John Bryden

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member who just spoke. He is an excellent parliamentarian. I would like to ask him a question that I wanted to ask either the solicitor general or the justice minister but I could not because of time constraints.

The question is both at the same time the easiest and the hardest in this debate. The question is quite simple. The solicitor general is the chief policeman of the country. Canada's tradition is that our police are responsible for upholding the law. That is the fundamental charge that we give our police.

Finally, the ultimate law in Canada is the charter of rights and freedoms. Does it not therefore follow that whatever we do and whatever steps we take that the justice minister, the solicitor general and this parliament must protect the principles of the charter of rights and freedoms?

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite for his excellent remarks. I would like, though, to observe that he concentrated mostly on trying to bring improvements to policing and he directed his remarks fairly to the justice minister and the solicitor general.

I would like to observe that the problem with organized crime and the way to really get at it I would have thought, and he only alluded to it, would be to attack the profits of organized crime. I would like to draw to the attention of the member that for years now in the House I have been campaigning to get the government to write legislation that would make non-profit organizations and charities publicly accountable for the way they raise money and spend money.

The solicitor general has had representations from international police organizations complaining that Canada has become the centre in the world for laundering money, for laundering the profits of organized crime, not to mention the money that is raised on behalf of ethnic conflicts and terrorists abroad. I would suggest to the hon. member: Would he not support pressuring the government to take positive steps toward making charities and non-profit organizations financially accountable, transparent? Does the member realize, for example, that non-profit organizations do not have to disclose anything? Even their financial information returns to the government are not available to the public, much less to journalists and MPs.

Second, I would also like to draw to the attention of the member opposite—and I take advantage of the fact that the justice minister and the solicitor general are in the House and of course are very interested in this debate—that just a few days ago I had a person in my constituency office who was engaged in import-export. He told me he is aware that 16 shipping containers left Canada for Jamaica without inspection.

The member opposite alluded to the difficulty the police authorities have to inspect shipments coming into Canada for contraband, but does he realize that there is almost no inspection of shipments going out of the country and that in fact Canada has become one of the grand opportunities for shipping anything one wants to anywhere in the world?

If we go to Nigeria today we will see stolen vehicles still with the auto dealership on the their licence plates. They do not even change the licence plates in Nigeria after a car is stolen in Canada and is shipped over to African countries.

I wonder if the member opposite would comment. Are we not really in a situation where it is not a matter of limiting the right of association and it is not just a matter of increasing the police, which is of course the favourite answer for the Canadian Alliance? Increasing the police is always the answer to everything. Is it not really something we as parliamentarians should insist upon, that all organizations out there that are engaged in moving money around should be transparent and accountable to the public at large?

[Privilege, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I am asking you to rule on whether MPs may have been wilfully deceived by the Department of Justice because of a document received on MPs' desks just prior to the June 6 vote on Bill C-206, which falsely attributed to the privacy commissioner the expressed concern that opening up 30 year old records would make vulnerable to disclosure personal information, including income tax returns, unemployment insurance records, charitable and political donations, and income investment information.

While this document emanated from government, the comments on the privacy commissioner's position can be traced to a justice department talking points document to cabinet of May 26, which reported that the privacy commissioner considered Bill C-206 to be a “serious threat to the privacy of Canadians” and cited as an example the release of “personal income tax returns which would include information on dependants, charitable and political donations, not to mention income investments and so on”.

The problem is the privacy commissioner was not in official communication with the Department of Justice on Bill C-206 until 10 days after the May 26 memo outlining his position and never described his concerns as a “serious threat” nor ever gave the example cited in the document above.

At issue here is whether it is a breach of privilege if the officials of a ministry are found to have given advice to MPs, both the government and MPs in their places in the House, that negatively characterizes legislation based on statements, expressed and implied, that were improperly attributed to an officer of parliament.

I have a number of documents which I wish to table for your examination. The first we will call exhibit A. It was found on every MPs desk at the commencement of the vote on Bill C-206 and comprises 14 pages in English and French consisting of three documents: a one page excerpt from the privacy commissioner's 1999-2000 report mentioning Bill C-264, the predecessor of Bill C-206; a letter dated June 5 from the privacy commissioner to the justice minister outlining his concerns with respect to Bill C-206; and a covering two page government note entitled “Summary of Bill C-206”.

You will note that the letter to the justice minister is dated June 5. The vote took place in the evening of June 6. Thus it could not have been received by the justice minister much earlier than 24 hours before. Also, and very importantly, the privacy commissioner assures me that this letter is the only official exchange of correspondence between him and the justice minister or between his office and the justice ministry pertaining to Bill C-206. We need look no further for the sum total of the privacy commissioner's position on Bill C-206.

I might also say the sponsor of Bill C-206, which was myself, put no document on MPs' desks, relying on his colleagues to know the bill through the debate that occurred in the House and by letters he had sent to their offices. That is a point you might also wish to contemplate.

The paragraph in the government covering letter that I wish to draw to your attention is that subtitled “Privacy Concerns” which then attributes to the privacy commissioner the concern that making 30 year old records accessible could result in the potential release of personal information. Privacy commissioner and personal records are boldfaced for emphasis.

Then it goes on to give examples of personal information that because of the 30 year provision would be “vulnerable”: income tax returns, unemployment insurance records, charitable and political donations, and income investment information.

These examples had a tremendously damaging impact on opinion of the bill. Two MPs, the member for Carleton—Gloucester and the member for Broadview—Greenwood, told me afterwards that the examples influenced them to vote against the bill. I am sure many other MPs likewise reacted and may have voted accordingly, but nowhere in any official communication from the privacy commissioner will you find reference to a concern linking the 30 year provision to tax returns, unemployment insurance records, political donations and income investment information. Moreover, the privacy commissioner has assured me that he has never personally used these examples, period. Indeed well he would not. The political donations of individuals are already readily available from the Elections Canada website.

It turns out, however, that the damaging examples in this document that was put on MPs' desks have a history. I refer now to exhibit B. This is a justice department's talking points memo to cabinet dated May 26 which says that, and I give you the entire sentence, “The privacy commissioner believes Bill C-206 is a serious threat to privacy”. That is the exact quotation.

The privacy commissioner assures me that although he takes all issues of privacy seriously, neither he nor his staff has ever said that Bill C-206 is a serious threat to privacy. Indeed, if you examine his letter of June 5 you will find that he says that his “greatest concerns can be met with by amendments” and that he is looking forward to “outlining his concerns to the appropriate committee”.

I should say that it is directly the privacy commissioner's mandate to consider all legislation that gets on the order of precedence for its Privacy Act implications. He expresses concerns on legislation all the time, and those concerns are supposed to be dealt with as the legislation makes its way through committee and report stage.

Further in these talking points to cabinet which were shared with some MPs, which is how I got this document, you will see the statement that the privacy commissioner believes “For example, the release of personal income tax returns would include information on dependants, charitable and political donations, not to mention income investments and so on”.

The privacy commissioner assures me he did not say that, and yet three days after the date of these talking points the sponsor of Bill C-206, that is myself, was summoned before the Deputy Prime Minister, the justice minister, the treasury board president and the government House leader and for the first time asked to account for the fact that the privacy commissioner says that Bill C-206 is going to open up personal income tax forms, personal investments and so on more than 30 years old.

Despite my thorough knowledge of the bill and despite my explanations, how could I make convincing argument against the supposed word of the privacy commissioner expressed in a document that was not then shared with me?

Two days later the government announced to the Liberal caucus that it was not supporting Bill C-206. Then, for the next four days before the vote, the whip and cabinet ministers directly approached backbench MPs and told them not to vote for Bill C-206 while citing the privacy commissioner's alleged beliefs reported in the justice department talking points of May 26.

However the privacy commissioner's actual, official, written position on Bill C-206 was only received by the justice department at most late in the afternoon the day before the vote and two days after the government began whipping the backbench to vote against it.

When I raised these issues with the privacy commissioner he recalled that there may have been informal talks between his staff and justice department staff. He later informed me that on inquiry he had learned that such talks had occurred in October 1999 and that issues related to income tax returns and other types of personal information had been discussed. The privacy commissioner was not at those talks, and they were of so informal a nature that no record of them was taken by privacy commission staff.

I asked the privacy commissioner if such talks by his staff, which occur from time to time on various items of legislation, could be or should be construed as being his opinion. The privacy commissioner replied, and I give the House his exact words, “If it is not under my signature and seal I did not say it”.

There you have it, Mr. Speaker. Documents from the justice department which falsely purported to reflect the privacy commissioner's stated position on Bill C-206 came before the government and MPs in the House and probably affected a vote that was before the House. I believe that this constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that seems to be constantly overlooked in this debate about HRDC's problems is the fact that the minister did not have to release the 10,000 or so documents that revealed the management problems with HRDC. The reality is that the current Access to Information Act in section 21 gives broad powers to the government to withhold audits, to withhold the kind of information that the minister did release. In the one sense the minister deserves credit for having had the courage to release the documents that led to the kind of controversy that did ensue.

There is a whole other segment that is also exempt from the Access to Information Act that I would suggest to the member opposite contains even worse examples of mismanagement, nepotism and problems. That is the area of crown corporations. Currently, under the existing Access to Information Act, all crown corporations are exempt.

Does the member not agree that surely we should be looking to changes in the access act to bring crown corporations under the same scrutiny that is now available to HRDC?

[Citizenship And Immigration, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the access to information commissioner tabled a report today in which he expressed concern about the time it takes the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to process access to information requests.

Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell the House what she plans to do to address the commissioner's concerns?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a parallel situation to medicare because this is an instance where the federal government has been asked to spend in an area that is 100% provincial responsibility.

When it comes to the percentage of fuel tax that the federal government is collecting, I remind the member opposite that the federal government under the constitution has an obligation to guarantee supply. Our percentage of the fuel tax goes toward guaranteeing the oil supply from Saudi Arabia, for having the Department of National Defence helicopters, the border customs controls and the trade infrastructure. We have to spend on those areas in order to guarantee supply.

I have a great deal of sympathy for our national highway program. The member is asking the federal government to invest in the national highway program, which is essentially a 100% responsibility of the provinces. Is it not a conflict, especially with his party, when he asks that the federal government cut back in taxes, cut back on the debt, and in the same breath he wants the federal government to spend in areas of provincial jurisdiction?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things. On the member's first point, it is still one set of rules for one set of Canadians and another set of rules for another set of Canadians. I do find that it does seem to contravene the whole basic principle of equality before the law and I have a lot of difficulty with that. When it boils down to that, then I think the member for Kitchener—Waterloo has a very important and compelling point, and I hope the Senate will look at that as well.

As to the other, I thank the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul. I appreciate the support he has given for what I am trying to do with the oath. I will make the point that the Queen is not the real issue. The real issue is that the oath should actually capture for newcomers to this land what it is to be a Canadian and what are the basic principles of the charter. That is the more important thing.

Whether the Queen is in a new oath or not, I think in the long run it does not matter half as much—and I believe there should be a reference to God certainly—but more than anything else, we should enunciate for those newcomers to our land the basic principles of the charter. I will say them one more time because I really do believe they unite us, we Canadians, as a people. They are: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law. They are not just for we Canadians. We should be upholding those principles for the world. That is what it is to be Canadian.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is addressing his comments entirely to the earlier speech given by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo. I spoke just prior, and if he has some constructive things to say about my speech, would he please do so.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, oh what an opportunity has been lost, because, as the member for Mississauga West has just said, here it is the year 2000, here we are debating a new citizenship act for the new millennium and here we are in a debate that has fallen into discord on some very fundamental issues. We have lost a golden opportunity and I really do feel sad about it.

My problem with the legislation has to do with the oath of citizenship. I would first like to comment very briefly on the issue raised by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo. After all the debate and the rhetoric are over, what we are really dealing with in this issue from the member for Kitchener—Waterloo is one set of due process for one group of Canadians and another set of due process for another group of Canadians.

I agree with the member for Kitchener—Waterloo that there is something fundamentally wrong with that, and it can be tested. As the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul said, he justified the difference in due process to the fact that some Canadians are born here and their citizenship cannot be revoked because they have nowhere else to go to. He then made the assumption that new Canadians, who have come from other lands, can have their citizenship revoked because they can go back to their original land if it is found that they have entered Canada and sought citizenship under false pretences.

What I would point out to the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is that if people from India, where they cannot have dual nationality, come to Canada and take out citizenship in Canada, they lose their citizenship in India. What we are basically talking about here is that if citizenship is revoked from this category of new Canadian who is from India, then they cannot go back.

What I suggest is that Bill C-16 does not provide for that, and in fact should provide for that, but if it is going to provide for that it will have to create a new category of Canadians who will have to be treated under a different due process. That, fundamentally, is what is wrong with the legislation as it stands now with respect to setting up a different regime for revocation of citizenship, a different judicial regime than would exist for other Canadians faced with similar contraventions of the law. I think the member for Kitchener—Waterloo has a very important point.

My difficulty with the legislation though, Mr. Speaker, is different but very closely related. My problem with Bill C-16, the citizenship bill as it is presented, is that it proposes a new oath of citizenship that has never been debated in the House. It proposes a new oath of citizenship that I do not think reflects what it is to be Canadian, that does not reflect the principles of being Canadian.

It is a new oath of citizenship, Mr. Speaker, that has been created in the shadows of the government. It has been created by a bureaucrat or a bureaucracy somewhere. For that matter, Mr. Speaker, for all we know it may have been contracted out. We do not know the pedigree of the oath of citizenship that is now in Bill C-16. On something so absolutely, vitally important as the oath of citizenship, we should know and we in the House should have participated. Unfortunately we did not.

The debate on the oath of citizenship has a real history that I have actually been involved in. When I came to parliament for the first time as a new MP in 1993, the very first committee that I served on was the citizenship and immigration committee in 1993 and 1994 in which we were analyzing what needed to be done to upgrade the citizenship legislation to make it current to the new millennium. Every witness who came before the committee as a new Canadian was asked to express what it meant to be a new Canadian. Of all the committees I have served on that was the most inspiring.

We heard from people from Croatia, like my friend from Cambridge. We heard from people from southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the United Kingdom. They all said essentially the same thing. They said that Canada was admired the world around, that it was a magnet for people all over the world because of its principles.

Canada is admired the world over because of the principles that are enshrined in the charter of rights, the rule of law, our adherence to democracy, our freedom of speech and our adherence to basic human rights. We heard this theme time and again.

When it came down to our report, the committee decided that there should be a declaration of citizenship. We thought it would be really wonderful to enshrine these principles that are basically expressed in the charter of rights in a declaration that would go in the preamble of the citizenship bill.

As far as the oath was concerned, and I should actually mention the oath, the committee unanimously agreed that the oath needed to be revisited. I want to read the oath that exists today and that will be amended in Bill C-16. The oath that was before our committee in 1993-94 simply said:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

I think just about every new Canadian who came before the committee said that oath was inadequate. They said that when they came before their citizenship hearings they were disappointed, not just because of the reference to a foreign monarch but because they felt the oath did not captured what it was to be Canadian.

The committee came out with its report called “Belonging Together”. I stress that we heard from new Canadians and from people who were born in Canada. The recommendations of that report were, first, that a declaration of Canadian citizenship should express the vision Canadians share for their future and the importance they attach to their citizenship.

Second, that the declaration should reflect the core values of our concept of citizenship.

Third, that the government should consider calling on the writers of Canada to contribute to the drafting of this declaration. We wanted the poets. We wanted everyone in the country involved in expressing what it was to be a Canadian in terms of a few lines that could capture that spirit.

The fourth recommendation was that the declaration should be drafted in a language that is noble, uplifting and inspires pride in being Canadian.

What happened? Five years later Bill C-63, now Bill C-16, was tabled in the House of Commons. I was here at my place when it was tabled. What we got was no declaration of what it is to be a citizen. There was no change in the preamble of Bill C-16. What we got instead was a warmed over oath of citizenship that bears no relation whatsoever to what new Canadians were telling us when they came before our committee. The amazing thing is that we did not even know where it came from. It suddenly appeared in the legislation without prior debate, without debate in the second citizenship committee. I will read it. It says:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

Who wrote that? Who had the temerity to write those words without consulting Canadians? Who had the temerity to write those words without actually fielding them in parliament where we could debate them. What words are they, from the very beginning? The words are “I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada”. That is a redundancy. Loyalty and allegiance, in English anyway, mean the same thing. If we analyze the history of the oath we can see where that came from. It came from was the French version of the current oath which says “Je jure fidélité et sincère allégeance à Sa Majesté la reine”. It is a direct English translation of the French version of the existing oath, and it is a bad translation. Any English or French teacher would reject it at the public school level.

It goes on to say “I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms”. We are bigger than that. It is not just our country's rights and freedoms. We as Canadians respect everybody's rights and freedoms. This is a fundamental difference and this is what makes us Canadian. This confines it selfishly to Canada alone, and that is unacceptable.

It then says “to uphold our democratic values”. Democratic values are a matter of perception in terms of the country in which we happen to be living. People from East Germany will recall that the name for East Germany was the German Democratic Republic. The full name for the Congo is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where they are busily killing one another as fast as they can. Right now there is a little civil war going on in Fiji and the government is being held hostage. That is the Sovereign Democratic Republic of Fiji. And so it goes. The Democratic Republic of Korea is really North Korea.

In other words, we cannot simply pledge allegiance to the democratic values of the country to which we belong. We have to pledge allegiance to democratic values in the abstract because the danger is, as we experienced in Germany during the 1930s, which led to the second world war, that a dictatorship is very fond of perverting democratic values and becoming a dictatorship under the guise of democracy. No. If we are going to pay respect to democratic values it must be democratic values in the abstract.

The final words are “to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a citizen”. That applies to every country in the entire world. Of course a citizen is required to obey the traffic act, the criminal code or whatever. That does not make us different as Canadians.

When that oath appeared before the House of Commons, I and several of my colleagues reacted very negatively. We tried very rapidly to capture the essence of what we heard in that committee in 1993-94. What I proposed in the House at that time—and I seem to be about the only one debating the oath of citizenship—was that the oath of citizenship should be rewritten in a way that would capture the five principles of the charter of rights, which is what makes us unique as Canadians. Those five principles are equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.

The reason the member for Kitchener—Waterloo is agonizing over in his place is that he feels that the rule of law is not being respected because we have two different sets of due processes for two different sets of Canadians. I would suggest that the member for Kitchener—Waterloo probably has it correct; we cannot have two standards for Canadians. Canadians must always be treated the same way.

I just want to make a quick comment on those five principles. I have to say that when I proposed that in the House I did have some positive response but there was no opportunity to debate it other than me standing here and speaking for the length of time that I had.

However, what I will point out is obvious: Equality of opportunity is really what being Canadian is all about. We are all different in many ways. What is essential for every one of us individually is to have the chance to compete equally for the good things in life, so it is a matter of providing those equalities of opportunity. That is why we as Liberals believe in medicare. We believe that people cannot begin to compete unless they have equality in health.

The second point is freedom of speech. Many of the new Canadians who came before us came from countries where there is no such thing as freedom of speech. The first thing that is done in a democracy that wants to be a dictatorship is to suppress the press. Even though it is sometimes very hard for us on the government side to bear the attacks that we see almost daily now in our national press, it is nevertheless part and parcel of democracy and it is absolutely vital. Freedom of speech is absolutely essential.

I have already commented on democracy.

Basic human rights are not just things we stand for as Canadians for ourselves; they are things which we stand for around the world. We are genuinely concerned about what happens in Sierra Leone. We were genuinely concerned about what happened in Bosnia and Rwanda. That is what being Canadian is all about.

Finally, there is the rule of law. It is not obeying the law that is so important; it is appreciating the law. One of the reasons we have such a strong democracy is that we have, sitting opposite of me, members of parliament who are separatists, who believe the country should be broken up. Yet I am proud of the fact that they see that outcome only by means of the rule of law. They are as good parliamentarians as I am on this side of the House. I am proud to be in the same Chamber with them, even though I reject their fundamental premise. The fact is, they believe that if it is to be achieved, it can only be achieved by due process, by the rule of law. I am proud to be in the Chamber with people who feel that way.

I proposed that oath. Not too surprisingly it was rejected by the House. One of the things that disappointed me was, when I proposed my version of the oath that contained these five principles, I asked that there be a free vote in the House, and there was not. I noticed that not just my side, but the NDP, the Conservatives and certainly the Bloc Quebecois voted as a group. There was obviously no attempt to consider the possibility of a made in Canada oath; an oath that, whatever its merits or demerits, at least expressed the principles of the charter of rights. If they did not like anything else, if they did not like the fact that it dropped the Queen, or if they did not like the reference to God, fine. But it captured what it is to be Canada in terms of the charter of rights, which is freedom of speech, democracy, rule of law, equality of opportunity and basic human rights. That is what it is to be Canadian. Any new Canadian who comes to this country knows that.

To say I am disappointed hardly captures it. I hate to use the word, but I think it was basic cowardice on the part of the government and even parliament to allow an oath of citizenship to go out that does not reflect the spirit of being Canadian, at least in terms of the House. It has not been debated in the House. We have an obligation. This House is the repository of everything that it means to be Canadian. This is the focus. We should have debated that. To not have done so is reprehensible.

Like the member for Cambridge, what am I going to do when I go to my citizenship courts, when these starry eyed new Canadians come before the citizenship court commissioner now, instead of a judge, put their hand up and quote an oath of citizenship that the government and parliament never debated or never had the courage to even consider the content of?

In my view, this is the time when we need the Senate. I believe that the House of Commons failed in its duty when it allowed an oath of citizenship to go out that has no heritage, no patrimony, no connection to what it really means to be Canadian. It is simply an oath that was created somewhere behind the curtains. We do not know where. We are expecting newcomers to Canada to use that oath, not only to understand Canada better, but as a commitment to being part of Canada. That is unacceptable.

I propose that the Senate very carefully look at this legislation. If it cannot come up with an oath that captures the principles of being Canadian, then please reject the oath that is here. It is absolutely unacceptable to have a new oath, an elaborately revised oath, go before new Canadians when we ourselves have never been a part of its creation; when we parliamentarians, when we Canadians have never participated in the creation of that oath. It is now up to the Senate.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, certainly defining who is a Canadian when we are so diverse as a people would be a very complicated task. But on the face of it, and allowing for the fact that just in the question and comment period the hon. member will not have a lot of time to think of his response to the question I am going to put, nevertheless, would he not feel, though, that the one thing that does unite us all as Canadians, no matter where we are from, whether we are new Canadians or Canadians here by birth, is a mutual respect for the principles of the charter of rights?