical point of view, could we not get around the motion by simply setting up an intermediary? How would the motion prevent public officeholders from simply setting up an intermediary between the person with whom they actually wanted to talk? How would the motion deal with that type of situation?

During the committee's review of the act it was generally expressed by the witnesses that they wanted to maintain as much contact with departments, bureaucrats, officials, members of Parliament and policymakers without creating a chill, if they could. In other words, they wanted a lobbyist registration system that was transparent and accountable without creating a chill.

In my view, while the idea of bill disclosure has some merits, I feel that with the unanswered problems that I posed, as well as with the overall concern of creating a chill, it is my intention to not support the second motion.

The third proposed motion would change the definition of “employee”. In the current act an employee includes an officer who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties. The motion would change the definition to any person who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties referred to in paragraph 1(a). The duties referred to in paragraph 7(1)(a) are what are commonly known as lobbying activities. The purpose of this is to expand the definition of “employee” for organizations and corporations to include not only officers but any person who lobbies. This would appear to aim at organizations and corporations that try to avoid registration by not naming the lobbyist as an officer.

I have to admit that initially I did not see much of a problem with this when I reviewed the legislation. However I do not think it is a harmful motion and therefore I would certainly offer my support to the third motion.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-15, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 8 the following:

“(h.3) if any employee named in the return is a former public office holder, a description of the offices held;”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-15, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 8 the following:

“(h.4) if any employee named in the return is a former public office holder, the names of the public office holders with whom the employee intends to communicate;”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-15, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 9 the following:

“(3.1) The definition “employee” in subsection 7(6) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“employee” includes any person who is compensated for the performance of the duties referred to in paragraph (1)(a);”

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to these amendments to Bill C-15.

Bill C-15 is a comprehensive bill that upgrades and modernizes the Lobbyists Registration Act, a very important item of legislation that ensures accountability and transparency in the lobbying process. I have been involved in this legislation from time to time since its review in 1995, and while I certainly applaud the intent of the legislation, both its original intent and the legislation in its amended form under Bill C-15, I have long felt that there was an omission in the legislation. The motions I proposed are a first step to correcting those omissions.

The Lobbyists Registration Act as it stands, both now and with the Bill C-15 amendments, is primarily directed toward setting up a regime of transparency for the lobbyists. What happens is that various types of lobbyists are required to register with the lobbyists registrar, to identify themselves by company, by name, by individuals, and to identify the government department they intend to lobby.

That is all very well and good, but the reality is that for really effective transparency, what the public needs to know, what the public needs to have access to is not just who the lobbyists are but specifically who the lobbyists are lobbying.

At various times when this bill has been before committee, I have argued that the government should amend the legislation in such a way that bureaucrats, who are the targets of lobbyists, should be required to keep logs to indicate who has been lobbying them.

I have had a very difficult experience with the lack of this provision in fairly recent times. The House knows that I am a very great champion of the Access to Information Act, and freedom of information in general, and have long been concerned about the inadequacies of that legislation. However I had occasion to use that access to information legislation to do background on the animal cruelty bill that was before the House, and is now before the Senate.

I wanted to determine how certain policies were developed by the justice department that appeared in that legislation and where they came from with respect to the various groups that were obviously lobbying government. I had some real concerns because in its original form, the animal cruelty bill, which in the previous Parliament was called Bill C-17, had some very inappropriate and extreme measures slanted toward the animal rights movement and the extreme end of the animal rights movement, I would have said. This prompted me to try to determine how it came that the government should come up with policy that seemed to go toward the animal rights movement rather than to the animal management groups, like the farmers' groups and various other organizations that use animals.

When I tried to get this information, I certainly found who the lobbyists were. One of the lobby groups for instance was the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Another lobby group that was consulted was People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Members in the House will realize that both these groups are known to be very extreme in their approach to animal rights and often are on collision courses with other more moderate groups that use animals either in a clinical context for research or in a farm context.

What I was unable to find and what I would have really liked to have known was who these lobbyist organizations actually made contact with. Of course under the existing legislation it is impossible to determine that.

The reason that it is so important is not whether these organizations approached the Deputy Minister of Justice or some very high ranking official. What we really want to know is whether these lobbyist organizations approached middle level people, the invisible people who routinely write policy for government and who may be susceptible to the blandishments of skilled lobbyist.

There is another factor. In my riding I encountered complaints from organizations and individuals who found themselves in competition for government contracts. They complained that they lost the contract because another lobbyist organization had the advantage of a former officeholder, somebody who had been working in the department not many years earlier and now had left the department and was working for a lobbyist.

This raises a very delicate issue of fairness. We want an even playing field for anyone who is dealing with the government. We have no objection to lobbyists lobbying the government but we have to worry if people are trying to obtain government contracts or to access government programs and those people ought to have the advantage of knowing whether their lobbyist competitors have the advantage of a former officeholder. As it sits right now in the legislation, there is no way of anyone knowing that.

The further problem is that lobbying is a multimillion dollar industry in Ottawa. We know it to be so. The problem is that what no one knows in this business of lobbying is how extensively spread are the former officeholders. We are not talking about necessarily former ministers of the crown. We are talking about people who could be former deputy minsters or assistant deputy ministers. It goes on and on down through the various levels of government where we might have somebody who was a purchasing agent for a government department or somebody in a government department who recommended purchases who has quit the department and who now works for a lobbyist. These are the things we cannot see. These are the things that we need to see.

What the first motion would do is it would require lobbyists, when they register, to indicate whether or not they were a former officeholder by indicating what roles they performed in the federal government.

I would suggest that this is a very simple thing to do. Once a person has registered as a former officeholder with the lobbyist registrar that would be permanently on the record and would be easily accessible for many times.

One might argue that this something that should be put on the record indefinitely. I suggest that yes, indeed it should be put on the record indefinitely because I think the public has the right to know this.

The second motion would require these former officerholders to indicate who the individual is that they are lobbying.

I would have preferred the bureaucracy keeping logs of when they are lobbied. We would get that information through the Access to Information Act. This is another way of accomplishing the same thing.

I would suggest that the registrar can define the parameters, but I see nothing wrong with former officeholders indicating who they are lobbying, because obviously it is going to be somebody who is a former friend, somebody who is a former contact, and lobbying each time. It would not stop the process of the lobbyists. It would merely indicate, for the benefit of those of us who ought to know, who it is in the government and at what level is being lobbied on any particular issue, especially whether that person is being lobbied by a former officeholder.

The third motion merely sorts out an inadequacy in the legislation. It specifically defines an employee in terms of the description of the duties of a lobbyist in section 7. It is something that ought to have been in the original legislation, and I have attempted to correct it on behalf of the government.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-15.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate. The voting patterns for the motions are available at the Table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Child Pornography

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of Bill C-20 was clearly brought forward to deal with matters of this nature.

Specifically, Bill C-15A, which is already in force, is being acted upon and will be used in matters of this kind, for it will not only allow for a better prosecution process, but will allow a judge to remove all of that material from the computer database.

We believe that we are doing the job. We will get it done and make sure that child pornographers do not get a foothold there.

Justice

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our child pornography laws are among the toughest in the world, unquestionably so. We have continued to follow up. For example, Bill C-15A is now in force and deals with Internet luring. We have increased penalties within proposed Bill C-20. I think we are doing a fine job. We are doing our utmost to protect those children, who are a priority with this government.

Child Pornography

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first the hon. member should have a look at Bill C-20.

Let us start with Bill C-15A, which now of course actually is the legislation in Canada that we have been using. We are talking about Internet luring. The hon. member as well should recognize that in this country we have one of the toughest laws in the world. With Bill C-20, we are going to be even more effective and more efficient.

What the hon. member should do first is read the bill and, second, support the bill so it can become law in Canada as quickly as we can do it.

Criminal Code

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this bill, which I consider rather an important one.

As colleagues in the House will know, the issue of child exploitation is one that without a doubt is of concern to all Canadians and certainly to all parliamentarians.

We want, to the fullest extent possible, to ensure that we have legislation that above all not only gives the impression of valued protection for the most vulnerable members of our society but also at the same time provides an assurance that in fact good legislation that is written here and the proposals made by the House in fact meet the test of ensuring that children are protected.

I thank all colleagues from all parties of the House who last year at this time participated, for the second time, in a forum to deal with the vagaries and the rather emotional side and reality of child exploitation. Compliments of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canadian customs officials, the Toronto police force, under the very capable hands of Paul Gillespie and of course his predecessor, as well as the Ontario Provincial Police Project P's Detective Inspector Bob Matthews and Dr. Peter Collins, it became very clear to all those who did attend the meeting that Canada indeed has a serious problem.

At that time it became clear to many of us and we issued an issues and options paper, in which many members of Parliament agreed that the fundamental concern to arise out of the Sharpe decision was that the issue of the community harm test was set aside. In her wisdom, Madam Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court suggested at the time that the risk to children, however small, would nevertheless be outweighed by a charter challenge. I take it that Madam Justice McLachlin at the time thought, of course, that this was an appropriate course.

The Minister of Justice has rightly and correctly identified what I believe to be one of the most fundamental and key deficiencies in that ruling, and that is to ensure that what the public expects as a good and as a right of a good to protect must also be included heretofore in any decisions by the court.

Clearly I have spoken on previous occasions about the tensions that exist from time to time between the courts, the justices in the country and of course decisions that are made here in the House of Commons, but I take it that this is an acceptable, proper, appropriate and timely compromise.

As members of the House know, last month Toronto police issued what was in fact a view, in conjunction with Project P, that less than 5% of those who have been charged or who have been alleged to be involved in a child pornography ring from the United States have to this point been convicted. I suggest and submit that it is a matter of enforcement. It is one of the reasons that I as a member of Parliament, with many members on this side of the House, have taken the initiative and also have talked about the need for more coordination, for combined forces, if we wish, a strategy to ensure that we put the weight of all enforcement agencies toward making our good laws work.

Members across the way and in our party also understand, as do most Canadians, that the laws themselves are very strong but that perhaps the laws are insignificant or fail the test of protecting children if we cannot find a better way of enforcing them.

I think one of the most serious problems we have is to try to educate the judiciary, the crown attorneys, et cetera, as to how to combat child pornography. In the last round of bills, I was also very pleased to see Bill C-15A, which I voted for, with which for the first time a provision on Internet luring was put into legislation. In fact, in my community and in communities across the country that piece of legislation has been used on more than one occasion. More needs to be done and there is no doubt that I give full compliments to the intent of the House, which is to ensure that we keep our legislation modified and up to date.

However, I believe much more work needs to be done. It is interesting that on this issue the House, in my view, need not divide itself. We can always say that there is need for improvement and I am willing to talk to any member of Parliament about all the issues we have put forward: mandatory penalties; issues dealing with the police and the crown lacking the necessary resources to ensure the appropriate investigation and prosecution of child pornography and related crimes; that crimes receive the appropriate penalty; and that this becomes a priority in light of the harm it does to children. Of course we understand this because it is a harm that has no boundaries. It is an infinite harm.

A child who is exploited is a child who ultimately continues to be exploited in the long term. Martin Kruze is a young individual from my community who was assaulted by people who were in a position of authority. The Criminal Code already covers that. Martin brought his story forward. There have been countless stories, not necessarily with the belief that legislation can always cure these problems.

We have to recognize in the House the necessity of providing effective and timely enforcement to our enforcement agencies, whether that be the RCMP, the OPP, the QPP, or whoever, to ensure that we have a modicum of protection for young children, particularly those who represent, in essence, the future of our country.

I have concerns about other areas that we need to address in the options and issues paper that was presented in April of last year, issues that arose in part out of the Sharpe decision, both the one in 1999 and the one again much later. However I believe there is an opportunity for us to consider that attacks against children are nothing less than a hate crime. What they are doing is in fact targeting children and their inability to protect themselves. There are people in our society who believe that if they cannot be caught that it is somehow a licence to do far more damaging things.

The second issue we raised had to do with the need to ensure that we apply a community standards test similar to the Butler decision. I am reading the proposed legislation and it calls for a community harm or community good standard. I compliment the minister on that because I think it will be important to clarify the decisions and the differences that we are seeing in legislation.

It is not my job to disparage the Supreme Court of Canada or anyone. It is quite to the contrary. It is to find ways in which we can make this a much easier task.

I urge the House of Commons to consider perhaps relaxing legislation dealing with some of the Supreme Court of Canada rulings, for instance in Stinchcombe, which said that in order to address someone who is exploiting children on the Internet, rather than having to get a warrant, which takes two weeks, to seize the evidence and then to have someone catalogue 100,000 to 200,000 images, that we use the same standard that we would in a drug case. A simple sample would be presented and it would be sworn in as evidence, which would obviate the need to deplete the resources of enforcement agencies. I think that is an area on which we should be holding a summit in this Parliament and certainly on the Hill to ensure that all police, crown attorneys and judges have an opportunity to deliberate on this very important issue.

It seems to me that we have in many respects nothing less than goodwill toward protecting our children. We must ensure that our legislation and our enforcement procedures are consistent with the modern world.

To that end, I encourage the Minister of Justice to continue to improve what is known as the category of lawful access, to ensure that police forces and agencies across the country have that ability. In fact, this Minister of Justice and previous ministers of justice have signalled the importance at various conferences around the world, but we need to ensure that the sophistication of those who are using the Internet to attack children, and ultimately the attack is permanent and leaves permanent damage to a whole generation of children, is combated using proper, up to date technology.

It is important for us as members of Parliament to speak about the resources that are necessary. It is not just a question of co-ordinating and creating a combined force or combined strategy. We need to get serious about the amount of money needed to do this. It is an important line item in my view in terms of the budget.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in the debate on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code, respecting the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

Although Bill C-20 responds to a number of important issues, its overall objective is to provide increased protection to children against sexual exploitation and abuse in all forms. In particular, it addresses child pornography which, unfortunately, is an issue that is all too familiar to all hon. members.

I have found the second reading debate on Bill C-20 to be very interesting from a number of perspectives.

First, the debate serves to highlight the importance of careful scrutiny of measures that we have taken and propose to take to better protect children against sexual exploitation. The government welcomes this debate for it is through such discussions that we, as parliamentarians, can broaden our knowledge and our understanding of the issue at hand and thereby ensure the right response to what has already been said are very complex issues.

Second, the debate on Bill C-20 demonstrates that we do not all share a common understanding of what our criminal laws currently prohibit, that is vis-à-vis, child pornography or what Bill C-20 proposes by way of amendments. I believe that to fully understand and debate what Bill C-20 proposes, it is essential that we first fully understand our existing child pornography prohibitions.

Third, I note that while it may appear that there is a divergence of opinion among hon. members about what is the best way to protect children against sexual exploitation through child pornography, I believe that we all share a common, overarching concern and objective, namely, to better protect our children against this form of sexual exploitation. Let me reiterate the comments of the Minister of Justice in that regard. This government's commitment to the protection of children is clear and strong and it is reflected in Bill C-20's proposed amendments.

As I have already said, before considering the proposed child pornography amendments in Bill C-20, it is important to fully understand and appreciate what our existing criminal law already prohibits.

Since 1993, the Criminal Code has prohibited, first, making, printing, publishing or possessing for the purpose of publication any child pornography. This carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment on indictment.

Second, it prohibits the importing, distributing, selling or possessing for the purpose of distribution or sale, of any child pornography. This carries a penalty of 10 years imprisonment on indictment.

Third, it prohibits the possession of child pornography. This carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment. I note that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the possession offence with a very narrow exception. It does not apply to self-authored works of the imagination that are made and kept solely for one's personal use. However the child pornography offences do apply to self-authored works of imagination that are shared or otherwise disseminated.

Since July 23, 2002, and as a result of Bill C-15A, the Criminal Code also prohibits the transmitting, making available, exporting or possession for the purpose of transmitting, making available or exporting, any child pornography. This carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment on indictment. It also prohibits accessing child pornography. This new accessing offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment.

Bill C-15A amendments also allow the courts to order the deletion of child pornography posted on Canadian computer systems such as websites. These new measures directly address the misuse of new technologies to commit child pornography offences. On a related note I would add that Bill C-15A also created a new offence of luring. That is using a computer system in such a way, such as through the Internet, to communicate with a child for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against that child.

These are existing child pornography offences and they are very comprehensive. They recognize and address the many different ways that child pornography can be made and disseminated. When we look at them altogether, they show why Canada's child pornography provisions are among the toughest in the world, and they are.

Bill C-20 goes further yet and builds upon this comprehensive set of prohibitions against child pornography in two very key respects.

First, it broadens the definition of written child pornography. Currently the existing definition of written material only applies to material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a young person under the age of 18 years. That would be an offence under the Criminal Code. Bill C-20 proposes to also include written material that describes prohibited sexual activity with a child where the written description of the activity is the dominant characteristic of the material and the written description is done for a sexual purpose.

This proposed amendment recognizes the risk of harm that such material can pose to society by portraying children as a class of objects for sexual exploitation. It also directly responds to the concerns flowing from the most recent Sharpe decision.

Bill C-20 also proposes to amend the existing defences of child pornography. Currently the Criminal Code provides a defence for material that has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose. It also makes the public good defence available for all child pornography offences.

Bill C-20 proposes to merge these two defences into one defence of public good. As a result of the proposed amendment, a court would be required to consider whether the act or material in question serves the public good. If it does serve the public good, then the court must also consider whether the act or material goes beyond what serves the public good. If it exceeds what serves the public good, then there is no defence available. In other words, does the risk of harm posed by an act or material in question outweigh any potential benefit to society? That is the question we have to ask.

The question has been asked, when or how could anything related to child pornography ever serve the public good. I can understand this question, particularly from those who may be less familiar with the intricacies of criminal law, but this is not a new defence or indeed one without any existing legal interpretation or understanding.

In January 2001 the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe child pornography case, the court considered the meaning of public good. The court noted that the term “public good” had been interpreted as including matters that were necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, literature, art or other objects of general interest.

An example given is that of possession of child pornographic material by police or crown prosecutors for the purposes associated with investigation and prosecution. I hope all hon. members can see the public good to be served by enabling our police and prosecutors to possess child pornography for these investigative and prosecutorial purposes. The law must take these realities into account and Bill C-20 does exactly that.

The proposed amendment to have only one defence of public good should not be misconstrued as saying that child pornography is good. Of course it is not and the government has taken very real and concrete measures that strongly condemn child pornography.

The existence of child pornography defences was a key element in the supreme court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the overall child pornographic scheme. Bill C-20's proposed amendment to allow a very limited defence in limited circumstances that requires the balancing of the risk of harm against the risk of good to be served by that act or material in question draws from the supreme court's wisdom in this regard.

In other words, the government has taken very seriously its responsibility to protect children against sexual exploitation, as well as its responsibility to uphold the charter. It is not a question of doing one or the other. Bill C-20 does both. It protects the right of child victims to equal protection and benefit under the law and the charter rights and freedoms of the accused.

I would also like to acknowledge concerns noted by hon. members regarding the sentencing results in some child pornography cases. In this regard concerns are twofold; namely, that the sentences being handed down are generally too lenient and that they are inappropriate where they consist of a conditional sentence.

To this I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to a part of Bill C-20 that has received little attention and that is clause 24. Clause 24 proposes to make the commission of any offence against a child, and not just against one's own child, an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. First, I believe that this part of Bill C-20 speaks directly to the concern noted by some members regarding how seriously courts should view child pornography. Second, on the question of the use of conditional sentences in child pornography cases, I would note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently in the midst of a review of the use of conditional sentences since their implementation some six years ago. I certainly look forward to seeing the results of that review on this issue.

Bill C-20 proposes significant reforms that will better protect children against sexual exploitation through child pornography. I call on all hon. members to support this important bill.