John Bryden

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 10th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 23

That the oath of citizenship in the Schedule to Bill C-16 be replaced with the following:

“In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God whose sacred trust is to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of the law.”

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist giving my colleague opposite a further lesson in history. He should recall where the term demagogue comes from. I am not referring to him as a demagogue. I am not disparaging his remarks.

A demagogue comes from ancient Greece. The word referred to people who could influence the crowd, not by the weight of their arguments or the propriety of their arguments, but just by the weight of their rhetoric.

The difficulty with referenda and this type of popular response that the member is suggesting is that all of the people are not equally informed on an issue. By eloquence and rhetoric, even though the facts may be twisted and distorted, people can be influenced. That is why we had a situation in the United States that occurred in the late 19th century and early 20th century where the popular sentiment was manipulated by demagogues. It led to terrible results.

I do not really believe that we as human beings have changed so dramatically in 2,000 years. As a matter of fact, if you are somebody who is interested in the Bible, you would appreciate that maybe we have not changed over 2,000 years.

The very point of all this is that demagoguery is a real thing. It was exercised in ancient Greece. The ancient Greeks recognized it for what it was. I admire the member opposite very much, but I am sorry, what he is proposing is government by demagoguery.

I think we have advanced beyond that. Each of us as politicians has a sacred duty, in my view, to act according to our conscience on the best information we get. We cannot do that by referenda.

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made, I certainly agree, some very important points about the debt, but I cannot help but intervene on his comments about referenda.

I know he has a lot of faith in what the Americans are doing by holding referenda, but I would like to point out to him that the cost of popular justice, of popular referenda if you will, in the United States has involved basically the wild west, the lawlessness of the wild west and the genocide of the Indians.

It involved Jim Crow laws in the southern United States, where the popular municipalities with the Ku Klux Klan led to all kinds of atrocities against people based on race. Because of popular justice it was entirely impossible at that particular time, at the turn of the century, to bring these people to justice when they did these things against people because of race.

Jim Crow laws are again another reflection of popular sentiment translated into prejudice against individuals, whereas I remind the member opposite that the Canadian experience in these areas was entirely different. We did not have a wild west, and we did not have a wild west because decision making was not vested in people at the grassroots. It was vested in laws that were determined by members of parliament rather than referenda. When people are elected, those people should be speaking from their own conscience and not simply as a result of popular pressure. That is the danger of referenda, as we see in the United States.

The member is perfectly correct. The Americans love referenda. But it could also come back to the same kind of prejudice, hate and destruction that typified the kind of referenda we saw in the 19th century and at the turn of the century against both Indians and blacks.

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the member opposite, who was the only person on his side over there, is calling attention to numbers on this side. The pot should not call the kettle black.

[Petitions, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I present two petitions pertaining to Bill C-23 in which the petitioners ask that the bill be withdrawn and that the House affirm marriage as an opposite sex relationship. I think at the time that these petitions were prepared the petitioners did not realize that in fact the government did insert a definition of marriage that would please them enormously. Nevertheless I submit these petitions and observe that they also note that they want to see the government advance legislation that defines dependency relationships as being entitled to benefits in the same sense that Bill C-23 extended the benefits to opposite sex relationships and same sex relationships.

[Petitions, April 14th, 2000]

Well, Madam Speaker, never let it be said that private members' hour in the House does not produce some interesting debates and some excellent speeches.

I had never intended to speak on this debate. I just happened to be in the House doing my duty, but I received I think some very eloquent points of view on an issue which I think is of importance.

The question of petitions and what petitions mean when people submit them to members of parliament is a very important question.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, that I remember when I came up here as a parliamentarian for the first time in 1993, there was an orientation period in which experienced members of parliament instructed us in this very chamber on what to expect as fledgling members of parliament. I remember, for the member for Langley—Abbotsford's benefit, that one of those MPs who advised the new MPs on what to expect here was the member for Edmonton North who brought up the question of petitions.

What she said basically, was that the members of parliament can take advantage of the opportunity to present petitions from their constituents. I remember classically the words. She said “They do not really mean anything when you put them before the House. They do not actually do anything or have any effect, but they are a great instrument for encouraging personal attention in your own riding”.

So the member for Langley—Abbotsford I think touches a real nerve. I remember that statement vividly. In fact, Madam Speaker, as a result of that statement I have tended to discourage petitioning in my riding, and yet I hear the parliamentary secretary observe that in fact, yes, there is a place for petitions in the House, that it is an opportunity for people to actually get a forum through their MPs. So there is merit both ways, although I am very sensitive to the criticism that is being raised by the member for Langley—Abbotsford, that is where do petitions really go?

One of the difficulties, however, with petitions, and trying to expand the opportunity for petitions to have an effect, as suggested by Motion No. 128, is in fact petitions like opinion polling or referendum, that kind of thing, can in fact represent a minority trying to grab the agenda by putting direct pressure on the parliamentarian.

Earlier today, I presented three petitions in the House. Each one of those petitions represents a minority in society who has a particular thing they want to see happen. They are trying to put pressure on me as a member of parliament by means of a petition. It does not matter whether there are 25 names or there are 200 or it is 2% of the entire population. It is still a minority. It is still a special interest group. Whether the special interest group represents people who are against Bill C-23, as was the case in one of the petitions I presented, or whether the subject is a contract for the postal workers who were petitioning me to support a private member's bill allowing the unionization of rural mail couriers, it is still a special interest group pressuring a member of parliament to take a particular action.

In the final analysis there is nothing wrong with this. I have to answer not only as best I can to everyone in my riding, but I also have to be sensitive to the petitions of minorities, the petitions of special interest groups, the petitions of groups of people with whom I may personally disagree. They still have to have a voice in this place.

I agree with the member for Langley—Abbotsford that the present situation and the present method is inadequate. People, no matter what their viewpoint in a democracy, particularly an open democracy like Canada, have to have an opportunity to speak.

I think that parliament is in the process of being reformed. One way it is being reformed is by opening up Private Members' Business. Just as we are having a very fine debate this afternoon in private member's hour, so too are we trying on all sides of this House to open up the opportunities for backbench MPs to advance meaningful legislation. We have had a number of very good private members' bills advanced, and on this side of the House, at any rate, voting on private members' legislation is always a free vote.

I would say to the member for Langley—Abbotsford that rather than try to adjust the rules in a huge way in which basically we would be advancing the power of minority special interest groups, which we do not want to do, I would take the point of the member for Kings—Hants. We are elected to represent and to make decisions on behalf of everyone, as best we can. That is the parliamentary system. That is what we inherited from the British system. On the other hand, we can give everyone an opportunity to be heard and to have their issue debated.

What I would suggest is that we go forward and try to find a new method of dealing with petitions. One thing we could consider, and this would go to the procedure and House affairs committee, would be to open up Friday, which is a day which is not very good for government business because many MPs are away and often cabinet ministers have other duties. Perhaps we could devote Friday entirely to Private Members' Business, to debate and advance private members' legislation.

Why not use part of that time to debate petitions, no matter what the petition is about? If I have received a petition, whether it is on Bill C-23 or the rural mail couriers, that petition is independent of everything else. It is independent of legislation and it deserves to be heard and debated.

I would propose that perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could consider setting up a regime whereby the petitions would come before a subcommittee to determine whether they should be debated in the same way as private members' bills come before a subcommittee to determine whether they should be made votable. That way the petitions which Canadians gather, again whether there be 25, 100 or 1, 000 names, might have more of a life in this House than they do at present. I congratulate the member for Langley—Abbotsford for raising a very important issue.

[Petitions, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have concerns the problem of child poverty and asks the government to seriously consider taking measures to improve the situation of children by means of a multi-year plan that will help Canada's children.

I believe this is, generally speaking, very much at the heart of the government's budget that just passed. I urge the government to bear in mind that Canada's children are indeed a concern to all of us.

[Petitions, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have also another petition from rural route mail couriers who would like to see the government support private member's legislation that would ensure that contract mail couriers could form collective bargaining units. That private member's bill was defeated in the House, but I do urge the government on behalf of the petitioners to look very carefully at the plight of contract rural route mail couriers.

[Petitions, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a petition calling on the government to withdraw Bill C-23 and affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

You will realize, of course, Mr. Speaker, that the House of Commons did indeed pass Bill C-23. Bill C-23 does include legislation that defines marriage as a union of opposite sex persons and that it has ensured that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Points Of Order, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have done a lot of research on non-profit organizations and charities. The reality is that although there are very many worthy charities, sometimes it is impossible to tell when a charity is not worthy. I think it would be a great mistake to set a precedence whereby members would be promoting one charity or another charity when there is always some danger that the charities may, indeed, not be worthy.