John Bryden

[Privilege, March 21st, 2000]

No, Mr. Speaker. I do not quite understand your ruling. The bill is due to come up in the next few days. If the hundreds of signatures remain valid, it is due to come up on Thursday or Friday at the latest.

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, as it is currently scheduled to do?

[Privilege, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, of course I respect your decision in this matter. I would just like to make two observations. Bill C-206 is due to come up for debate within about a week. Because of the very close timeframe in which you have ruled that I should be required to get the signatures again, I would ask that 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.

Second, I would just like to make one comment. I do believe this arises from a legitimate misunderstanding. I regret that I never had the opportunity to speak before the procedures and House affairs committee to explain the origin of the misunderstanding and to clarify the situation.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think your ruling is the correct ruling and I abide by it.

[Privilege, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am a member of that committee. On the very day that report was released, which was an initial report, we were having deliberations and made several changes to the existing report, including an amendment that I moved.

What I am afraid of is that because the first copy of the report, which was not a final report, was released to the public, it will be very unlikely that the media and the public will see the substantial changes that were made. Not only is that not in the public interest, but again, it erodes the opportunities of members of parliament to make substantial changes and have them debated in a public forum.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member opposite. I think this is certainly a motion that we should all vote our consciences on. I expect the Reform Party and every party, including the members of the Liberal Party, to vote their conscience on this issue.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have much respect for my Bloc colleagues. In my opinion they are the best opposition members because they have a good understanding of the parliamentary issues in the House of Commons.

I find it sad that they should have chosen this means to protest the outcome of Bill C-20.

Protest, in a democracy, is very important, and I feel it was appropriate for the Bloc members to protest. What I do not understand is the position of the Reform Party.

I understand why the Bloc might want to put this motion forward and support it when the vote comes. What I do not understand is why the Reform Party indicates that it will support this motion. While a protest is perfectly correct in a democracy, and I understand why the Bloc wants to protest, I do find that the Reform Party has confused the issue of being angry at the government for various decisions made by it and believing that they must attack parliament instead of the government.

There has been a long tradition in the House of the Reform Party confusing what the government does with what Mr. Speaker does. I think that is very sad. As I mentioned earlier, the flag debate was a classic example. Members of the Reform Party attacked the Chair, attacked this parliament, on the issue of whether or not a flag should be at their desks. I will always remember the occasion when partisanship really did affect our very symbols. Our symbols are the flag and this parliament and your position, Mr. Speaker. I will always remember the day when the member for Medicine Hat threw the Canadian flag on the floor because he disagreed with your decision.

I implore the Reform Party, please do not attack parliament through the Speaker. Do not attack the institution that is the very foundation of our democracy. Let the Bloc Quebecois have their protest. But I urge the Reform Party to vote against this motion.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very direct question. This motion very specifically challenges the impartiality of the Speaker and accuses the Speaker of being partial in a decision and presumably in other decisions. In this context that means that the Speaker is being accused of being partisan, because nothing occurs here that is not partisan if it is partial.

I would like to ask the member who just spoke if this is what she really means. Does she feel that in supporting this motion she has lost confidence in the Speaker's ability to be impartial and that indeed she is accusing him of being partisan?

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Anyway, it was raised by the member for Edmonton North as an example of why the House should not have confidence in you as the result of the decision on that occasion.

I want to remind Canadians of what happened on that particular occasion when you ruled against having flags on our desks. I remember vividly the member for Medicine Hat throwing the flag on the floor of this Chamber. That flag lay on the floor of this Chamber, on the rug with people walking around it, for some time afterward.

I remember thinking to myself, Mr. Speaker, how wise your decision was. The reason we do not have flags on our desks is because it encourages us to use the symbol of our country for partisan reasons. It was a very good decision.

Further to that, I realize that party, not the Bloc Quebecois because I appreciate it moving this motion in protest and it has a right to do that, but the Reform Party constantly confuses attacking the government with attacking parliament. The decision with the flag was a case where the Reform Party was attacking parliament. Again we hear the Reform Party attacking you, Mr. Speaker, when it really means that it wants to attack the government. It is dissatisfied with the government, but constantly it confuses it, and it is such a shame.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the benefit of the member for Mississauga West, who was not in the House at the time of your decision on the flags on the desks, which was raised by the member for Edmonton North—

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the observation. The member brought up the issue of the flag flap. I remember that very well as well. She uses that as an example of an improper decision on your part, a bad decision I guess she is suggesting. Anyway, it is a decision that she certainly does not agree with. I do not know what she is exactly questioning but she is using it as an example to question your integrity as a Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was there when you ruled on the flag situation and I agreed with your ruling.

What are we to say? Are we going to be questioning your right to sit in the chair? Are we questioning your integrity because members on the opposite side disagree with you when in fact members on this side agree with you? No matter what, when you are a referee or a judge or looking on and trying to make decisions involving human beings, not just human beings in this Chamber but human beings in the entire country, then there is no black and white. There is always going to be disagreement.

I ask the member what is the point of bringing up the fact that you ruled in a way she did not agree with on the flag debate as an example of why you do not belong in the chair at this time?

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that the Reform leader had resigned his position.

The winning condition is simply to have a Reform leader, a Canadian Alliance leader, or a Conservative leader as government leader. These are winning conditions for the separatists.

Bill C-20 prevents this possibility by conferring the power to determine if the question is clear, and if the majority is clear on that question. It confers such power to all members of the House of Commons. It creates a sensitive situation with respect to the question initiating negotiations for the break-up of the country. This responsibility is vested in all members, who would participate in some kind of a free vote. I think that most members of this House, including Bloc members, will vote according to their conscience.

For these reasons, I think that this bill is good as it takes the power of the executive and gives it to the members of this House.

I think this is true democracy.