John Bryden

[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]

No. The situation with this bill is very simple.

I do not think all members of the Bloc are separatists. Most are sovereignists or perhaps indépendantistes, but they are not separatists.

In Quebec, some separatists are looking for winning conditions. I think that two winning conditions are a confusing question and a majority of 50% plus one.

We have two parties in the House that go along with that. The Conservative Party thinks a confusing question is all right, and the Reform Party led by Mr. Manning says that 50% plus one is enough to break up Canada.

The Liberal government will not last forever, and it is unfortunate. Eventually, Reformers or Conservatives may form the government. I think Preston Manning, and perhaps Joe Clark also, could impose party discipline with a great deal of authority. In that case, the Reform leader would be able to impose the majority of 50% plus one. Perhaps the Conservative leader would accept an unclear question to get negotiations underway—

[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]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I do not agree with my colleagues from Waterloo—Wellington and Vancouver Quadra when they say that the members of the Bloc are immobilizing parliament with their amendments. I think that it is very important for the opposition to be able to protest when they do not agree with a bill introduced by the government. If the Bloc members want to see the MP vote like little rabbits, jumping from on amendment to another, that is fine. That is stupid, but that is fine. If that is what they want, I have no problem with that.

I believe most of the amendments moved at this stage of consideration of the bill are futile. I would like to explain why.

Bill C-20 is very simple. There are two fundamental paragraphs that form the basis of this bill. The rest is only cosmetic. The two paragraphs that I consider important are 1(6) and 2(4).

Paragraph 1(6) reads as follows:

(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines...that a referendum question is not clear—

The other paragraph says the same thing, and I quote:

(4) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada unless the House of Commons determines...that there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.

This is what is required to start negotiations on the separation or secession of a province.

I am a strong federalist. I think my colleagues from the Bloc defend everything coming from Quebec. I think opposition members believe, as I do, in a civil society.

Consequently, I believe my colleagues opposite are not looking for a situation where Canada would be dismantled by an unclear question. I believe this because I firmly believe in a united Canada. I also believe in the parliamentary process, as other members opposite, Reform and Bloc members. If there were a clear question on the secession of a province, I would have no choice but to accept it.

[Petitions, March 13th, 2000]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last petition urges parliament to uphold section 43 of the criminal code which continues to give parents the right or the opportunity to use appropriate discipline.

[Petitions, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the government to implement, enforce and develop uniform and mandatory mammography assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

[Petitions, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions for you. The first is a petition that asks parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a criminal offence. I think that is a reference to the supreme court debate that is ongoing at this moment.

[Westray Mine, March 3rd, 2000]

That may be where the frustration occurs with the Westray instance, but I have to point out to the member opposite who is remarking that it would be more precise to use the word businessman or entrepreneur because, in my experience as a police reporter covering industrial accidents, I can tell the member opposite that I saw more death associated with small business than I did with large corporations. The reality is that the large corporations, by and large, have the means to make sure that workplace safety provisions are in place. But the small entrepreneurs often fail in this regard.

I will give an example. Not very long ago we had a fatal accident with a student employee in a bakery who was operating a machine that kneads dough. If I understand this motion correctly, it is that the person who is in charge of that small bakery should be subject to some sort of criminal code provision, rather than the Ontario labour code provisions that are already applicable.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you could reduce it even further. You could take this problem of industrial safety to the farm.

I live in a small community in Ontario in the countryside and we have had several accidents within my memory where people have been drawn into a combine or where people have climbed down into a silo and have died as a result of the gases that are heavier than air and form a pool at the bottom of the silo. Should these farmers be subject to criminal code provisions because they allowed an accident to occur on their farm, which may indeed have actually happened to their very family? It might have been a son who died or a farmhand who died.

While I have enormous sympathy for the frustration felt by the people who lost loved ones at Westray, it seems to me that the proper direction of the anger and the reform should be to bring in better provincial laws regarding workplace safety. It is perfectly possible to have provincial laws that have severe penalties if employers do not provide adequate safety for the workers.

But, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point to all members who are interested in this issue that you cannot make a distinction between corporate Canada and then leave out every other type of employer. Mr. Speaker, if you are going to apply the criminal code or any other law you must apply it universally.

I see a member opposite nodding. I see some sympathy there. Yes, by all means, if we can improve the law federally, perhaps not through the criminal code, so that it enforces cross-Canada standards of workplace safety, whether it is on the farm, whether it is in a small enterprise or in a large corporation, I would say yes, absolutely, and amend the motion to that effect, except there is one reality check here and that is the problem that unfortunately workplace safety is primarily a provincial responsibility. Certainly we who are MPs from Ontario find that it is almost impossible to make any kind of meaningful dialogue with the provincial government on any issue. I certainly do not think the provincial government would accept any kind of standards brought in by the national government on workplace safety, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, if it were possible I would dearly love to do it.

[Westray Mine, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, which is adjacent to Hamilton, there is a bronze sculpture that was created a few years ago which caused a lot of controversy in my riding. It is to commemorate those who have died in the workplace. What it is comprised of is a huge slab. A workman is holding on to the edge of the slab backward and he is headless. It is very, very dramatic. Many people in the Hamilton community were almost offended by this piece of sculpture, and yet it makes its point enormously eloquently.

I should say that Hamilton is an industrial town. It has two major steel corporations and a number of heavy industries. I hate to say it, but industrial accidents are not an infrequent occurrence. Fortunately they are much rarer than they used to be 20, 30 or 40 years ago, but they still occur.

The problem with industrial accidents is that it is very difficult to determine if negligence occurred. Sometimes it may not be negligence at all. It may be that the firm has done everything it thought was correct, but still the accidents occur. The problem is, where do we draw the line between no negligence, negligence and wilful negligence. This motion is directed toward the idea of wilful negligence.

For a number of years during my youth I was a police reporter at the local newspaper. I had the occasion to be on the scene of a number of industrial accidents. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more horrible than to see somebody who has been absolutely crushed to a pulp by some sort of machine, or has been pulled into a machine, or some young person who suffocated as a result of going into a chamber in which the air was exhausted. These things do occur and they are dreadful tragedies. When one has any kind of experience with that one can certainly appreciate and sympathize with the very strong feelings of the relatives of those at Westray who lost their lives.

The difficulty I have with the motion is twofold. One is this concept of where one draws the line between criminal negligence as already defined in the criminal code and some other area of wilful negligence that is not defined in the code. I am not certain you can do that very easily, Mr. Speaker. I am just not certain at all.

The other point I would like to make is the problem that the motion also uses the words “corporate executives”. The motion is directed against this idea that corporations, in their haste to make profit, are the ones that are most likely to be negligent to the point of risking their workers in a criminal way.

[Westray Mine, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must protest. The member is abusing the rights and privileges he enjoys in the House by using the word murder in the context of a terrible tragedy, in which indeed there may have been negligence, but it is before various tribunals. If he really has the courage to use that term, then he should use it outside the House not inside the House because he has protection, Mr. Speaker.

[1911 Census Records, March 2nd, 2000]

I believe it is the member for Wentworth—Burlington who has this particular private member's bill. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that not only does the member for Wentworth—Burlington have this bill before the House, he has some 112 seconders from all parties who gave support to this bill to go on the order of precedence. I do not know whether the member for Calgary Southeast was one of those who actually seconded this particular piece of legislation. I hope he was.

What it does is it amends the Access to Information Act such that schedule II of the act is eliminated. Schedule II of the Access to Information Act lists those pieces of legislation that particularly raise barriers for the disclosure of certain types of information. For example, one of the schedule II items is in the Income Tax Act where a non-profit organization's financial returns and other types of personal information are not available. That is in the Income Tax Act. The Statistics Act is similar in that it restricts access to certain types of census records going all the way back to 1911. However, Bill C-206, by eliminating schedule II, brings all these other items of legislation under the Access to Information Act.

What happens is the Access to Information Act is the superior legislation when it comes to measuring whether information in other legislation should be withheld or not. So whether it is the Statistics Act, or the Income Tax Act or any other items of legislation that have withholding clauses, they still have to be subject to the test of the Access to Information Act.

Bill C-206, among other things, amends the Access to Information Act such that all documents held by the government over 30 years old which are not obviously a threat to national security if disclosed, or would disclose information that would be injurious to individuals and so on and so forth, or all documents that do not have obvious injury components in terms of their impact on the public would automatically be released.

I have had representations from the people from Statistics Canada. They are of the view that if Bill C-206 is allowed to go forward and amend the Access to Information Act as it exists, then the Statistics Canada legislation that prevents the 1911 census records from being released will be overturned and these documents will be readily available, at least census records up to 30 years ago.

The member in his motion is calling on the government to act when in fact we have the happy situation for us all that it is not the government that needs to act, it is backbench MPs who have this opportunity to act. What is particularly important about Bill C-206, my private member's bill—I have to admit it is mine—is that in order to get onto the order paper it sought and received the seconding by 112 members of the House, all backbench MPs on all sides of this House, no government members or parliamentary secretaries.

This was 100% a backbench initiative. Indeed the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois were especially supportive of this initiative. I am very pleased to report that although I have to say that unfortunately the Reform Party did move a point of privilege on Bill C-206. I regret that there is some doubt now whether Bill C-206 will indeed stay on the order of precedence.

I realize that the Reform point of privilege was poorly advised because I think the Reform Party were under the impression that certain changes were made to Bill C-206, which subsequently got unanimous consent in the House, that may have substantially affected things in the bill that the Reform Party would have been very concerned about.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when I sought unanimous consent for Bill C-206 I was convinced that the support originally indicated for Bill C-206 when I originally sought the signatures would remain. Regardless of any changes that I undertook, and which I obtained unanimous consent for, I thought that those changes would by and large receive the support of the very seconders who put their names to the original bill.

However this is before the House. I am confident that the members of the Reform Party, and the Bloc Quebecois indeed, have I think an enormous interest and a vital interest, as we all do as parliamentarians, in openness in government and being able to access the documents, be they census records or any other kind of government documents that we need to have in order to be informed about the efficiency of the operation of government.

I want to return to the motion, but I shall say in passing that I have examined very carefully Bill C-206 and the impact of its amendments on the current Access to Information Act and I have compared it to the American freedom of information act. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that to reform, to use the word that my colleagues opposite do favour a lot, the Access to Information Act with Bill C-206 will create the most sophisticated and the most effective freedom of information legislation in the world.

It is no wonder that this amendment is coming forward from not just this private member but from private members on all sides of the House who have at least endorsed the principle of the bill to see that it would get on the order of precedence. They may have difficulty with some of the changes that might occur at committee stage or that might occur at report stage. Even some members might decide to vote against the bill when it finally reaches third reading because of some changes they might have perceived en route, but the point is that backbench MPs in this parliament for the first time ever have advanced a bill based on seconding the bill in principle, and it is before the House.

I would expect that if it goes through, and I am surely hopeful that it will, it will address the concern of the member for Calgary Southeast about the 1911 census records. It will fix that problem immediately. He can say that to his constituents and he can say to all those people who have wrote we MPs and have said open those records because they are part of our historic heritage. If the Reform Party, backbench MPs, opposition MPs, the Bloc Quebecois MPs, the Conservatives and the NDP are indeed supportive of openness in government, I am sure that they do not need to just support this motion of the member for Calgary Southeast. They have the opportunity to actually see it enacted by supporting Bill C-206.

[1911 Census Records, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this motion by the member for Calgary Southeast that the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records. I can give him the happy news that we do not require the government to take this step whatsoever. There is a private member's bill, Bill C-206, which is before the House on the order of precedence at this moment which would do precisely what the member for Calgary Southeast requires.