John Bryden

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, part of this motion prohibits materials that appear to describe children engaged in sexual activity. I wonder if the member opposite supports that part of the motion?

What would she do about the famous book by Vladimir Nabokov called Lolita published in 1955 which has been deemed certainly one of the more famous works in English literature? It involves the affair between a middle-aged man and a 12 year old. If she would like me to read passages from Lolita , she would certainly agree that the author certainly writes in a way that appears to suggest sexual activity among children. Would she ban Lolita ?

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. I have been studying this motion very carefully. I would like to get his response to one aspect of it.

I certainly am in agreement with the age of consent. I think that is something we should look at. I am in agreement with much that is in the motion.

However when we take out the age of consent part and the part about sexual predators and reduce it to a simple statement, minus those elements of it, we get “that the government immediately introduce measures that prohibit materials that appear to describe children engaged in sexual activity”.

Reduced to that, what the motion says is that we should be banning materials that appear to describe children, appear to describe. Does the member agree in principle with that statement?

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca's mental confusion that led him to seize the Mace can be identified, or sourced , from one line in his speech, a single line in which he said that parliament was a facade of democracy. That is what he said. That illustrates the confusion that exists in the minds of so many members of the Canadian Alliance in attacking the government, which opposition members do. The opposition is not supposed to like the government, but in attacking the government they so often attack parliament. That is what is so wrong here.

I do not know about the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, but I believe this is the best parliament in the world. I believe Canada has the best democracy in the world. I am the first to criticize my government from this side. I do not agree with everything the government does, but we have the freedom in this House, in this place, to criticize the government, to work for change as in no other democracy and as in no other parliament in the world.

To attack parliament, when the member actually means government, and we will note in his remarks that it was the government that was punishing him for taking up the Mace, he again is confused. It was not the government that was offended by what he did. It was parliament. It was not the traditions of parliament that he offended. It was parliament itself that he violated. It was not just the government House leader who was outraged. I can guarantee that if the government House leader had not moved his point of privilege then I would have. If not me then it would have been someone in the opposition. We heard the opposition. The Bloc Quebecois and the members of the Conservative Party took the same position.

I really think that the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca ought to get it straight. The government may be what he is angry at but parliament is not his problem.

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an old ploy. When opposition MPs do not want to hear the truth, they interrupt the speech in order to throw off the speaker. Well, I will carry on and if the member is concerned about the jeering down, all he has to do is listen to the tape. I tape the House of Commons debates and very clearly at the point I made my remarks I was interrupted and one can hear the cat calls. Later on I could identify individuals but that does not help us.

Let us go back to the problem of private members' business because it is dysfunctional. It is not just the opposition that feels that there is something wrong and something has to be corrected.

Let me give the House an idea of what happened to my bill. My bill, which I had worked on for seven years, was finally drawn in the lottery. It is a lottery system and only chance determines whether a member's bill is drawn and is brought forward. One can wait for years, as I did, for my bill to be drawn. Then it goes before the committee on private members' business.

One of the difficulties, one of the bits of misleading information that has been going out on this issue is the suggestion that the committee on private members' business which determines the votability or non-votability of a private member's bill or motion is dominated by the Liberals. Well it is not. It is dominated by the opposition. There are only two Liberals on that committee and there are four opposition members.

When I came before the committee to see whether or not my bill could be deemed votable, that means whether it would have full debate, whether it would go through the process, whether it would be considered by my colleagues and even had a chance of becoming law, I knew it was doomed. The fact of it is that no Liberal bills are getting through the private members' committee as votable items. Since this parliament started, there have been 16 bills and motions that have gone through private members' committee and only two Liberal ones have been deemed votable, 14 have been opposition.

I knew I was doomed, my bill was not going to go anywhere. It was all the worse because I did things in my proposal to change the oath of citizenship. I proposed things that might be contentious among some members. I suggested for example that Canadians are a people united by the five principles of the charter. There are some members of some parties in this House who would find that very difficult to accept.

The way the committee on private members' business is structured, it only takes one person to defeat a bill in terms of its votability. It also works in secret, so all I can be certain of is that when I appeared before the committee and appealed to it to make my bill votable, the two Liberal members of the committee would have supported making my bill votable, but it was not. I do not know what the final debate was but we know it was opposition members who made it non-votable.

Well this is a terrible disappointment. Members work very hard and long on something like this and even if it fails in the end, they would like to at least have debate. In my case I was faced with only one hour of debate. When a member's bill is not made votable, it comes before the House, people speak for one hour on it, the member gets to speak 20 minutes, and then it dies. It goes, it disappears.

On that particular Wednesday we are referring to, because it was the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms, I thought it would be appropriate to rise in the House and seek unanimous consent to make my bill votable. My bill basically would change the oath of citizenship to say that Canadians are a people united by equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. I felt it was very appropriate at that time to say such a thing. I rose to seek unanimous consent and as I said, most of the Canadian Alliance was in the House, for good reason as it turns out for their purposes, so my bill was shouted down.

I am sorry. They may not like that language but that is what happened on that occasion. It was a big disappointment and I sat down, but never in my wildest dreams would I have taken the action that the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca took only a few hours later. In his case his bill had been made votable.

In his case his bill had been made votable. All that was happening to his bill was there was a motion on the floor to instead of putting it through the process that takes it to the justice committee, it was being referred to an existing committee that was already looking into the question of drugs and the use of drugs. Remember that my bill was about the oath of citizenship. The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca's bill was about decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana.

Members can imagine my feelings when I saw all the Canadian Alliance in the House ready for this thing. There was a government motion here and when it went through, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca got up from his place and he was in my line of vision. Canadians should know that it was not just a matter of touching the Mace. It was a matter of picking it up and holding it over his head and saying “Canada is no longer a democracy”.

I was ashamed because no matter what, if I cannot advance in the House in terms of what I want and what I want for Canadians, I will still always respect the House. Members cannot turn their backs on democracy by doing what happened with the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

I have to say that I do support the government's motion. I cannot accept that the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca was so overwhelmed by emotion that he had to do this thing. I was overwhelmed by emotion and I did not feel any urge to do that whatsoever.

We get caught in this place sometimes in our own rhetoric. I think the Speaker should be aware that the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca and other members of the opposition held a press conference the day before. I happened to catch it on the parliamentary channel. They discussed the fact that private members' business was not working properly and the opposition members were having difficulty. They talked about the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca's bill and the fact that there was a motion before the House that might derail it into another channel.

To those of us who are used to politics, it did appear that there was some sort of concerted effort, some concerted thought that day, before the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca stood in the House and came over and grabbed the Mace.

I note also that when I said my remarks and sought unanimous consent during routine proceedings, I was surprised to see all the members of the Canadian Alliance in the House. I do not want to cast aspersions, but maybe we should not be surprised that a formal protest was made, not only by the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, but most of the members of the Canadian Alliance walked out after his gesture.

There is no question we have to do something with private members' business. It is not good enough the way it is now. Opportunities for backbench MPs to advance legislation are almost nil, but it is not simply because of the government. It is because partisan politics has entered into private members' business. It is part of the problem in the committee for private members' business.

We have to find a way in which indeed none of us takes advantage of private members' business to advance a political party or to damage a political party. Every one of us here, when we have a bill to advance, it comes from our heart. I do not doubt the sincerity of the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca about his attachment to his legislation and what he was trying to do. I only challenge the way he expressed his frustration.

This is something that has to be fixed. It is something that should be fixed by co-operation among the various House leaders. As I understand it the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is studying the issue right now. As far as I am concerned, the committee should come up with a solution where there is no partisanship at all. It should make every bill that is drawn votable and that would solve the problem right there.

The bottom line when it comes down to the very end of it all is that we cannot advance private members' business, we cannot advance the rights of individual backbench MPs by showing any kind of disrespect for this institution. When we show disrespect for the symbols of this institution, we defeat ourselves and all Canadians.

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Hansard will show that I made no mistake in my remarks. I will get back to where the member's bill went a little later in my speech.

Mr. Speaker, if I can continue, I had a bill before the House scarce hours before the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca's bill that would have changed the oath of citizenship to reflect the values of the charter of rights and freedoms, of rights and liberties. When I rose to seek unanimous consent, it was jeered down by the Canadian Alliance.

Let me give you some background, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt there is a problem with private members' business. The system is dysfunctional. There is no doubt about that at all. In my particular case, my piece of legislation I had worked on for seven years in order to change the oath of citizenship to reflect the values of Canadians. Finally in the lottery system, Mr. Speaker--

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca felt a sense of injury on that day he grabbed the Mace, I, the member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, felt a far greater sense of injury and I did not take the Mace. For I too lost a bill but I lost a bill that day entirely, whereas the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca at least had his bill referred to committee.

When I lost my bill, just scarce hours before the demonstration put on by the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, I sought unanimous consent in the House and that side, the Canadian Alliance, Mr. Speaker--

[National Horse of Canada Act, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is really an honour to be the seconder to this bill. It gives me the opportunity to draw the House's attention to a phenomenon that has occurred on this set of benches where I sit next to the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey. By the sheerest coincidence, three of us in this row: the member for Scarborough Centre; the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey; and myself, the member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, all at the same time have had bills before the House within two weeks that dealt with symbols of national unity, symbols of Canada.

The member for Scarborough Centre, who is of Greek descent, brought forward a bill pertaining to respect for the national flag. It was very appropriate in his case because, if we remember, Greece is the cradle of civilization and of freedoms, and I like to think of the member for Scarborough Centre as the man of culture who brought forward a bill pertaining to the symbols of Canada.

Myself, I am merely a man of words and my bill would have pertained to changing the oath of citizenship to reflect the values of the charter. My bill in fact was to be debated today and it was with great pleasure that I was able to exchange the time with the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey so his bill could go forward. I regret that my bill is not currently votable but his is. It now stands a very good chance of passing into law.

The bill we have before us now is a bill that pertains to making the Canadien horse the national horse of Canada, a very important national symbol. The member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey is a farmer, so we have before us a bill dealing with national symbols from a man of the land. Here we have a man of culture, a man of the land, a man of words and today, the man of land has the floor.

Symbols are dreadfully important and Canada is deficient in them. One can only think of two important symbols. One is the beaver, which was adopted by a pioneering society which saw in the beaver the same type of industry and effort that those who came from all over the world to clear the land saw in themselves.

The second important symbol, and it has taken a long time for it to take root in Canada but is now one of the most important symbols of all, is the maple leaf. The maple leaf is the symbol of Canada not because there are maple trees everywhere in Canada. It is because of that glorious show of yellow, gold and red that we see every year which uplifts the spirit of every Canadian. Regardless of where we come from in our ethnicity or who we are, every Canadian sees the red and gold of the maple leaf and they feel that spirit in them. That is one of the things that helps them identify themselves as Canadians.

Thus we have a third symbol and that is the Canadien horse. It is so appropriate because the moment we see the Canadien horse we fall in love with it. Not only is it a tremendously beautiful animal, it also symbolizes the kind of industry and sheer niceness about being Canadian. The Canadien horse is rooted in Canadian history going right back to Louis XIV of France who sent the first contingent of horses to Canada. The Canadien horse has become an integral part of our national identity. It is extremely appropriate that we have the bill before the House. We actually have a chance of making this symbol into law. I think this is an extraordinary opportunity and I really congratulate my colleague for his success in bringing it so close.

Finally, I would like to point out that symbols are dreadfully important. We do not have enough of them in this country perhaps but national symbols are the things that declare the identify of people and in this day and age the world is becoming a much more dangerous and frightening place.

It is very important for Canadians to develop a stronger sense of their identity through their symbols, and symbols are very powerful when they do this, because we seem to be entering into an era of much doubt and distress. There is a rise of a kind of religious nationalism that will run in full collision with the kind of principles of freedom and democracy and open society that this country has come to represent. Symbols like the Canadien horse, and the Canadian flag from the member for Scarborough Centre, and I hope some day an oath that will reflect Canada's fundamental values, is the armour Canadians will need in years to come when we see the type of nationalism that poses a threat to the fundamental values that unite us as Canadians.

I will just state those values: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, respect for the rule of law and the search for human rights for all people. This is what being Canadian is all about. This is what our symbols ultimately point to.

We have taken one giant step with the bill the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey has brought before the House today. The Canadien horse is an important symbol and I am extremely proud to have been a part of the debate today.

[Committees of the House, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is probably appropriate on this 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms to seek unanimous consent to make Bill C-391 votable, which the Speaker will remember would amend the oath of citizenship to reflect the principles of the charter.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just read what the new oath would say so that the members can--

[Access to Information, April 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The government's internal task force reviewing the Access to Information Act was due to report last fall. Six months later we have heard nothing from it.

Will the minister tell us when he expects to receive the report of that task force, and will he share it with the House?

[Statistics Act, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate that we should not be having about a bill that we should not need. The Americans have been releasing census data over 72 years old for years. The British have a 100 year rule. I think very few of us in the House can understand why this country cannot have a 92 year rule.

The previous speakers have castigated Statistics Canada as being the problem in this particular situation. I would like to say that I do not believe it is Statistics Canada. I believe it is the Department of Justice, which is consistently making more and more interpretations favouring privacy, favouring the withholding of information rather than favouring the opening of information, the release of information.

There is a trend that is occurring in the realm of access to information law. Recently we saw in the case of ministerial expense accounts where a justice department ruling overturned the practice of 17 years whereby ministerial expense accounts were routinely available to the public, to the media. It was a justice department ruling. It reflected badly on the government and it reflected badly on all members of parliament on this side. That is because at every opportunity it would appear that the justice department is interpreting any ambiguity in the law, any nuance in the law, in favour of privacy.

In this particular case what we are dealing with is simply a resolution favouring confidentiality or declaring the need for confidentiality that was expressed in 1905 that did not have the force of law and then an amendment to the Statistics Canada Act in 1918 that did have the force of law which most of us would agree did not have the intent to withhold census information forever. It did not have that intent and other speakers have commented on this.

So why do we have the situation where an interpretation from the justice department overturns what is very evidently not the intention of the law at the time and not the will and the spirit of this parliament or the people in Canada at large? I would suggest that had Bill C-312 been made votable it would have passed the House by at least a two-thirds majority, if not three-quarters.

Let the record show and let all Canadians who are looking in on this debate realize that the backbench members of parliament, almost to a man or woman, support the principles in this legislation before the House.

I should say that Bill C-312 which I have examined very carefully is good legislation. It does what is necessary without opening the door to abuse of privacy. We are talking about census data that is 92 years old. This legislation even provides for the rare eventuality where someone might live more than 92 years. This legislation would allow for that person to object to the release of the census data or delay it until after that person had died.

What is inconsistent is the privacy legislation, or let me turn it around and say libel law. We have a situation in this country that when a person dies you cannot libel them, Mr. Speaker. You can say whatever you want about a person who has just died, no matter how dramatic or how false, and no one can prosecute you. Yet we cannot get the truth about a person because of this bizarre interpretation of the Statistics Act of 1918. You have the situation, Mr. Speaker, where you can say falsehoods about people but you cannot get the truth about people after they die.

There has been reference to the Privacy Act. It has been suggested that the Privacy Act says personal information should be protected for 20 years after the person dies. That may not be a good thing in the Privacy Act, because again it does not reflect the reality that happens in case law with respect to libel.

Do people really require their personal information to be withheld after they die? We have never had that debate. Surely we do not have to protect this kind of information for 92 years or perhaps 30 or 40 years after they have died.

It makes no sense, but then it might make sense if we examine some of the testimony presented before the committee that was charged by the industry minister to examine the issue.

I have a quote here from the Privacy Commissioner who appeared before that committee. The Privacy Commissioner in his testimony admitted that the Privacy Act did not apply to the census records of 1906 and 1911 and that he was there in the general public interest to make sure the privacy of Canadians was protected. Here is what the Privacy Commissioner said:

There should be no limitations on privacy living or dead.

In other words, the Privacy Commissioner is proposing that there never be any revealing of the personal information of individuals that might be of interest to historians. I hate to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, because I know you know it, but Sir John A. Macdonald was an alcoholic. He liked the bottle. There are great stories about how in his office in the West Block there is a secret passage that still exists and that secret passage was built so that he could get his alcohol delivered secretly.

Other members are smiling at that, but the point is that it is very important for us to know the personalities and the personal things about the people who lead us. For the Privacy Commissioner to suggest that type of information should be kept secret forever does such a disservice to Canadians.

The same applies to the census records. The national archivist has called them a treasure. The Privacy Commissioner has proposed that they be destroyed. I cannot find the words to express my outrage at the very suggestion that this information that is so valuable to all Canadians should be destroyed at the whim of one person who is supposedly an officer of this House and yet takes it upon himself to instruct the bureaucrats who do actually follow the instructions of the Privacy Commissioner.

We now have a situation with this government, and I am not sure whether it is the political government or the bureaucratic government, where more and more the option is to close down, to shut out, to make private rather than open.

I think this is excellent legislation. I wish Canadians to know that at least the backbench and all sides of the House support the bill absolutely. It should have been votable.