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, February 10th, 2000]

Yes, Joe Clark.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the member for Elk Island raised the issue of the Access to Information Act because that is a subject of great sensitivity to me today. As he will realize his party blocked a private member's bill that would reform the Access to Information Act, increase transparency and increase accessibility to the very kinds of documents and information that the member for Elk Island is citing.

So I would like to ask him how he could expect me as a member on this side of the House who is most interested in getting to the root of government documents, in getting to examine the way government functions and indeed who has had legislation before this House that would enable members to better do their job in this regard, to take this motion seriously when his party has deliberately blocked the very kind of legislation that we need in this House to enable backbenchers and opposition members to assess how government operates? Legislation is transparent and yet that party, the party on the other side, has rejected that legislation. And they expect me to support their motion? Well, I am sorry.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I just have to caution members opposite that when they make comparisons between the last election of 1993 under the Mulroney government they have to watch out if they start to look at multiculturalism funding. There are those of us who have documents and have done research in this area. They are liable to find, just as an example, the Parents for French organization used to get a $130,000 annual contribution from the Mulroney government but just prior to the election it went to $424,000. There was a lot going on in that year about funding special interest groups of all kinds prior to an election.

The point I want to make to the member is that there is an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. I asked a question of members of the NDP and they dodged the reply. I ask this question of the member opposite. Is he willing to see the same standards of transparency, accountability and performance review that we wish to see in HRDC apply to all other organizations that we see getting funding from government, including those organizations involved in unions, involved in poverty, non-governmental organizations, charities and non-profits? Does he not think one shoe should fit all in terms of accountability and transparency?

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her remarks. As the member might be aware, I as a backbench MP have done a number of studies on NGOs, non-governmental organizations, particularly charities and non-profits. I have encountered a lot of problems with transparency and accountability in these organizations and I have reported on them.

Would she be of the view that if we are going to clean up this whole issue of giving government grants and contributions to organizations one shoe should fit all and that non-profit organizations should be required to meet the same standards of transparency, accountability and corporate governance as for-profit organizations in order to be eligible for public funds and, moreover, that they should submit themselves to performance reviews in order to be subject to further grants?

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that clause 21(1) says that opinion polls will be available under my revised Access to Information Act.

My point is simply that when an opposition party calls for transparency on the part of the government, which the member just did, surely it should not try to block private members' initiatives that bring out that very transparency.

Why on the one hand is the member calling for transparency on the part of the government and on the other blocking a private member's bill that would bring transparency to government?

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely ironic that the Leader of the Reform Party should be calling for transparency in the government, when his party just today and yesterday blocked a private member's bill that would open the access to information bill and enable members on all sides of the House to access all kinds of information.

I wish to draw to the attention of the member who just spoke that the government House leader of the Reform Party attacked my private member's Bill C-206 based on false information. Yesterday, the member for Fraser Valley said that the reason my revised bill should be blocked was that it unfortunately excluded polling information on the national unity file.

I will read to the member who just spoke what the bill actually says. It says that a head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this act that contains advice or a recommendation developed by or—

[Privilege, February 7th, 2000]

He was not paying attention, someone said, and that may indeed be the case.

Mr. Speaker, toward the end, and this is probably the thing that is most wounding about this, he accuses me of having forged, falsified, altered or fabricated the legislation that came before the House.

I repeat that these are very wounding remarks. That bill went before the House. The House had ample opportunity to read it. He had 19 months. There is nothing in the bill that I have attempted to hide in any way.

The member even sends out a red herring. He complains that I misled the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

He says that I only said the bill had technical changes in it, but he is referring to the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business that met on October 28, 1999 which determined the votability of a bill. The contents of the bill in detail were not germane to that debate. The members considered the votability and those members of that subcommittee had the bill before them. So there was no attempt, there was no opportunity.

Why would I as a private member attempt any form of deceit with respect to private members' legislation that every member in the House should want to at least see get on the order of precedence and debated? If there are flaws or problems, if things have to be changed, even if the bill does not succeed, there is no reason to block, stop or halt this bill from going on the order of precedence and being debated in due course.

[Privilege, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention because this is an issue of great importance to all members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the reason this bill is now on the order of precedence for Wednesday—it is to be debated Wednesday—is because the member for Langley—Abbotsford, who is now not in favour with his party, surrendered his position and agreed to change his position on Private Members' Business for Wednesday for my bill, and that is how it advanced.

But I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of concern to the member for Athabasca pertains to something that occurred on June 11, 1998, 19 months ago, and he has held off making representations about his concern until today. At no time has he spoken to me about his concern. At no time, I believe, has he spoken to other people. He has chosen this very last moment, and so while he had 19 months to prepare his submission this morning, I have only had a few hours. You will have to forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if some of my remarks are a little disjointed because I have had to put this defence together very rapidly. But I am prepared to defend it because I do not feel that the member for Athabasca's charges—and they are very extreme charges—have any substance. I will take my chances and go right from here.

I am just going point by point from the speech this morning, but I only have the advantage of the blues, Mr. Speaker. One of the member's complaints was that the member for Wentworth—Burlington was carrying invalid support for Bill C-264, which is the access to information bill, over to the second session by applying it to the new procedures for Private Members' Business. I contest the use of the words invalid support. The people who seconded my bill, and I have the signatures before me, knew in principle what the bill was about. I would contest the use of the word invalid. There was nothing invalid about the support.

The member for Athabasca claims that he did not second Bill C-264 in the form that he now finds it before the House, in the form of Bill C-206. Mr. Speaker, you will have to understand that after the resumption of the session I had to reintroduce the revised version of Bill C-264 and it has now become Bill C-206. But the point to remember is that the original bill was submitted before this House on June 11, 1998 and had the unanimous consent of this House that it should go forward in that revised version.

Now the member says that he did not officially and wilfully second the new version of Bill C-264. Mr. Speaker, the member for Athabasca was in the House at the time I submitted the revised version. He was here. He has had 19 months to examine the bill. He has had 19 months to decide that he did not like what he gave his unanimous support for, and yet he leaves it to the last minute.

No, Mr. Speaker, the member was in the House and he knew that the bill had changed. If he had objections he has had ample time to raise those objections. He was in the House with his own private member's bill, Bill C-227, and Mr. Speaker you will find it in Hansard on that occasion.

I refer to Hansard of that particular occasion because the member also raises that issue. What I said at the time, Mr. Speaker—and he was there when I said it—was that the reason why I wanted to resubmit a revised version of Bill C-264 was that many people had made representations to me and felt that there were some flaws and technical difficulties. Mr. Speaker, indeed I feel there were flaws and I did change them accordingly. So it is very clear that I am not talking just about technical difficulties; I am talking about inadequacies in the bill as I originally wrote it as Bill C-264 and some changes were made. The member knew about those changes. He did not know them in detail, but he knew that changes had occurred.

The essence of the member's complaint is that he is saying “I did not support Bill C-264 in its revised version”. Now I will set aside for a minute, Mr. Speaker, the fact that he gave his unanimous consent. Remember what is occurring here. When a private member—and this was one of the first times that it happened—seeks seconders for his bill in order to get it on the order of precedence, he only seeks seconders.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I do believe that many people who seconded my Bill C-264 in its original version had not actually read the contents of it. I interpreted the seconding of my Bill C-264 as supporting Bill C-264 in principle. Of course there are going to be aspects of the bill that are going to be subject to debate, to controversy. Of course when it goes to second reading we are going to debate it. There is no guarantee that anyone who seconded the bill is going to actually vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker, all we did by having the seconders was to enable the bill to get on the order of precedence.

I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to an actual document. I will not show it to the House, but this is the petition I sent around with various signatures. It contains the signature of the member for Athabasca and 112 signatures of other members of the House. The wording I used in order to obtain those signatures was precisely this: “I second Bill C-264 and would like to see it be placed immediately on the order of precedence”. There was no promise about the detailed contents of the bill. It was simply an undertaking that they would support the bill and to see it on the order of precedence so it could be debated.

I refer you also, Mr. Speaker, to the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the subcommittee that examined the issue of private members' business when it considered the various representations to have the 100 signatures as a means of seconding a bill and getting it on the order of precedence.

That report came out about a year ago. It says, “If the sponsoring member is prepared to work hard to solicit support, and if enough members feel that the item should be debated”, just be debated, “then this alternative procedure” should be instituted. The alternative procedure in the recommendation is that the standing orders be amended to allow items outside the order of precedence that have been jointly seconded by at least 100 members from at least two recognized political parties in the House of Commons to be placed on the order of precedence.

We are not talking about the deep substance of the bill. We are talking about the bill in principle. We are talking only about the bill getting into the House to be debated.

He said that he would expect any changes, major or minor, should have been brought to the attention of members of the House. When we have a very large bill it is impossible to discuss with 113 members every change we might be contemplating, because the details of any legislation in the House, be it private members' legislation or government bills, are a matter of debate in the House and in committee. The committee and the House decide on the fate of the bill based on that debate.

It is totally unreasonable for the member for Athabasca to have expected me to go to him and 112 other members to detail every change I contemplated with the bill. I repeat that the member for Athabasca was in the House when the revised version went forward.

[Privilege, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was taken entirely by surprise by the member for Athabasca's point of privilege this morning. I came into the office and it was remarkable to be named on a point of privilege when I have advanced what I think is one of the most important private member's initiatives that the House has seen for many years.

The member has chosen to attack the very presence of this bill in the House, which has now arrived on the order of precedence.

In essence, what the member has suggested is that there is some impropriety in the fact that I introduced this bill at first reading two years ago at about the same time as the subcommittee on Private Members' Business, that is, the House procedure and affairs standing committee on Private Members' Business, introduced an amendment and made a recommendation to the effect that any member of this House who had a private member's bill that enjoyed more than 100 seconders from three parties should go directly on the order of precedence.

Indeed, I sought and did obtain 113 signatures, all from backbenchers; none from members of the government and no parliamentary secretaries. But I did obtain the support.

Subsequent to obtaining that support, as a result of representations made to me on my bill, I submitted a revised version of the bill in June 1998, and that bill now is before the House as the result of the member for Langley—Abbotsford, a member of the Reform Party—

[National Highway Policy, December 17th, 1999]

I am sorry that the Reform Party takes such an attitude when this is a very historic moment. I will go quickly through it.

Two thousand years ago global free trade existed. It is what we had in the Roman world, tremendous prosperity because based on Rome the entire world was in a situation where trade was centred on Rome and Rome became very wealthy but prosperity existed all around the Mediterranean rim.

I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, we have precisely the same situation now. We remember what happened to Rome. Eventually global free trade in Roman times collapsed. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, we have to remember as we go into the next millennium that what we see before us in terms of global free trade is only temporary. We should be worried as Canadians and people of the world of the consequences when eventually global free trade collapses in this world in this millennium. We will see it, I am sure, in the coming years.

We also have the parallel of climate change. Two thousand years ago in the Roman world in north Africa the desert was green. Of course the reason why the cities are empty in north Africa is that there was a major climate change that occurred after the year 2000.

Finally is the parallel and so singular between 2,000 years ago and today is the fact that 2,000 years ago there was a vacuum in religion. There was a vacuum in organized religion. They accepted gods as being set aside for the rationalism of Hellenistic Greece, of Aristotle. We know that the world as it existed then had fragmented into cults and we know then that led to the foundation 2,000 years ago of two great religions, because 2,000 years ago was the birth of Jesus Christ and a few centuries later Muhammad arrived on the scene and we now, 2,000 years later, have two great religions of the world.

I just wanted to take note that we are entering into the new millennium. It is an exciting new millennium and I think that this country of all the countries is the best suited for it because we leave this century stronger than when we began. I believe our democracy and this parliament has demonstrated with the civility of our debate, even in the independence questions, that we are a model to the rest of the world and that we stand the best chances—