John Bryden

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have just a comment really. The member alluded to the fact that the unilateral actions taken in Iraq may prompt a terrorist response. I think she makes a very important point because the consequences of an attack on Iraq will not be confined to the Middle East. What it will do is legitimize a terrorist response all across the world and anywhere in the world may be a target.

Anyone that is perceived as having taken part in an illegal attack on Iraq will be seen as entitled to an illegal response or a response that is outside the norm. This is precisely what we are seeing in Israel and Palestine. The more one retaliates against suicide bombings, the more it legitimizes suicide bombing as a method of terrorist attack, of reprisal.

I think we should all hesitate and consider very carefully that a multilateral approach, a UN approach, is the appropriate way to go. If we do become a party of a unilateral approach, we will very much be a party of the retaliation that is likely to come not from Iraq but from the people like those in al-Qaeda that sympathize with, I should not say a terrorist regime, but the type of regime that exists in Iraq.

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me bring just a little bit of clarity at the very beginning to this debate.

Biological warfare weapons will not be confined to the Middle East or Iraq. These are the weapons that are easily portable, easily produced and can be used anywhere by anyone.

In advocating this very strong stand on the part of Canada toward Iraq and possible unilateral action with our allies, is the member prepared to pay the cost in tens of thousands of casualties by a retaliatory biological warfare attack on a Canadian city?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the government is committed to overhauling the sponsorship contract arrangements, which is precisely what I want to do with the Access to Information Act. I want it opened up to contracting out. This is what we want to do.

However I do not quite understand the connection with the senior citizen who has the problem with the CCRA. I have the same issue in my riding. I think it is a very difficult issue, but this is the government of compassion that will solve it.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I think the ethics commissioner should report to Parliament. Second, I would remind the member that my problems in forwarding an agenda of increased transparency by reforming the Access to Information Act came to grief when I had a private member's bill before the House that the opposition party, the party of which he is a member, systematically defeated it and brought it down. Now, instead of a private member's bill, I have to rely on a government bill.

I hope the government will come forward with an amended Access to Information Act in the months to come.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

I think so, Mr. Speaker, but there are other ways of making major savings. In my reference to the Access to Information Act, another side that is very important to that reform is that it will create enormous efficiencies in government because if we can see the daily operation of government using Internet access, and that is why we need to reform it because Internet is upon us, then we can actually manage government and large corporations laterally rather than hierarchically.

If we can bring in that type of legislation we can save money in the billions. If we can apply that type of transparency to health care, like hospitals, and I proposed this to the Romanow commission, and again if hospitals were transparent in their methods of operation, the efficiencies would be enormous and the savings would be enormous.

So the real way to create new money to spend on new programs is to save money on existing programs.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I sat here as I listened to the debate, including the words by the member for Elk Island, and leafed through the printed copy of the Speech from the Throne. I think it would be appropriate to actually characterize the Speech from the Throne as the Speech from the Throne of the Liberal backbench.

The member for Guelph—Wellington made a reference to the fact that she felt that the Speech from the Throne was really the words of the Prime Minister. When we go through the Speech from the Throne and look at the ideas, what we discover is that many of those ideas come from individual backbench members. For instance, the part in the Speech from the Throne that speaks of steps to strengthen the security of Canada's food system is an idea that was floated in a letter to the Prime Minister by the member for Toronto—Danforth. He circulated the letter to other colleagues and then I see it in the Speech from the Throne. I am sharing my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth and he can explain himself how his ideas were picked up in this document.

Further on we find references to addressing fetal alcohol syndrome which I happen to know was an issue that has been advocated by the member for Mississauga South. Again on the next page the Speech from the Throne is saying that the government will reform family law and put greater emphasis on the best interests of the child. Again, this is an idea that was very much advocated by the member for Mississauga South and the member for Sarnia—Lambton if my memory serves me correctly.

Then there is another section on implementing a national drug strategy. That has been advocated relentlessly by the member for Burlington.

These are the ones that I could identify easily and readily as I looked through the Speech from the Throne. No one should characterize this Speech from the Throne or this side of the House as not willing to listen to the ideas of backbench MPs.

I regret in the early days of the summer there was some talk that there was no point--and this was mostly coming from opposition members, I must say--in backbench MPs on the Liberal side responding to a letter from the Prime Minister encouraging them to submit ideas for the Speech from the Throne. The evidence is in the Speech from the Throne. I am sure I have only singled out half of the members on the Liberal side and I think even some members on the opposition side who find their ideas and their direct suggestions to the Prime Minister incorporated into government policy.

I too had some ideas that I submitted in writing to the Prime Minister. Members know that I have been very engaged in issues of transparency and accountability. In my letter to the Prime Minister I suggested to him, particularly in this time when the markets are so uncertain and confidence in public institutions is shaken by the type of scandals that we have in the United States with WorldCom and Enron, that the Prime Minister should concentrate on a transparency and accountability agenda whereby he would change the Canada Corporations Act and improve standards of corporate governance for both for profit and non-profit corporations.

Lo and behold there it is on page 10 of the Speech from the Throne, where it says that the government will review and, where necessary, change its laws and strengthen enforcement that ensures that governance standards for federally incorporated companies will be followed.

I discover elsewhere, again in my letter I suggested that the Lobbyists Registration Act should be reformed and strengthened, and lo and behold here it is:

The government will strengthen the legislation governing its relationship with lobbyists.

This is long overdue because the Lobbyists Registration Act lacks the teeth to discipline lobbyists who ignore the spirit and the letter of that law, so it is something that has to be done.

Also in my letter I suggested that the government should reintroduce Bill C-61, which would require high standards and proper standards of transparency and accountability of aboriginal communities, both in terms of their financial dealings and their democratic methods. We see that at the top of page 13.

Indeed, if I have one real criticism of the Speech from the Throne, particularly as it pertains to what I feel should be the policy of the government, I do not think the government emphasized it sufficiently that this is indeed a Speech from the Throne that commits the government to a new program, an expanded program and an urgent program of transparency and accountability.

We see that the government is calling for better ethical standards and a code of conduct for MPs. I agree with that and it has been alluded to by the opposition, but it is only one small part of the type of transparency and accountability that we must bring to all public institutions. I do believe that one of the most important institutions of all is the method whereby we elect our representatives in the House, whether it is individual members of Parliament or whether it is leadership candidates, the leadership of parties.

I deplore the fact that we cannot get the campaign financing information out of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not accept the explanation of the member for Elk Island that he is not divulging this because he is afraid the government will penalize the people who might have supported that leadership candidate.

Well, in an election campaign it is very obvious that people are supporting other parties than the party that is in power. I do not think that this government, and I would hope any other government that was ever formed by any opposition party, would penalize any member of the community who donates to a party or to a candidate. The key is transparency.

Unfortunately, we do not know, although we suspect that the Leader of the Opposition received financing from a notorious pressure group called the National Citizens' Coalition which operates out of the west. We cannot see where it gets its money. I think the Leader of the Opposition was the president of that organization. Why should he not tell us whether that organization is supporting him? Why should he not tell us who is supporting that organization? We on this side suspect that it is offshore money.

I remind the member for Elk Island that while the Leader of the Opposition was the leader of the National Citizens' Coalition, the National Citizens' Coalition went to court in order to prevent us from ever knowing who actually finances the National Citizens' Coalition should it be a third party advertiser in an election campaign.

One really needs to walk the talk. It is not just about the ethics of individual MPs. It is about the ethics of leaders. It is a question of transparency of all institutions.

I must say that there is a disappointment for me in this because, while it touched on so many things, the one area that is nearest and dearest to me is that the Speech from the Throne did not clearly commit the government to reforming the Access to Information Act. There is a reference. It says that Canadians want their governments to be open. In the talking points, which are the points given to ministers when they meet the media and which give them some sort of background on how they should respond in the context of what is actually in the Speech from the Throne, it does have a sense of government policy. This particular talking point says:

To serve Canadians better, we will make our public and political institutions more open, transparent, and accountable.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think my own government should walk the talk. I hope that in the weeks to come, very soon indeed, it will walk that talk and we will not only hear words calling for open government, we will see legislation reforming the Access to Information Act that gives Canadians proper, better access to the inner workings of government. Transparency and accountability is what we all should stand for and I think the Speech from the Throne, short of what it failed to specify in the Access to Information Act, is a long step forward.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member for Elk Island suggesting that leadership demands the ultimate in integrity and transparency.

I would ask him in the context of his remarks, would he therefore support what is proposed in the Speech from the Throne that there be transparency in the financing of candidates for high office? In particular, the Leader of the Opposition is suspected of receiving financing from the National Citizens Coalition, which he was formerly employed by, which we on this side suspect is financed in turn by social conservative interests in the United States.

I ask him, would he support, as suggested in the Speech from the Throne, transparency on the part of the Leader of the Opposition that he should declare who financed his leadership campaign and who financed those who financed it?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, no contest: We on this side agree entirely with the remarks made by the member opposite and point out that it is right in the Speech from the Throne, where it states that the government is going to “provide clear guidance and better enforcement of the ethical standards expected of elected officials”.

I agree that it is overdue, but I would like to ask the member opposite, is he going to actually walk the talk? Because in the same paragraph on page 13 of the Speech from the Throne, it is also said that “the government will introduce legislative changes to the financing of political parties and candidates for office”. Does he not agree that we ought to know who is behind the National Citizens' Coalition, which was the former employer of the Leader of the Opposition? Does he not agree that the Leader of the Opposition should declare who is behind the financing of his leadership campaign in his campaign for office?

[Canada Pension Plan, June 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Centre for his remarks on this particular issue and the amendment. It gives me the opportunity to speak to the issue of access to information as opposed to the more limited and narrow application of the auditor general's right to audit foundations.

This gives me an opportunity to report that the task force on access to information that was struck by treasury board and the Department of Justice two years ago presented its report not a week ago. One of the major features of that report was a recommendation that would bring under the Access to Information Act the foundations and crown corporations alluded to by my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre.

I would submit to him that what we really ought to be doing in this parliament is urging the government to act on that particular recommendation in the task force report, which I suggest to him would have far more sweeping impact on government accountability and the accountability of crown corporations and arm's length agencies than having the auditor general have the right to review those agencies.

I point out to him, in the Groupaction sponsorship files case, a government audit was done on the sponsorship files in 2000 which disclosed all the problems. One of the problems it disclosed was the fact that for years contracts were being let and agreements were being entered into for which there was no documentation. One of the problems for the auditor general, and one of the problems for any police investigation that might be looking into this file, is that one cannot determine what actually occurred because the documents do not exist.

I suggest that a revised Access to Information Act that made sure all those documents that pertained to contracting out, in the sense that was done for the sponsorship program, should have been collected and put on the web so that any citizen, and even more importantly, any fellow colleagues or bureaucrats in the department of public works or any other agency would be able to look into that particular file of the sponsorship contracts. It would have been discovered instantly that the documents that should be created were not being created.

In other words, if we had a reformed Access to Information Act that guaranteed that this type of document when generated is to be publicly available. And if we insisted on a culture in the bureaucracy, and I think the bureaucracy is headed this way in any event, and I should say the government which includes the political government as well, we should be taking advantage of electronic access so this type of document would be readily available to all.

If that had been the system, we would not have had the problems that we have encountered now in the sponsorship file. We are all distressed by that because it is a reflection on the business of the bureaucracy in which Canadians have an enormous trust and any failure, of course, may erode the confidence Canadians have in what I feel is one of the best bureaucracies in the world.

So I submit to you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the member for Calgary Centre, although I certainly heard him on the suggestion about the auditor general but audits are only spot checks. What we really have to have is a system whereby there is always in place the kind of transparency that enables all Canadians and parliamentarians and the media to do their jobs to make sure that all areas of government are being managed in a way appropriate to the interests of all Canadians.

[Petitions, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions from rural mail cariers across the land who call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. This is the section of the legislation that makes it impossible for rural mail carriers to collectively bargain with Canada Post. Rural mail cariers have a great deal of difficulty getting the kind of wages that are competitive and appropriate in Canada. These petitioners would urge the government to reconsider that portion of the legislation and repeal the section so that they can bargain collectively.