John Bryden

[Gun Control, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I attended a gun owners' rally in my riding organized by the Reform Party. The two featured speakers were myself and the member for Crowfoot. Not surprisingly, I found myself on the defensive for my support of the government's gun control bill.

However, it was most interesting to hear the Reform Party member for Crowfoot state he considers ownership of a firearm to be a right, not a privilege, and that every person should be entitled to use the threat of deadly force to protect his personal possessions, for example his television or VCR.

He told people in the audience that if someone steals from them or attempts to do so they should be able to reach for their guns. This is not the view of most Canadians or most gun owners. It is a view surely only of a few, a minority. The Reform Party needs to search its conscience and listen on this issue to the majority of Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada keeps a record of political donations. It is a legal record. We can search as much as we want and we will not see enormous funding from the Royal Bank or any other large corporation to any political party other than the $1.5 million the Canadian Labour Congress gave to the NDP, which is ten times the donation of any organization to any political party.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is well spoken by the member who represents the party-

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that remark. I have examined the political donations from the last election campaign for the Liberals, the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. I am aware of who put what money where. The member would find that by and large, corporations are not heavy spenders, at least during election campaigns.

I did find what I thought was a major abuse that would interest my colleague opposite. The New Democratic Party during the 1993 election received $1.5 million from the Canadian Labour Congress which in turn has been a major recipient of government funds for its labour education program.

The member opposite, and I think all members would agree with me, I would be happy to see a law, if we could phrase one, that would forbid special interest groups that receive government funding from passing that government funding on to any political party at any level.

If the member is looking for that kind of review, I would heartily endorse it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

I thank my colleague for the very good question. I never indicate how I will vote for legislation I have not seen beforehand.

I have great sympathy for what he is saying. The advantage in tax receipts political parties get versus charities is an area which needs to be reviewed. We have to philosophically ask ourselves whether it is really necessary that political parties enjoy that kind of advantage. There are some questions there as we would not want a situation to arise where politicians cannot support themselves.

One thing on this whole issue of special interest groups is at least the politicians, the Reform Party, the Bloc-and I particularly mention the Bloc because it has some very strong ideas about ceilings on political donations. This matter is something that needs to be reviewed and examined philosophically. We do not want to make it difficult for politicians to raise money. On the other hand, we ought not to have an untoward advantage. Certainly I would agree absolutely that the books should be wide open on any donations any politician receives.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, being a critic of special interest groups, that I occasionally ruffle feathers. I have for a long time been expecting to hear knocks at my door. When royal assent happened it was a great pleasure to realize that it was not yet another special interest group but the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. I am deeply grateful for that.

I was talking about special interest groups. I should like to take the opportunity to explain to the House a distinction that needs to be made in the context of my remarks. There are two basic types of special interest groups. There are those that provide services to the public. The government is very interested in seeing that happen. Many of them are charities and non-profit organizations. There is another category, the special interest group that is basically an advocacy group or a lobby group which pushes its own agenda.

The development of guidelines for ministers to cut funding to special interest groups is a brave move on the part of the government. It will require considerable courage on the part of cabinet ministers. They will be reviewing organizations wherein it is sometimes difficult to discern the difference between a group that is providing an important service to society and group that advocates for a particular category of society. There will be reaction.

Many ministers who try to ensure that limited government funds go where they will be most effective will be subject to a lot of criticism. Politicians do not generally like criticism. This is one of the reasons preceding governments never tackled special interest groups. The government is prepared to take that criticism and do what is right. That is very important.

Sometimes it is very difficult to know where best to cut funding to groups that provide services which may no longer be effective. Cabinet ministers will be confronted with the situation where occasionally they will issue orders, funds will be cut back by bureaucratic decree and some groups that deliver very important services to the community may be injured.

This is where the individual member of Parliament comes in. We on all sides of the House should help the ministers to cut spending in interest group areas and ensure the spending is cut in such a way that the groups which are doing good work in society are preserved. Certainly MPs know better than the bureaucracy who is most deserving in their ridings. Basically that is the responsibility of an MP.

I wish I could report that each ministry has issued a report or a description of its plans for cutting funding. This is not the case because the ministers are approaching a problem that has been in existence for a very long time. It will take a while to bring it under control. In some ministries it will be more difficult than others.

For example, the industry minister has moved very swiftly. Within weeks of the budget coming down he produced a paper showing a great number of groups that had traditionally received Industry Canada money for community programs. They may be businesses but they are still community programs. He moved very swiftly and many of the programs are slated to be discontinued. I look down his list and empathize with the minister. It is very difficult to cut some programs. However it has to be done and we can see that the minister has done it wisely and well.

Health Canada is a ministry with an enormous infrastructure for funding special interest groups of every sort, lobby groups, care groups, service groups: anything we would care to think of. It will take about three or four months before we really see what the health minister is doing in that regard. However I have good news. The health minister has moved to cut the funding of the

anti-smoking promotional campaign from $180 million to $64 million.

This is a fine example of a minister moving in the spirit of the budget. We are all in agreement that smoking is bad for our health. However we are not in a position any more where we can afford to fund essential promotional campaigns that are nothing more than advertising and propaganda exercises which may be better done by our schools. This will release millions of dollars in Health Canada for programs that deal directly with the health of Canadians. The health minister has shown courage, has done what is right and would get the support of most Canadians.

Turning to foreign affairs, I cannot give details but I know that the minister is moving very responsibly on the program. We will see limited funds for foreign affairs, for helping the disadvantaged in other nations. We will see the funding being done with a great deal more care and a higher percentage of our taxpayers dollars going to people who can most benefit by them.

I will comment on human resources development, one of the hardest ministries in terms of implementing this program. The minister understands the absolute necessity of ensuring that limited dollars get to Canadians who need them most, Canadians who are suffering and will directly benefit. We should watch the minister very carefully. I am confident we will see changes in the ministry that will result in a far better use of the taxpayers dollar.

However, it will be difficult for the minister because he will come under a lot of criticism. We should get behind him and support him as best we can. It is a very difficult job. I do not envy what he has to do.

This exercise is very worthwhile. Canadians have long perceived a large problem with respect to government funding of interest groups, be they advocacy groups or service groups. I regret to say there has not been the accountability that is necessary, particularly in a time when we do not have the money. It was all right maybe 15 years ago. Maybe governments felt they had much more to spend then, but right now we have to make sure that we spend wisely and well. This is a situation in which there has been very poor accountability.

I could talk at great length about where special interest groups have used their money unwisely, but let me just deal with one particular area, the area of fundraising. I have done quite a bit of study on special interest groups. I have had to focus primarily on charities because non-profit organizations do not have to fill in a return that I can track and charities do. The charity information return will at least give some hard data on what particular special interest groups are doing with respect to accountability of public funds, be it money they received from government or money they raised from private donations.

It is very instructive. I will just take members through a few of them. For example, the Canadian Council for Multicultural and Intercultural Education is an organization that is basically trying to get the message out with respect to race relations and ethnic relations. It calls itself an educational service. I am sure it is a very worthy cause.

However, let us look at the council's charity information return which I have here. We would think the organization has the potential to attract funding from many groups in society, not just ethnic groups. We see that it received absolutely no private donations whatsoever in 1993. When we read its information form further we discover that it received $191,915 from government.

This raises serious questions. Why cannot an organization like this one raise some of the money on its own? This is the type of thing the new guidelines are addressing and the type of question the guidelines raise. If it has a constituency why does it not get money from that constituency?

Let us try another one. The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law is an organization that raised some private donations. It raised $4,058, not a large sum. However from federal and provincial grants it received $420,874. The organization is promoting knowledge and appropriate implementation of laws affecting children. We would think such an organization could do better than raising $4,050 in private donations. Yet we see it is not there. I am not saying it is not a worthy organization but surely if it is that worthy, it ought to be able to get some funding from the public at large.

Moving right along, there is the well known charity Kids Help Phone. This charitable organization is designed for 24-hour phone counselling for teenagers, crisis lines. Backing it up is a foundation which is the fundraising arm of the charity. There are parallel charities, one an organizational charity and one a foundation. We have to combine the two.

The total in donations this organization received from the public was $3,615,000. Then I look down and see in the forms which I have here that it spent $1.55 million on its actual charitable activities. In other words, of the private donations it raised, only 43 per cent actually went to its charitable activities. In other words, 57 per cent, $2,061,000 went to management, administration and fundraising. For every dollar people donated, 57 cents did not go to the actual charitable endeavour.

This is a very good organization in its purpose. I do not want to indicate that I do not approve of what it is doing. However, Canadians demand a better fundraising effort on the part of the charities they are supporting than what we see here.

When we start examining these things we can take quantum leaps. I will now take a quantum leap to look at another charity, Wildlife Habitat Canada. This charitable organization is dedicated to improving wildlife habitats anywhere in the country and even in Britain.

This organization has managed to raise $9,601 in private donations. In provincial and federal government donations it received $2,711,000. It is important to keep these figures in mind: $9,000 in private donations and over $2 million in federal grants. It did raise funds, the $9,000, and in fundraising costs it spent $85,211. There is this incredible situation of an organization principally funded by government which spends $85,000 on fundraising and raises only $9,000. That is $8.75 spent for every $1 raised.

Canadians have good reason to question that type of activity. The average, ordinary taxpayer donated over $2 million to that charity which obviously has a fundraising problem of a very high order. And so it goes, unhappily.

There is another one, the Canadian Ethnocultural Foundation. It actually spent $14.40 for every $1 it raised. It is not a very effective fundraiser either.

I could go on at great length. I would not want to do so because it is late in the afternoon and I fear I would depress you, Mr. Speaker. There are many hundreds of organizations like these that have problems.

Let me conclude my remarks by reading from a letter. This campaign is something I have taken a specific interest in and there has been a little news coverage from time to time. I have received over 250 letters from Canadians who agree that Parliament should be carefully examining how we fund all interest groups.

The spirit of that was captured in this one letter from an organization which states: "We are a registered charity ourselves. However we do not accept funding from any level of government. This has meant that funding has been lean at times, particularly in 1991 to 1993. But if one is doing anything worthwhile there are always citizens and foundations willing to support your work. This is perhaps the truest test of the value of a non-profit body".

Nowhere along the line does this government, nor do I as an individual, propose cutting funding absolutely from all interest groups. Many interest groups have an important role to play. They can do things that government cannot do. They can reach out to people in society because they are out there in society. However we have to make sure that those groups we do support are the ones which can most effectively represent the interests of Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be interrupted with such good news.

I will carry on. I was describing the guidelines the treasury board specifically developed for ministers to decide how they should fund special interest groups-

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do have my supporters; it is a great delight to hear their applause. It is probably because they basically know what topic I will deal with.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the budget because it breaks new ground in a way that has generally been overlooked by the media and by some members of the House. I am speaking of the fact that the budget, for the first time, declares that the government is going to put some restrictions on the funding of special interest groups. It will be setting out some guidelines to bring order to what has been over the years a very bad situation.

For many years government funded advocacy groups have controlled the political agenda. The government, in calling to account special interest groups, will not only save a lot of money, it will also change the way in which politics are conducted.

The innovation that the government has introduced requires all cabinet ministers to take personal care in the funding of special interest groups. It has given Treasury Board very specific guidelines. The Minister of Finance did not mention them in the budget so I will tell the House what the guidelines are.

Basically when a minister is deciding whether a group should get government funding, the first question asked is how large the public benefit will be because of the activities of the group. If that group is going to do a great service and be of benefit to many people, then the guidelines dictate that it should get special attention for funding. However, if a group can raise the money itself then ministers are instructed to give it less attention for funding.

If a group has a very narrow focus, then the guidelines suggest that it should probably find its own funding. That is a very important point. Many advocacy groups, single agenda groups, have a very narrow focus. Many Canadians believe that these groups should raise their own money to further their own causes.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am the only veteran of Gettysburg to speak to this bill today in the House or at any time.

I fought on the fields of Gettysburg a few years ago. It was the 125th anniversary of that civil war battle. I am a civil war re-enactor, a black powder enthusiast. I go to these events dressed up. Members should see me in my butternut tunic with my haversack, my canteen and my 1863 Enfield musket as I march and counter march.

I was in a Hollywood movie, "Gettysburg". Members will notice that in Pickett's charge there are 6,000 Confederate soldiers coming toward the camera. If members examine these soldiers very carefully they will see in the first wave on the left flank, eight over from the standard bearer, they will recognize me.

I support the bill very much. Although my only association with firearms is a hobby that does not involve bullets, I do very strongly feel the legislation is warranted, not for many of the reasons that have been presented in the House, but primarily because it addresses the fundamental issue of keeping Canada the way it is and avoiding the type of gun related violence that exists in the United States.

I refer to the restrictions this law will put on the possession of handguns for personal protection. Current law provides that a Canadian is to have a handgun only for the purposes of collecting, sport or as a result of their employment. We in Canada have no provision for having handguns for personal protection. However, statistics have shown that a larger number of handguns have been acquired apparently to be kept at home in bureau drawers on the offhand chance of a break and enter when the person might be able to use this handgun.

This is what is wrong in the United States. It is because handguns are in many private homes that when criminals enter to commit what are essentially petty crimes they fear for their lives and consequently go in armed. This legislation will do a lot to get the guns out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners.

I can speak for many gun owners in my riding, legitimate sportsmen, collectors and hunters. These people are the first to say guns should not be kept with the idea of defending one's television set by shooting some kid entering a home.

All other things aside, the bill will not stop criminals from using firearms but it will get firearms out of circulation when they are acquired for purposes that are not considered responsible and legitimate.

It really is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I have listened very carefully to the members of the opposition and also to members of my own party who have felt very passionately that there are inadequacies in the legislation, that it penalizes responsible gun owners. There have been six or eight months of debate in the House, in caucus and out in the communities. I applaud the Minister of Justice, for he has consistently gone around the country and listened.

I invite my opposition colleagues to take satisfaction in knowing there have been improvements in the legislation since it came in the form of proposals. The bill now before us represents an enormous step in dialogue between a government initiating bills and individuals in the community through their MPs trying to make legislation that meets its target of restricting the spread of guns for illegitimate purposes and at the same time does not penalize those who wish to have firearms for legitimate reasons.

I thank the Minister of Justice because he has set an example. He has shown Parliament works. Legitimate gun owners who had genuine concerns, a lot of them based on misrepresentation, have been heard. The bill before us is not perfect. We have to polish it and perfect it. It is a product of genuine debate. We should all be proud of that.

I do not want to go over all the aspects of the bill already covered. I would like to react to three points that I am interested in specifically. Quite a few people on both sides of the House, my own colleagues included, have spoken against registration of long guns.

The Minister of Justice had consultation with the experts, the RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. If they advised the minister that registration is worthwhile in order to control the illegitimate circulation of guns and the theft of guns, I have to accept the word of these experts.

Most Canadians would agree that we have the best police forces. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of the best national police forces anywhere. If the Minister of Justice chooses to listen to those experts and chooses to spend the $80 million or so on registration, I have to accept that he is going on the best advice.

It is not a debate about registration, although I appreciate the passion with which it is debated in the House. I do not have the expertise to challenge the recommendation of the RCMP or the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

There is another aspect of the bill that I am worried about. My colleague from Saskatoon-Dundurn raised the issue that the bill seems to give police rather sweeping powers of searching private premises, getting a warrant to search private premises for compliance or non-compliance with respect to the bill.

Any legislation before the House that would interfere with fundamental liberties I would oppose. I know the Minister of Justice is aware of this. It will be carefully examined. When the legislation goes to the parliamentary committee it will be determined whether this is a danger. I am sure that if this clause in the bill is a genuine problem it will be altered accordingly.

I would like to see something else changed in the bill. It would silence a lot of the legitimate concern among gun owners I have talked to. Many gun collectors are afraid the provisions for describing restricted handguns are too sweeping and might capture weapons that are genuinely antique.

One amendment in committee that would help the bill enormously is if we put a simple date and say for example that pre-1913 firearms can be considered antique. Then we allow certain guns to be regarded as intrinsically valuable and exempt as well so that we would not unnecessarily penalize those who have genuinely valuable collections and would like to pass them on to their heirs.

With a few relatively easy adjustments after the parliamentary committee the legislation can come back to the House and be a law capable of satisfying 95 per cent of Canadians, gun owners or not.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks which I listened to very intently and enjoyed very much.

I have a concern in this debate that part of the reason for the lack of morale is perhaps due to the failure to communicate adequately with the armed forces how we as parliamentarians and Canadians feel about it.

It is the question of the soldier who always like to have a letter from home. In this day and age the media can no longer afford to follow the activities of our peacekeepers abroad. Having heard his eloquent remarks, is there any provision to his knowledge for actually distributing the contents of this debate to the Canadian forces both at home and abroad? I am sure it would love to hear what we are saying.