John Bryden

[Multiculturalism, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, everywhere in the world-in the former Yugoslavia, in Central Africa, and in the Far East-we see ethnic groups tear one another to pieces because they cannot accept language, religious or cultural differences.

Freedom means the right to be different. A country's greatness can be measured by how tolerant it is of differences and how readily it welcomes them.

On behalf of my colleague from Don Valley North I invite all MPs in this House to celebrate our love of this country by participating in the citizenship ceremony to take place tomorrow, April 19, at 1.40 p.m. in the hall just outside this Commons chamber. I refer to that portion of this building known as the Hall of Honour.

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

He will agree that when we have these debates we must be very careful that what we say is founded in truth and reasoned analysis and not in rhetoric.

He said several times in his remarks that the presence of the Bloc is due to Canada's official languages policy. I submit to him that the presence of the Bloc is actually due, as is the presence of the Reform Party, to the failure of the previous Conservative government to retain the confidence of the people. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Official Languages Act.

I would further say that he and a previous speaker have made several references to language as a cause of dissension and some unfortunate incidents in the past. A specific reference was made for example to the Acadian expulsion.

I submit that the expulsion of the Acadians had nothing to do with language. It was a case in the 18th century of what is today known as ethnic cleansing. The Acadians were removed not because they spoke French but because they were of a different religion and because they were an economic and a military liability in Nova Scotia at that time.

I would further say that if he looks back in the past at the type of impartiality that the Reform Party prides itself in he will discover that the history of English people has shown a tremendous tolerance for French. Throughout the middle ages and throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries and even the 19th century most of the upper classes, shall we say, and the well educated people in England and the British possessions spoke French regularly. Indeed, this tolerance for the other language existed into the 19th century. He is blaming language for something for which language is not responsible. Language is basically a form of communication. The better we understand one another's language the better we can understand one another and the better we can overcome the type of tribalism that may be characteristic of the type of principles that the Bloc stands for. The Bloc represents the same type of people that I belong to, other Canadians.

The language enables us to reach out to one another. I think we Canadians have to do everything in our power to make sure that as many Canadians have the opportunity to speak both languages as we possibly can.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to change direction slightly in this debate and talk for a moment about infrastructure. That is a keystone part of this government's budget and I would like to give the very narrow example of what that infrastructure program is already doing for my riding.

Before I go into that detail I would like to put a little anecdote together. Some 10 years ago I had the occasion to go on a courtesy flight in an aircraft of the Canadian War Plane Heritage Museum. The Canadian War Plane Heritage Museum operates from Hamilton civic airport in my riding and had at that time a collection of some 40 World War II vintage aircraft, that is pre-war and immediately post-war. I had the happy occasion to go up in an aircraft called the TBA Avenger. It was a torpedo bomber used in the second world war, chiefly in the Pacific, and this particular bomber was flown by the Canadian air force during the second world war.

I flew in the rear gunner position. The airplane was used in mock manoeuvres and it was quite an incredible airplane. The Canadian War Plane Heritage Museum also had a Hurricane and did mock dog fights and there I was. The airplane was diving and climbing and it was quite an exciting experience. It was a very daunting experience, I have to say.

While I was on that flight I could not help but realize that this was the real point of this museum. This airplane that I was in, this World War II airplane, was a full working airplane. It was not just a museum piece. It was something that had been restored, lovingly restored, and was in full flying condition even though it was almost 50 years old.

I have to tell the House a sad thing about that aircraft. A little more than a year ago it was destroyed in a fire in a hangar at the Canadian War Plane Heritage Museum at Hamilton airport, along with a Hurricane from that same vintage. This was a terrible disaster to the museum which has become in the Hamilton region one of the stellar attractions. The museum had

at that time about 40 aircraft and attracts about 80,000 visitors a year. In that fire five aircraft were destroyed and it was a very sad thing.

I wish to report however that the War Plane Heritage Museum which is chiefly staffed by volunteers, with over 6,000 members, has risen from the ashes. It has done more than that. Not only has it embarked on a very aggressive program to replace the aircraft that were destroyed, it has also put forward a proposal to build a brand new museum on the Hamilton airport property as part of the infrastructure program. It has actually put a proposal forward.

This proposal has gone before the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council and it has basically agreed to partial funding. The council is going to put up $1 million and the museum is going to come up with the other $3 million through donations and various other means and then we hope to have matching grants from the province and the federal government to bring the total cost of the museum to $12 million.

The plan is a beautiful one. They want to put up a museum which will be right next to the airport terminal. It is going to shaped like the fin on the tail end of an airplane and there will be two large hangers on either side in which to keep the restored aircraft. There will be a viewing area and all that kind of thing. It is going to be fairly close to where they are going put the new highway 6 bypass. It is going to be a very attractive project.

This seems to be a rather odd thing to be a candidate for an infrastructure program because we think more in terms of roads and bridges. The region is using much of its $53 million allocation for just that purpose. This project incredibly fits right into the infrastructure mandate as laid out in this program. It is going to create jobs and it is going to be operated by the people who have put it together.

The thing that makes this project so exciting is not only is it going to create jobs, it is going to create enormous attention for the War Plane Heritage Museum which as I explained already attracts 80,000 visitors a year and we can expect it to attract 160,000 visitors a year when this is completed. Therefore, we will see jobs created.

The thing that is so delightful about this project is that it really is a project that celebrates our past and our identity as Canadians, even though it is an infrastucture project. This is the thing that is so beautiful about it.

For instance, one the the most stellar aircraft in the collection is a Lancaster bomber which is one of only two Lancaster bombers in the entire world that will still fly. That is the kind of object that is in this museum.

The reason I bring this up is that to my mind it just shows how a program like the infrastructure program that has been presented by this government can be taken by regional politicians and by ordinary people and be made into something that can inspire our fellow Canadians, can celebrate our past and be a very fine thing for everyone involved.

I think that other communities will take this program and do many things similar to this. It is a very fine program and a very fine budget.

[Parliamentary Associations, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to an overseas exchange program that has proved to be of immense value to the country. I speak of the House of Commons parliamentary associations which enable parliamentarians from other countries to visit Canada and Canadian MPs to visit them. It is thus that we cement the ties of democracy while building lines of communication for international trade.

Therefore, I would hope that the House would acknowledge those MPs who are taking part in these very important organizations, especially the anglophone members who have joined the French speaking associations and the francophone members who have joined the English speaking associations.

It is when these members go abroad to France, to Europe, the Commonwealth that we show the world we are indeed a united Canada.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I found it very interesting. All the various parties contributed to it. I would like to take it though in a slightly different direction, in a media direction that reflects my background somewhat.

Let me first describe my riding very briefly. My riding is Hamilton-Wentworth. It is a large, rural, suburban and urban riding that surrounds Hamilton. It follows the old historic lines of Wentworth county. It has a basic shape, a community centre and a community of interest going back well over 100 years.

There is one corner of my riding, the far southeast corner, Binbrook. It is a village with some farms immediately around it. After the writ was dropped I did a door to door campaign in Binbrook, about five days into the election. I was surprised to discover as I went from door to door that many people did not know who the candidates were. They did not know my name. They did not know the name of the Reform Party candidate. They did not know the name of the Conservative candidate.

I was quite surprised by this. I reflected upon it and asked questions. I discovered that the problem in this one small corner of my riding was that they were not served by a weekly newspaper. They are on the far edge of the circulation of the major daily newspaper which is the Hamilton Spectator which is in the centre of downtown Hamilton.

Again they are on the fringe of radio coverage. Finally, their basic interest was directed not toward Hamilton but directed toward another community outside of my riding, Stoney Creek and down toward the peninsula.

I realized then how absolutely essential it is for a politician to have a media which serves him because no matter what we do in this House or what we do in our lives for that matter, we have to reach the public. The public has to know what we do, whether it is good or bad, and I certainly hope that if it is good it does know. So the media is very important.

The rest of my riding is very well served. There are three weekly newspapers in various blocks of the suburban and urban portion. Of course the majority of the riding receives the Hamilton Spectator and there are two AM radio stations and some FM stations as well. I am very well covered as far as the ability of the media to follow my actions.

This redistribution however changes this picture entirely and it is a great problem. What has happened to my riding under the new redistribution proposal has taken out the urban component. As my riding is presently constituted I have about 30,000 people in Hamilton Mountain. They are completely eliminated. Instead what I have are two new blocks added, one a rural block next to Cambridge and another block between Cambridge and Brantford. To be more precise the one block is near Guelph.

Let me just visualize it for you, Mr. Speaker. You have Hamilton, Guelph, Cambridge and Brantford and the new rural blocks are in between those two areas.

These new blocks would be a great problem for me if this redistribution were to go ahead because they do not receive the Hamilton Spectator , they do not have weekly newspapers that serve them in the same way as my immediate community newspapers and they are out of range of the television and radio stations that are based in Hamilton.

Instead they turn to other communities. Naturally being rural communities they look to their nearest urban centre. So the block called Puslinch looks to Guelph. The block called north Dumfries looks to Cambridge and the block I would call south Dumfries looks to Brantford.

I am sure that you can see, Mr. Speaker, the problem that is presented here. If I say something in this House that is of some importance my chances of getting reported not only in the community and daily newspapers centred on Hamilton, but also in the Cambridge Reporter , the Guelph Mercury and the Brantford Expositor are very difficult.

In fact, those three newspapers that serve the rural areas that we are talking about only form a very small portion of the circulation of those newspapers. There is a great difficulty for me to get any kind of message out into these rural areas by the news media.

It is the same with the radio stations. These three rural areas that I would get in redistribution do not pick up the radio stations centred on Hamilton which would have the greatest interest in what I do. They instead are served by radio stations in Brantford, Cambridge and in these other areas.

Again the difficulty and the reality of the media is if they are going to do a news story on someone and that someone is of importance to perhaps only 5 per cent of their listeners the chances of them actually doing a news story is very limited.

That is the dilemma. The chances of people hearing what I do in these two rural blocks is very, very limited.

There is another side to the coin which is equally difficult. I have a responsibility as an MP to serve the people in my riding, and I have to serve those people community by community. At present I can follow what happens in my community by again turning to the local media. I have three community newspapers, I have the major daily paper and I also have the television station and radio.

The difficulty is that I have to now follow three more communities through the media. That means I would have to pay attention to these three other newspapers, I would have to pay attention to the radio stations and I would have to follow the local governments in three additional cities and municipalities.

I just do not think it is possible for one MP to cover that large a territory successfully, to be up on the news and be up on what concerns people over that vast area. Consequently I find that the kind of redistribution I am looking at is very flawed.

It is a question in my mind of philosophy. The reason we have to bring in a bill like Bill C-18 is not to interfere with a body outside of government that has been appointed to do a particular task. Our job as legislators is to give them the philosophy to operate. We have to define for them when they make this redistribution what they are doing and why they are doing it. It would appear from what I see now that in the past they have looked at the numbers purely and they have not given due attention to the question of community of interest, how our information comes from the politician to the people and how the politician gets the information from the people.

I would strongly support the intent of this bill because I think we are in the business here in this 35th Parliament of looking at reform of institutions in the sense of how better we can serve the people of Canada and our constituents. I think if we re-examine the philosophy of redistribution we may indeed find that numbers are not the last word of this issue, that it is how best the MP can represent perhaps a geographic entity.

Some of my colleagues have mentioned that in northern Ontario, for example, the numbers are sparse but the community of interest is based on history and geography. If you do it straight by numbers of course you are going to skew our historic responsibility to the people of Canada whom we serve regionally.

In concluding, I think this is a very fine move by this government. I really do wish that the members of both parties, particularly the Reform Party, would reconsider because I think this is the kind of reform that all of us in this House wish to see.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I really did appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena, particularly the matter of direct grants to business.

A lot of us would agree that often this does not work very effectively but I wish he would give credit to this budget where credit is due. I point out to him that the government has cancelled the $608 million KAON accelerator project which is a classic example of the type of thing that he is talking about.

I would like him to comment on that and tell me whether he agrees that the government was wise to cancel KAON.

[Members Of Parliament, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there have been repeated calls in this House for reform of MP pensions, especially in the matter of double dipping. This, as members know, involves taking a government salary with the right hand while accepting a government pension with the left. My colleagues of the Reform Party opposite have been most eloquent in attacking this practice.

The taxpayer's dollar is the same dollar whether it comes from provincial pockets or federal pockets. I would therefore ask my Reform colleagues to join with me in urging that all parties institute a code of conduct whereby no MP collects a salary and a taxpayer funded pension at the same time.

I am sure all would agree, for example, that a $61,000 Alberta government pension on top of an MP's salary is a flagrant example of double dipping.

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly delighted that the Bloc is taking such an interest in Canada's identity and cultural situation. I find myself lacking considerable sympathy with the member for Medicine Hat who seems to think our cultural industries can survive entirely on their own. I wish I could ask him whether or not he has bought a Canadian book recently but I do not have that opportunity.

My question to the hon. member opposite is this. In the context of the powerful cultural invasion from the United States does she feel that we are better off, both anglophones and francophones, united against cultural aggression from the United States rather than separate?

[Non-Profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act, March 15th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-224, an act to require charitable and non-profit organizations that receive public funds to declare the remuneration of their directors and senior officers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to introduce a private member's bill entitled the charitable and non-profit organizations director remunerations disclosure act, the purpose of which is to bring public accountability to all organizations funded by the taxpayer in the matter of salaries and benefits of their directors and principal officers.

Once a group receives public money directly or indirectly it must be prepared to surrender its right to privacy. MPs declare their pay, and the same principle of salary disclosure should apply to all persons charged with the public trust. This bill addresses that principle.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[The Budget, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the government has declared in its budget that it intends to review the funding of some 500 special interest groups which are relying on taxpayers' dollars rather than raising their own money. The results of this review are to be incorporated in the 1995 budget.

I hope that this review will result in ongoing cuts where obviously warranted this year, not next. We must concentrate on the genuinely needy now, not later.