John Bryden

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I do support, in principle, the bill, for two reasons.

First, it does attempt to put parameters around the whole question of cloning and the use of reproductive material, DNA and so on. I think that is very important. More importantly, what attracts me to the legislation is the very prospect that makes it so controversial; that is, the prospect that stem cells can be used for research.

I have received many representations from people in my riding, and elsewhere, who suffer from diseases, like Parkinson's or muscular dystrophy, and they see some hope in stem cell research. The reason why they urge embryonic stem cell research is that there at least is a doubt that adult stem cells from other parts of the body may not be as effective as embryonic stem cells. Any extra hope that research can give to these people who have these awful diseases is enough, in my view, to want to make embryonic stem cells available for research.

But, and this is the key point, no one would argue that these embryonic stem cells should only come as a result of procedures that would lead to them otherwise being discarded. In other words, there is a universal feeling that embryos should not be created for the purpose of being killed in order to further research. That is a current that runs under the debate that has been led by my hon. colleague from Mississauga South.

He has introduced a number of motions that would, I think, correct some of the details in the bill that are inadequate. However, I would like to draw his attention, because he is in the House, to something he missed in the categories he is dealing with that gives me concern, even though I support the bill. I come back to the point that I do believe that if embryos are to be discarded and they can be used for research to save lives, then that is what should happen.

However, I also agree with the many people who have made representations to me that embryos should on no account be created purely for research. Yet, despite the assurances of the minister that this is not the intent of the bill, that there are safeguards in the bill that this would not happen, the House might note that there is a clause that would permit the creation of embryos for the purpose of research, which I think my colleague from Mississauga South has missed.

I draw his attention to paragraph 5.(1)(b) which he mentions in his Motion No. 14. Under the heading “Prohibited Activities”, subclause 5.(1) begins with “No person shall knowingly” and paragraph (b) states:

create an in vitro embryo for any purpose other than creating a human being or improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures;

That paragraph actually says that it would be permissible to create embryos for experimental purposes in order to provide instruction on assisted reproduction procedures. In other words, the bill clearly states, at least in this paragraph, that the law would permit the creation of in vitro embryos for the purpose of instruction and research. In other words, not for the purpose of human reproduction, not for the purpose of creating a human being.

I would suggest, at the very least, this particular paragraph flies in the face of the assurances that we have received from the minister, and I take those assurances at face value. I believe the minister does truly intend to create legislation that would see embryonic material used for research purposes only if it was discarded from other procedures. But here we have an instance in the bill where very clearly there is permission to create embryos for the purpose of experimentation in developing better techniques for assisted reproduction.

That raises a doubt that there may be further problems in this legislation that need to be addressed and I think the member for Mississauga South, through his various motions both in this set and in other groups, has indeed advanced some detailed criticisms of the bill that the government should look at very seriously.

What I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the House is doing Canadians a disservice by stringing out this debate so that we can look at the flaws that exist in the bill even though many of us, and I am one of them, support in principle what the bill is trying to do.

I am sorry that I come late to this debate and that I was not studying the bill at an earlier stage so that I may have been able to submit my own report stage amendments because certainly, Mr. Speaker, had I noticed the problem before, I would have been standing here in the House with my own motion amending paragraph 5(1)(b). I do not think it is acceptable the way it stands.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a balance. Sometimes we have to bite the bullet and this government did bite the bullet when it undertook the various cuts during the mid-1990s. Now we have reached a position where we have a significant surplus. I tend to be one of the bluer Liberals on this side and I want to see debt reduction always as a major priority.

We cannot turn our backs on the average Canadian across the country who is worried about their private physical health. That was my original point. We should not be looking to parochial local gain. We should be looking to the budget to helping all Canadians, and that is exactly what we have done by our investments in health care.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on the first point I remind my colleague opposite that road construction is 100% a provincial responsibility under the Constitution, including the Trans-Canada Highway. The Trans-Canada Highway was built with federal money given to the provinces to undertake the construction.

My point is this. I would much rather see, if the federal government is going to get involved in spending on roads, that it make that investment in those provinces that cannot afford it.

Alberta is one of the richest provinces. If the road to Banff needs improvement, then Alberta should fix it and let the federal government make its investment in Saskatchewan. The farmers of Saskatchewan are having a terrible difficulty getting their grain to market because of the poor quality of the road infrastructure.

On the member's second point, I agree that we have not made progress that is sufficiently adequate with respect to the problems on the Indian reserves. However that is not a matter of money. That is a matter of the kind of legislation that is now before the House that will bring transparency and accountability to those bands, those reserves and those communities that up to now have received federal money and there has been no transparency or accountability.

The member knows full well that this is probably the central problem to the management of Canada's aboriginal people and the government is finally moving on this. I know the member will support the legislation of the Indian and northern affairs minister that is now before the House.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it was not an hour and a half that I was sitting in my place and found myself immediately behind the member for Toronto—Danforth, who spoke about attack editorials and attack editorial content against the Liberals for failing to invest mightily in metro Toronto. That really surprised me because the coincidence is that I am a former employee of the Toronto Star . I was an editor at the Toronto Star in the late seventies and early eighties. I would have liked to have said to the member for Toronto—Danforth that this parochialism, this idea that MPs exist to get money for their ridings, in this case one of the richest regions in the country, is not typical of the Toronto Star I once knew.

The Toronto Star is a great paper. It is recognized as one of the world's great papers in fact. I think certainly in the early eighties it was seen as one of the top 25 newspapers in the world.

At the time I was at the Toronto Star it had a great reputation. First of all it was an enormous paper in terms of the number of copies that were distributed, so it had an enormous influence, but it also had a strong sense of community. It was a local paper in the sense that it covered the news in metro Toronto. Our job as editors was to make sure that we were never beaten on a story in Toronto by the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Sun .

Despite that, the Toronto Star then had a vision. By focusing on the Canada that was Toronto it enlarged its view that took in the entire country. Consequently, in my view, in those days the Toronto Star had the best national pages and the best foreign pages. It had foreign correspondents prowling the world and writing stories for the Toronto Star . However the important thing is that in those days the Toronto Star had a genuine sense of nationalism.

Now what we see in today's editorials is that the Toronto Star is criticizing the federal budget because it has not given money directly to the cities. As we heard earlier here, the total amount of money set aside for municipalities has been approximately $3 billion over 10 years. That is not a lot of money but there is all kinds of other money in the budget that goes into municipal infrastructure. We do know that Toronto is the economic heartland of the country. Consequently, indirectly all kinds of money flows into Toronto.

The important point that I want to make and why I was disappointed to hear the complaint of the member for Toronto—Danforth was picked up precisely by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam when he rose during questions and comments and said that we as MPs do not represent just our municipalities and just our ridings. He said that every one of us first represents the entire country.

What is good in the budget and what is lacking in the criticism in the Toronto Star and what was the Toronto Star years ago was this idea that each one of us, be we federal politicians or be we journalists of one of the greatest papers in the country, look not just to our parochial interests, not just to whether we can get votes or sell newspapers in our small localities, but look to the benefit of the entire nation. That is what this budget has done, in my view.

We have all heard comments from other members in which, quite apart from the $3 billion for infrastructure, there is a wonderful section on new money for our students and universities. This is tremendous progress. There is a program of scholarship for post-graduate students. I think there are about $1.6 billion for the various science, social and humanities research councils. This is the kind of thing that a progressive government invests in. It invests in the future of all Canadians by investing in our youth.

I was really disappointed to think that anyone should be calling upon us on either side of the House. I know this is not shared by the opposition. The opposition would agree that we should be looking to the entire country, not simply to Calgary, Toronto, Fredericton or wherever else. We should be looking to benefit the entire country.

The other flaw in the argument that we see in the Toronto Star is the suggestion that the 40 MPs from the GTA should be bringing benefits to the GTA. The reality is, if we are going to invest in municipalities let us invest in those municipalities that really desperately need it. Winnipeg for example is desperately in need. My own area of Hamilton is desperately in need of municipal infrastructure renewal. There are other areas across the country. Look at rural Canada, look at Saskatchewan where the road infrastructure has completely deteriorated and the province does not have the money to upgrade it.

This is the kind of a vision that a budget should have. I think that the budget goes very far toward meeting the expectations of Canadians and trying to help out Canadians who are in need. That is our first concern.

The second concern is to invest in our ability to be competitive. I have a direct criticism of the budget. I would have rather that the budget gave more detail on how there would be better mechanisms of accountability and transparency. The budget talks a good story about how the government will try to bring better transparency to the delivery of health care services. It wants better transparency for corporate Canada. However what is lacking in the budget is in the actual detail.

I would like to have seen some commitment to reform the Access to Information Act or to revisit the Canada Corporations Act to bring in new rules that require higher standards of accountability to businesses and especially non-profit organizations and charities. There are enormous savings to be had there.

On balance, it is a budget that in my mind looks to Canadians and reaches one plateau. I would like very much to see it reach a higher plateau, but perhaps next time.

I do think that whatever anyone says about the budget it does not look parochially. It does not look at getting votes for individual MPs because they happen to be in government and come from one of the largest cities in the country and one of the richest regions. That is exactly what it should not do and that is what it does not do.

[Business of the House, February 25th, 2003]

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.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, February 20th, 2003]

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.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, February 20th, 2003]

Yes, I quite agree, Mr. Speaker. The time has come to be honest, or at least shall we say candid, in reporting what the Auditor General actually said because the Auditor General also appeared before public accounts. What the Auditor General had to say about the various forms and the bureaucratic difficulties that the aboriginal and first nations were involved in was the fact that there was no standard system across the nations that was necessary.

The Auditor General told the public accounts that her observations about the paperwork, the red tape that was surrounding first nations, she expected it would be overtaken by the excellent legislation that was being proposed by the minister for Indian and northern affairs which would bring the system to chaos. The member knows full well what the problem is among our aboriginal nations, our first nations, is financial, it is financial management.

The member knows fully well that this is an excellent bill. Let me give an example. This bill proposes a first nations financial management board. The mandate of this board is to assist first nations in developing the skills required to meet their financial management commitments.

What is the problem with that? It strikes me as a good thing.

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member missed the point that I was trying to make in my earlier question and that was whether or not he favoured the billions and billions of Canadian dollars that are in the Canadian pension fund being invested in Canadian equities and Canadian securities in Canada rather than allowing the Canada pension board to invest in foreign markets, not just the United States but Hong Kong or wherever else. Surely we should try to use this money to the advantage of Canadians.

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by noting that I think it is quite unreasonable to suggest that any government would choose members to the pension investment board based on partisan politics or based on anything other than their expertise. That is an unacceptable suggestion. I am surprised the member made it.

Still in that context, I wonder if the member could give me an idea of what he thinks the pension investment board should be doing relative to Canadian equities versus foreign equities. My problem with what has happened is certainly the market has plummeted since the rules were changed. Does he not feel that the pension funds of Canadians should be targeted on investing in Canadian industries and Canadian equities rather than foreign equities?

[Canada Elections Act, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this bill. I like it very much in terms of the transparency it brings to riding associations, to leadership contests and to nomination competitions, but my one major misgiving with respect to the bill is this suggestion of $1.50 per vote to the parties after an election.

I have the evidence before me as to why the government may decide that this is a very bad idea. I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Elections Canada return for the riding of Burnaby--Douglas. That riding, that candidate, was entitled to spend $64,000 during the election campaign. That particular candidate, who sits in the House, actually raised $102,000 for the election campaign. That was $38,000 more than he needed. If we look at the return that is available on the Elections Canada website, we discover that out of that $102,000 the particular candidate received $15,000 from 12 unions, $175 from 2 individuals, and the rest, $82,000, from his own party.

What we have is a situation here where if this particular candidate were able to avoid having to raise money during an election campaign entirely, he would have saved more than enough money from his own party, not to mention the unions, but his own party that gave him the money.

This is the kind of danger that we are faced with if we have this $1.50 rule on votes. We may have a situation where individuals entering an election campaign will be able to get enough money from party head office such that they will not actually have to raise any money or do any grassroots work during the campaign at all.

What makes it worse, and leads us to I think a very positive aspect of the bill, is that for the $82,000 that the New Democratic Party gave to the member for Burnaby--Douglas, because of the current rules that lack transparency at the riding level, no one can see any of the individuals or corporations, or unions, for that matter, that contributed to the NDP, which in turn gave the money to the individual from Burnaby--Douglas. That is a major problem and a major abuse of process. There is no point having Elections Canada being transparent if the actual information we receive through a request to Elections Canada tells us nothing about the actual financing of the individual who ran for election.

So I feel very strongly that the centrepiece of this legislation is the requirement that riding associations are audited properly, make financial statements annually to Elections Canada, and provide a regime of transparency that enables Canadians to resume their faith, so that they can see where the money is coming from.

It also has the added advantage that by being able to see what happens in riding associations people will be able to see who are the individual candidates who really are in contact with their people and who raise money by small amounts, by having spaghetti suppers and small fundraisers, and who among us on all sides of the House receives money directly in large sums from individual entities. Because I would suggest very strongly that no riding association in this entire country needs to have any more money in its bank account than is half the allowable spending money during an election for its riding. In other words, because Elections Canada refunds half of one's spending, the most a candidate needs to spend in any election is about $35,000. So I have to ask why any riding association should need $60,000 or $70,000 or $100,000 or $500,000.

What we want to see by this proposed legislation is this kind of transparency so that riding associations that have these large sums will put these large sums where they belong, which is with the central office of party. Then the central office of the party will be less dependent upon corporate donations.

The other flaw in the bill is the suggestion that individuals should have a ceiling of $10,000 and corporations a ceiling of $1,000. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that when big money comes into small ridings, that I think is where there is a danger. If anyone here does not think that an individual MP has the ability to influence the government's agenda, even if that MP is in the opposition ranks, they are very wrong. I think it is very important that MPs be seen to be receiving small amounts of money from as many people or small businesses as possible, and larger donations should go to the party head office. I would suggest just for starters that there should be a cap on donations to riding associations of, let us say, $500 to $1,000. There should be a cap on donations, be they corporate or otherwise, to the main party of around $10,000. The way it is set up right now, I do find it flawed.

The other very progressive thing in the legislation is it spells out that contributions are not to come from people who are not citizens or landed immigrants of this country. One of the disturbing problems that we think we have, although we cannot prove it because there is a lack of transparency, is the suggestion that there are organizations, generally very social-conservative, that are in the United States, which may be trying to influence the development of the Canadian government's agenda and democracy in general for that matter, Mr. Speaker, by funnelling money to Canadian riding associations. In other words, and I will be very blunt, it could be American money coming into riding associations in Canada or even French money coming into riding associations in Quebec, where the French might think that there are separatist individuals there who might be arguing in favour. I know, it is improbable, but we do not know these things. The important thing is to make sure it does not happen.

And what this legislation does is explicitly forbid offshore money going as political contributions to ridings or individuals. I think that is a very positive thing. I must admit that I am not worried about France, but I am a bit worried about the National Citizens' Coalition, which is an organization that is not transparent and that has been very actively campaigning against the kind of Liberal democracy that we see in this country. I would not like to think that the National Citizens' Coalition might be funding some of my colleagues and might be receiving those funds from offshore.

This legislation addresses that problem, except it is flawed again. The penalty is too small. The penalty for contravention against any of these ineligible contributions to a political party or individual is only a maximum of $2,000 or a maximum of six months in jail. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who tries to circumvent the need for transparency, the need for contributions coming from legitimate sources as determined in the legislation, should be liable to a much more severe penalty.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think the government is on the right track.

I do not know about the trust accounts. The issue has come up and one of my colleagues opposite has mentioned it. I want to go on record here as saying that I absolutely deplore any thought that politicians in office should be receiving money that they may have control over, even indirect control over. I think that is absolutely inappropriate. The legislation unfortunately does not deal with how any money in these existing trust accounts will be disposed of. I regret that. I was surprised to even learn that some of my colleagues engage in that type of activity. I would suggest that philanthropy is the business of those with money. It is not the business of those who do not have money and politicians technically do not have their own money. They have the taxpayers' money and they should only use the money in the taxpayers' interests.