John Bryden

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I should say at the beginning that I am no fan of this particular type of program that gives money to corporations of that nature.

However, I should say to the member opposite that the reason he knows about that is because the minister disclosed all of that documentation. That is precisely my argument.

We need to know that, not just as MPs, but the people need to see it as it happens so they can react and say “No, not in my riding, not in my town. Do not give the money to Wal-Mart. Do not give it to the corporations. Give it to my small business”. But we cannot see that.

I have had spending in my riding that has taken me completely by surprise. I did not know about it. The only reason I could find out about it was because the minister made those documents available.

What I suggest we need to have happen is that we need to reform the Access to Information Act. We need to make sure that information is produced and is available on the Internet so that every Canadian can become his or her own auditor general.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there are thousands upon thousands of grants and contributions which are made. There are tens of thousands of purchases made by government.

The way the system works now, there are internal checks, but they are not very good because we cannot check internally as effectively as we can check from outside. The only outside checks are done by the auditor general and the occasional media person or MP who makes an access to information request. We have to acknowledge that the access to information law, as it exists now, is not very effective in getting the kind of information we need.

There are thousands and thousands of grants and contributions out there. If a bureaucrat decides to be sleepy at his task, or fails to send a piece of paper, or fails to do anything, the chances of him or her being discovered are absolutely minimal. The Access to Information Act is inadequate and the number of people who are actually looking are few.

However, if every time that bureaucrat had to pass a piece of paper, and that piece of paper became available on the Internet, and somebody could check it, then we would see efficiency. We would see efficiency in the government, in the bureaucracy, that would be unheard of in comparison to any corporation and in comparison to any bureaucracy in the world.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the budget today. I would like to speak not of past successes but of opportunity.

The government is poised between this year and next, into the next budget, to make changes that will fundamentally alter the way government operates in its spending practices which will make Canada's civil service one of the most efficient bureaucracies in the world and indeed our spending practices the most efficient in the world.

We are in a difficult time right now as a federal parliament because the winds of change in the provinces are such that cutting spending is all the rage and cutting taxes is all the rage. It puts the Liberals particularly in a dilemma insofar as we continue to believe that there is a role for government in making things better for people in the country.

Canadians have been rightly suspicious over the years, whether it is a Liberal government, a Tory government or an NDP government, whether it is provincial or federal, that often taxpayers' money is not used very efficiently. The answer in the provinces all too often has been simply to cut spending. In my own province of Ontario that has been the typical attitude. The Harris government began with that principle.

I have just had a note passed to me. I would say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Halton, Mr. Speaker, in case you were not aware of that.

I remember very clearly that one of the mantras of the provincial Tories was that they would cut spending by 20%. When one talks about hospitals, health care and all that kind of thing, or all kinds of social service NGOs, if spending was cut by 10% across the board it would not be the inefficient ones that would suffer, it would be the efficient ones that would suffer. I know of an NGO in my riding that survived the 20% cut simply by eliminating all of its staff. It retained its administrators.

The answer is not simply to cut spending; the answer is to spend wisely and well. I think that is where we are headed or can be headed as a government.

I do not speak for the government. I speak as a member of parliament. My interests are the interests of the country, not simply the interests of my party or my government.

I believe that there is an opportunity now.

I know, for example, that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has been examining for some time a whole new way of doing accounting. I know and I support this catastrophe of the Minister of Human Resources Development. She wanted to release all of these documents to the public and, naturally, some of the documents were found to be wanting.

The opportunity that presents itself to governments today, and to this government in particular, has been created by the Internet. For the first time ever it is absolutely possible to put all of the documents generated by the bureaucracy on grants and contributions, bidding processes or purchases on the Internet so that the new auditor general is not some official but can be the people of Canada themselves.

I come into this equation in two areas because I have been very interested in trying to bring accountability to non-profit organizations and charities. I have been trying to get legislation which would provide standards of transparency, accountability and reporting. The theme behind that was simply that when organizations send in their tax and financial information forms to Revenue Canada, if the information could be guaranteed to be good, then Revenue Canada could put it on the Internet. Then, when a person came to decide whether they should donate to one charity or another, they could call it up on the Internet and see for themselves how efficiently that organization was running.

I have to say that it was a great disappointment to me that the government did not announce in this budget some movement toward bringing legislated transparency and accountability to charities. However, this principle of getting that information, making sure it is good information and then making it available through the Internet is precisely what we should be doing with all government data that is not of a secret or confidential nature or is not an invasion of privacy. That is enormous.

For instance, in the Department of Human Resources Development every time an organization applies for a grant it should be required to sign a form authorizing the government to release the application form by which it made that grant. Then the people in the community could see who these individuals were and the people in the community would know fast enough whether they were charlatans or people who were responsible and who should be receiving government funds.

I think there is an enormous opportunity, if government seized the opportunity. In a way, I would like to think that I am part of that equation. As a matter of fact, I would like to think that all private members in the House, the backbenchers and the opposition members, could be part of that equation because I have before the House now, Mr. Speaker, a private member's bill that would complement this whole principle of transparency and making government documents available.

I do not want to digress and advertise my own private member's bill, but it is part of this entire equation of making all government documents which should be reasonably accessible to the public available and then put them on the Internet. What a marvellous, marvellous move that would be.

I have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I admire what the Minister of Human Resources Development tried to do. She just sort of jumped the gun a bit. What she did was, she said “All right, you can have all of these documents”. It is the first time this has ever occurred in which a minister has disclosed everything from a program of grants and contributions.

Inevitably, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be problems. That is inevitable. I do not argue that the opposition should not be pointing out those problems, but it should not just be the Department of Human Resources Development, it should not just be a minister doing it one time, it should happen all the time. It should be constant.

Every time there is a grant or contribution or the government makes a purchase, so long as it is not necessarily secret because of national security or privacy, then it should be available on the Internet. I think that is entirely possible.

I look to the future and I think that if we bring in that type of transparency to government it will create the most efficient bureaucracy in the world and the most efficient spending bureaucracy in the world. Because in the end the quarrel is not that money has been spent on social programs; the quarrel is whether that money is actually getting to the social programs it is supposed to get to and whether it is doing the job it is supposed to do.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this House of Commons, my colleagues opposite, should join me in trying to bring this to pass, instead of, as has been occurring in the last week or so, blocking a private member's initiative which would benefit all Canadians, which would bring transparency on a scale that is unheard of anywhere in the world.

I have read the American freedom of information act. It is nowhere near as transparent as what would occur with our access to information act if I could get the reforms I proposed in my Bill C-206 forward.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use my time to advertise what is my own initiative. It is just that I urge on my companions that it is good legislation and I would wish that they, as backbench MPs, would support it. Actually, I have 60 backbench MPs on the Liberal side who support it. We could all take advantage of this opportunity as MPs to change the way government operates, to make it transparent, accountable and effective when it uses taxpayers' dollars.

I say this not only to members of the opposition, but I say it to my own government. The opportunity is in this next year. If we can spend well we can save well.

I believe it is absolutely possible to spend effectively, to do the things we have to do as a government in the economy to make the lives of people better, but we can also save enough to make sure that the debt goes down and we can even save on the taxes. Because in the end it is only Ontario, British Columbia and Newfoundland which have created this incredible example of cutting taxes when they still have a deficit. The key thing, Mr. Speaker, is to cut taxes when you have saved and when you know how to spend, and spend well.

[Privilege, March 27th, 2000]

I do bring it to a close. If a doctor's letter is required or even the lab tests are required, these will be made available to you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to conclude by saying one thing, that the Reform Party ended its life last Friday. I have to say that for me it ended its life suitably as showing an example of the kind of mean-spiritedness, the lack of respect for—

[Privilege, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I am suffering. I have been ill all weekend and you can tell by my voice. I am coming to that as well.

Mr. Speaker, the last wounding charge was the suggestion that I was deliberately absent from the House on that Friday because I could not get my 100 signatures.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member opposite something. I was sick. I was very ill. On Wednesday I had a sore throat and was afraid I had strep throat. On Thursday I carefully backed off going around trying to collect my 100 signatures because I was afraid I was contagious. I have to admit that I would have been delighted to sit behind the member for Athabasca and maybe make him a little sicker, but I did not.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to you that the member for New Brunswick Southwest will recall that I came over and sat in those chairs where the pages are right now. He called me over because he wanted to talk to me about Bill C-206. I sat there in those chairs and I said “I am sorry, I cannot come any closer to you because I am afraid I have something. I do not want you to become ill”. If I did not pursue my signatures on Wednesday and Thursday it was for the very good reason that I did not want to risk the members of the House getting the illness that I had.

If there is any doubt whatsoever from that party opposite that I was sick on that particular day, I have here—and I can give it to a page—the actual doctor's prescription that I received at the very moment that the member was making those charges against me. I deliberately did not fill this prescription so that I could present it in the House as evidence that I was indeed sick at the time that we are speaking of. If I can get a page to come up, this will show you, Mr. Speaker, that it is an actual document. It is a prescription.

[Privilege, March 27th, 2000]

Prince George—Peace River. Well, yes, some peace.

[Privilege, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised by the attack made by the Canadian Alliance Party. You will forgive me if I reply at some length.

Basically what the whip for the former party said was that I was absent from the House on Friday because he felt that I was unable to get the 100 signatures that I was expected to get in order for Bill C-206 to remain on the order paper. He was making the assumption that I had to get those signatures by that Friday in order for my bill to remain on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take you through exactly what the whip for the Reform Party did say. I would like you to compare it with the evidential record. The member was referring to the procedure and House affairs committee discussions of March 2 in which the status of my signatures and Bill C-206 were discussed in the context of a point of privilege that you ruled on, Mr. Speaker.

He said on Friday that during the discussions at committee it was suggested that the member for Wentworth—Burlington be apprised of the intentions of the committee before the committee actually finalized its report in order to allow him time to seek the recommended support for his bill. The reason for this urgency was because the committee intended the deadline to be the first opportunity for the bill to be considered for its first hour of debate.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands—not as a prop—the committee record of that discussion of March 2. In it you will find no such reference. There was no such discussion by anyone in that committee about whether I should be apprised to get my signatures in advance of the final report.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I received no official communication from the committee before the finalized 19th report. No one said anything to me about the decision to require me to get the signatures again for my Bill C-206.

It might interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that the timing was interesting as well because the deputy whip tabled the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on March 17, the Friday before March 20, which was the first day that the committee record became available. The records were not even available before the report was finalized and I received no communication whatsoever. I suggest to you that what was said by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River is completely at odds with the facts.

Mr. Speaker, while I was aware of the recommendation that was contemplated by the committee, even before the report was finalized, I, quite honestly, never expected you to rule the way you did. I did not expect you to uphold the recommendation that came from that committee much less the recommendation as contained in the finalized report that was only available to me on the Friday before the Tuesday on which you ruled.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I took your ruling in good spirits because I respect the Chair. I might find it uncomfortable sometimes when you rule in ways that take me by surprise but nevertheless I respect that any time you do approach a ruling you approach it with the kind of dispassionate impartiality that we expect of you.

Last Friday the whip for the Reform Party went on to say:

The member for Wentworth—Burlington rose after the Speaker's ruling and sought further clarification. He clarified with the Chair that if he could secure 100 signatures by Friday, March 24, 200, today, his bill could remain on the order paper.

What is it that I actually said following your ruling on March 21? Mr. Speaker, for your benefit, I will quote what I actually said. I said:

What I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is, if I can get the signatures in the next day or so that perhaps Bill C-206 could remain where it is on the order of precedence rather than being dropped to the very bottom and perhaps not being debated for some months to come.

Just to be doubly sure, I repeated it and said:

What I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is, if I can get the hundred signatures in the next day or two—and I would hope to have the co-operation of the opposition parties in this—can my bill remain on the order of precedence and come up on Friday—

Mr. Speaker, as you can see from what I just said, the assumption was that I would have the opportunity to collect those signatures so long as the bill remained on the order of precedence, whether it was on the order of precedence for Friday or dropped in the order of precedence at the time, it did not matter. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in your own words, you said:

I believe the question the hon. member is asking is whether this bill will come up in the normal course of events. The answer is, yes. Is that what the question is?

I said “Yes”. So, Mr. Speaker, that is clear. You can see, if you go back to what the whip for the Reform Party said, he has distorted the record. He was suggesting that for some reason there was a ruling on your part that prevented my bill from dropping to the bottom of the order of precedence and not being valid as a result of having done so.

The most wounding and injurious thing of all that the member for Prince George—I can never remember where it is.

[Points Of Order, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that in my absence from the Commons the Speaker ruled on a name change for the Reform Party to the Canadian Alliance.

Madam Speaker, I feel this impinges upon my privileges as an MP because I ran against the Reform Party in the last election. Even Elections Canada does not recognize the name Canadian Alliance. Those people on the other side are changing their party name in midstream.

Madam Speaker, I would ask you, surely the Speaker should consult the table officers to see whether or not a proper resolution of this parliament should be passed before this name change is authorized and recognized by the Speaker.

[Privilege, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am on that committee. I knew nothing of the concerns of the hon. member for Lakeland. I arrived one day at the committee and found that it was in camera on the discussion of the report which was very important. I moved a motion such that the in camera committee report would be available to the public as soon as it was tabled. I think that would have been a way to get around the problem expressed by the hon. member for Lakeland, but unfortunately this motion was unable to go forward because we did not have quorum.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of my Conservative colleague with considerable interest.

I would like to put a question to him. In my opinion, in connection with the problems at the Department of Human Resources Development, and in the context of this motion, the Access to Information Act is a useful tool in getting at the truth in government management. I wonder whether my colleague would support an update of this law.

Would he support a bill to modernize the Access to Information Act in the context of this motion?