Serge Marcil

[Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, February 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there has just been some confusion concerning the question from my colleague from Windsor West which concretely addressed the auto industry.

I shall, however, return to the question from by colleague from Windsor—St. Clair. Much has been accomplished through the Department of Industry as far as the auto industry is concerned. This is a sector that has experienced some hard times. He was referring to his own area, but I can also speak of ours in Quebec, where the GM plant has been shut down.

There is fierce competition in the international sector, however, but we have taken certain steps. We have, for instance, created a Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, bringing together all industry stakeholders. We are totally convinced that, collectively and cooperatively, we will find ways to ensure that support for auto initiatives is linked with the government's priorities of innovation, skills development and infrastructure.

The Government of Canada remains committed to improving the investment climate for all sectors of Canada. We will continue to work with CAPC on automotive specific issues to ensure the industry remains viable and prospers. We continue our efforts to develop a national automotive strategy and will make an announcement in due course.

There has been much discussion recently on what the various governments ought to be doing to attract new investment to the automotive sector in Canada. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this today.

First, let me be clear that we too want to see as much new automotive investment come to Canada as possible. This is one of the main reasons why the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council was created, to develop shared industry-government strategies to help ensure the long-term growth and prosperity of Canada's automotive sector. We are working through CAPC with the assemblers, parts manufacturers, labour and the provinces to develop a cooperative approach to addressing industry issues.

The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair has suggested that Canada should be matching the incentives offered by certain American States to attract new greenfield automotive investments. it is much too easy to say that Canada has lost automotive plants to competing jurisdictions, due to the absence of direct government assistance. Rather, we need to look at a whole range of factors which enter into such investment decisions, whether they be economic, public policy, or other factors. All levels of government are important players, and we are working in many areas at the federal level, such as infrastructure and innovation programs.

Canada's auto sector is very strong, internationally competitive, and highly productive. More than $5 billion has been invested in the auto sector in the past five years. Every one of our assemblers has current reinvestment plans. Over the past decade, average annual growth in Canada's auto sector was 7%, compared to 3% for the economy as a whole. During this same period, light vehicle production in Canada increased by 570,000 units. This is the equivalent of two or three typical assembly plants. I think this is impressive, given that while Canada accounts for only 8% of North American vehicle sales, our share of total North American production has consistently been about 16% in this time period.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to begin third reading debate on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.

This legislation is one of the key elements of the eight-point action plan on ethics in government announced by the Prime Minister on May 23. It also fits in with the commitment toward ethics which the government reaffirmed in the September throne speech.

Given how important this legislation is to meet the commitment we have made in the Speech from the Throne, let me start by thanking the Standing Committee on Industry, Sciences and Technology for the fantastic job it has done.

The committee recognized that this bill is one of the key elements of our plan to build the confidence of Canadians in their public institutions. It can be proud of the work it has accomplished expeditiously and diligently.

In no small measure, that prompt analysis was due to the work that the same committee did back in 2001 to look at the existing act. At that time, the committee concluded that Canada's lobbyists registration system works well, and really only needed a few changes to work better. They pointed the way to the improvements that make up Bill C-15.

I know that not all of my honourable colleagues were able to take part in the debate at the time this bill was referred to the committee in October. I know that it is worthwhile to remind one and all of the current situation, the legislation that we have now, and the direction that Bill C-15 proposes—a direction that the committee agreed with, in sending this bill back to the House with no changes.

The amendments this bill proposes will provide a clearer definition of lobbying; strengthen the enforcement provision of the Lobbyists Registration Act; and simplify registration and strengthen deregistration requirements, with a single filing approach for registration for corporations and non-profit organizations.

I should start by describing the four key principles that are the basis for the entire Lobbyists Registration Act and the system that it establishes.

The first of the principles is that free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest. And I do not believe that anyone would disagree with that.

The second principle is that lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity. Clearly, what we do here and what the government does in general affects people and institutions in our society. Lobbying is a legitimate way for interests in our society to bring their views before the people in government who will shape and make those decisions.

The third principle is where we get to an important consideration. That principle says it is desirable that public office holders and the public are able to know who is attempting to influence government. So, the issue is one of transparency.

The fourth and final principle guides how the system should actually work. It says that a system of registration of paid lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government. It calls on us to ensure that the system does not throw unreasonable roadblocks in the way of a legitimate activity.

My assessment of what the standing committee heard during its hearings is that no one disputes these principles. They are a firm basis for action for better government and the transparency.

Equally, I know of no one who has disputed the reach of the current act in terms of the lobbyists it covers.

First, the act differentiates between two general groups of people. The first group are people who lobby or are responsible for lobbying, in the context of their jobs. The second group are people who lobby as volunteers.

The current Lobbyists Registration Act does not apply to that second group. It does not apply to volunteers and I do not hear many suggesting otherwise.

However, there is general agreement that paid lobbyists should register. And this is the case under both the current and amended act.

The act includes many other elements. Among the most important are the requirements as to the information that lobbyists have to provide.

It indicates what they have to report on the record about the clients, businesses or organizations they represent and their activities. Once again, these fundamental elements are not changing in any substantive way. However, there are important improvements alongside the technical amendments in Bill C-15.

These improvements cover three major areas. The first clarifies who has to register as a lobbyist under the act. If I can simplify things, the existing legislation generally requires a person to register as a lobbyist if they communicate with a public office holder in what the law calls an “attempt to influence” that office holder. Now remember that I am just speaking of people acting in a paid capacity here.

But what is meant by “an attempt to influence”? Where does this start or end?

Bill C-15 addresses this uncertainty. It proposes that if a paid person communicates with a public office holder, as a general rule, that person is lobbying and has to register under the act. Clearly, not all communications would really be lobbying, and the government recognizes this. For that reason, Bill C-15 includes an exemption to the registration requirement. That exemption would come into play when someone is making a simple request for information.

The idea is that if a person is just asking for the kind of information that we get every day from our constituents, then it is not fair to call that lobbying. It makes no sense to trigger the entire registration and reporting process.

Bill C-15 also responds to another issue about registration that the standing committee recommended in its 2001 report. And that is to eliminate an exemption that is in the current law. That exemption says that a lobbyist does not have to register if it is the public office holder who initiates the contact. I suppose that could have been the case if a minister or departmental officials were to ask an organization for comments on a policy or legislation or some other business.

The Standing Committee on Industry saw this situation as a possible loophole that goes against the transparency that we are seeking in lobbying activitities. That is why Bill C-15 eliminates this exemption.

Bill C-15 proposes a second series of major changes that the standing committee approved. In fact, I understand that they did not give rise to any discussion among witnesses. These changes relate to the registration process under the act.

Currently, registration requirements are different for people who lobby as in-house lobbyists for a corporation or as in-house lobbyists for a non-profit organization.

Let me start with those who work for a corporation. Under the current legislation, if an employee spends at least 20% of his time lobbying, then that employee must register.

It is different in the case of a non-profit organization, since only the senior officer must register if the time spent lobbying by any of his employees amounts to 20% of the work done by a single employee.

Here is how it would work. If the time spent lobbying by several employees of a corporation is equal to or higher than 20% of the work done by a single employee, then registration is mandatory.

The person who would register would normally occupy the position of executive director or would have equivalent functions. Any employee who does lobbying directly would have his or her name on the list, but the official registration form would have to be signed by the head of the organization.

The second of this series of changes concerns the rules governing how often registration information is to be updated.

As I said, transparency is one of the key objectives of the Lobbyist Registration Act. One way to achieve transparency is to require lobbyists to disclose who their clients are and what the nature of their work is—in other words, on which departments they are focusing their lobbying efforts.

Bill C-15 will correct a deficiency in the existing legislation. This deficiency is due to the fact that different timeframes and registration rules apply to different categories of lobbyists. The government is proposing to standardize the rules governing registration and to have them apply to all lobbyists.

With this bill, all lobbyists will be required to renew and update their registration at least every six months. Any lobbyist who fails to comply will have his or her registration cancelled.

The six month rule represents a minimum requirement. The legislation would provide, however, that lobbyists are required to update their registration as often as necessary to ensure that the registrations in the database are, as far as possible, up to date.

I am pleased to report that the standing committee did not see fit to amend this proposal.

Allow me to mention a third and final major change as we embark on this debate. The bill contains a new requirement for those involved in administering the lobbyist registration system.

Bill C-15 provides that possible offences under the regulatory lobbyists' code of conduct will be investigated. The bill clearly sets out that if there are reasonable grounds to believe another act may have been violated, the investigation is to stop, and the case be referred to the police, which will take it from there.

The purpose of Bill C-15 is to make a system that is already working well work even better in the future.

As I indicated in my introduction, in this bill, we are proposing amendments designed to increase the clarity, transparency and enforceability of the lobbyist registration system. It will result in the establishment of a rigorous lobbying regime that will be part of the key elements of the Prime Minister's eight-point action plan to build the confidence of Canadians in their institutions.

I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill, so that the necessary improvements can take place as soon as possible. I urge all my colleagues in this House to support the bill, because it spells real progress.

[Industry, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday's budget clearly shows the government's desire and intent to follow up on the recommendations of the National Summit on Innovation and Learning.

The government has already announced that it intends to invest close to $2 billion in programs aimed directly at implementing the recommendations of that summit.

The minister's recent budget contains responses to a number of those recommendations, those on the business environment in particular. I could provide a list of them that would be fairly—

[The Budget, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House and congratulate the Government of Canada for its innovative budget for 2003.

Businesses fared well in this budget. One of the measures announced is improved access to venture capital, in the form of a $190 million cash injection to support new or growing companies.

Also in the budget was a $25 million a year investment in the National Research Council Industrial Research Assistance Program, $20 million for Aboriginal Business Canada, $20 million for Farm Credit Canada over the next two years and a 12% cut in employment insurance premiums.

I applaud these Government of Canada initiatives, which will help our businesses contribute to Canada's economic prosperity.

[Iraq, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am speaking on behalf of the 6,200 residents of the Beauharnois—Salaberry riding who have presented me with a petition stating their refusal to accept war as a solution to the crisis in Iraq.

I will deliver to the Prime Minister the signatures of these men, women and children who are stating their clear opposition to a war in Iraq.

I am still convinced that this is still the only way to avoid the worst: the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives; the starvation of a population ruled by a tyrant and dictator; and, finally, other ills that may befall a people that has suffered far too long.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for the work he has done since he has joined this House, especially in this matter that is so close to his heart. I would also like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Industry, for their particular work in improving, fine-tuning and clarifying the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Incidentally, this is the bill which was sent back to committee, and which is now going through second reading. It is currently one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the world. There is no lobbyist legislation that goes as far as the Canadian legislation in terms of returns and registration obligations.

Let us come back to the three motions introduced by my hon. colleague. I would like to address each of them in turn. The Lobbyists Registration Act contains a very general definition of the expression “public office holder”. This definition includes public servants, full- or part-time Governors in Council, members of the House of Commons and the Senate and their staff, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and members of the RCMP.

This motion is not limited in time and is therefore very broad in scope. It would create a serious administrative burden. It could hinder the ability of former public office holders to find a job.

It is difficult to see how such a general measure would protect public interest. The government has already imposed post-employment requirements that are designed to protect public interest by limiting the companies where former public office holders can work, and the departments or agencies which they can lobby. These rules are found in the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders and the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the Public Service.

Briefly, these rules prevent public office holders, including senior public servants, from accepting a job or contract with a company with whom they had official dealings of a direct and significant nature during their last year in office. They also prevent these individuals from lobbying a minister or an organization with whom they had official dealings of a direct and significant nature during their last year in office. The transition period is one year in both cases; it is two years for ministers.

As to the second motion, since lobbying is the act of communicating with a public office holder, the former public office holders would be required to make a list of all persons with whom they communicated in the government other than for parliamentary business, the application or interpretation of an act or regulation, or a request for information.

It is presumed that if the registration does not specify the person with whom the former public office holder communicated, the registration must be modified after the communication has taken place.

The House Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology did not deal with the specific matter of former public office holders during its consideration of the Lobbyists Registration Act in 2001, but it formulated recommendation No. 16, which is found in the well-known report:

The Committee does not recommend that the Act be amended in order to create a requirement that the names of individuals who have been lobbied be disclosed in the lobbyists registry.

The committee felt that such a measure would not significantly improve transparency and could in fact prevent open communication between public office holders and lobbyists. It also concluded that such a requirement would significantly increase the cost of compliance audit and implementation. The same conclusions apply to the motion.

This motion would create a major administrative burden. It could also adversely affect the ability of former public office holders to find a job. It is difficult to see how such a broad measure would protect the public interest. So, the comments are the same as for Motion No. 1.

Motion No. 3 would have the effect of broadening the scope of the definition of “employee” to include all employees, including support staff. The current definition of “employee” includes officers.

In 1996, when the Lobbyists Registration Act was last amended, it was decided to group together the requirements relating to the registration of people who could be expected to be responsible for lobbying activities in an organization or corporation.

Extending the scope of these requirements to include support staff would simply increase the administrative burden, without improving transparency as regards the lobbying goals of the organization or corporation.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Acadie—Bathurst has earned his Christmas vacation, after the speech he just gave.

I read the report tabled. There is often a tendency to separate things, to divide reports into sections, in fact, not to see the big picture with regard to Canadian public administration.

Employment insurance was mentioned, but what was not mentioned is the fact that the unemployment rate has dropped dramatically over the past five years, which has led to the creation of over 500,000 new jobs this year in Canada. That obviously has to be taken into consideration.

These things cannot be separated. A public administration does not have dedicated funds. People might say, “The gasoline tax should be used to pay for roads, this other tax for the health care system and this other tax for something else”. That is not how a country is run.

Has the premium rate not gone down over at least the past decade? It is lower now in 2002 than it was in 1994. Even if it went up to $3.07 in 1990, it is now $2.20. There has certainly been a decrease. I would like to know what the member for Acadie—Bathurst has to say about this.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, to listen to the hon. member, it is as though employment insurance were a disaster. The term “employment insurance” is perfectly clear. It is not a job creation fund. It is an employment insurance fund. It provides income insurance for workers who lose their jobs. That is what it means.

All those years prior to 1990, when we had the infamous unemployment insurance, as it was called at the time, the Government of Canada ran deficit after deficit. When the other party was in power, that is the Progressive Conservative party, it decided to change things. In 1990, it ran a deficit. In 1991, it ran a deficit. In 1992, it ran a deficit. In 1993, it ran a deficit. It constantly increased the premium rates in order to balance everything. At one point, in 1994, the premium rate reached 3.7¢. It was at that point that the employment insurance fund had a surplus. Thus, in 1995, the government decided to lower the rates. It had a surplus.

In 1994, the rate was 3.7 and today it is 2.20. That is a decrease of almost one dollar. Contrary to what the hon. member said earlier, there is cause and effect. Look at the Canadian economy. The unemployment rate has decreased by almost three points since 1995. Therefore, there are more people who are employed. If there are more people employed, there are more people contributing. Every year there is a decrease—

[Michel Berthiaume and Allan Loney, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to underscore the courage of two individuals in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, Michel Berthiaume and Allan Loney, who received the Medal of Bravery today for an act of bravery under dangerous circumstances.

On September 10, 1999, they came to the rescue of a colleague who was seriously injured during an explosion at a chemical plant in Saint-Timothée, Quebec. Alerted by the sound of the explosion, they ran toward the victim, who, despite his injuries, had managed to escape the burning building. Despite the risk of collapse of the brick wall, next to which the victim was lying, and the shower of explosive debris, Messrs. Berthiaume and Loney carried the victim a distance from the building where hundreds of kilograms of explosive powder could have ignited at any moment. They then laid the man down in a van and administered first aid until help arrived.

Congratulations.

[Berthier—Montcalm Byelection, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have great confidence in the future of Berthier—Montcalm. The Liberal candidate, Richard Giroux, is sincerely committed to working with and for the population.

Richard Giroux is very much involved in the community. He is familiar with its needs and intends to take the necessary action to meet those needs. Berthier—Montcalm has been neglected for too long.

Things need to change. Better representation in Ottawa is necessary. Regional priorities need to be heeded and contact must be made with the Government of Canada. The community of Berthier—Montcalm is prepared to build a better future and to help build our society.

Richard Giroux made the right choice: he opts for solutions, and solutions mean the Liberal Party of Canada.

Next Monday, December 9, the riding of Berthier—Montcalm will go Liberal.