John Bryden

[National Highway Policy, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this is the last day of the 1900s and to end it in Private Members' Business with a discussion on roads is one of the most significant moments in this parliament, because this parliament has demonstrated throughout this century that it is one of the finest political institutions in the world and one of the most democratic.

With the permission of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, I would like to make a few remarks that pertain more to the end of the millennium than they do to roads. Some years ago I found myself alone travelling in Tunisia and I came across a ruined Roman city in the mountains, right on the edge of the mountains in Tunisia, next to the desert. This city probably had a population of about 20,000 or 30,000 and it was far more dramatic than Pompeii.

For those Canadians who may have travelled in north Africa, they will know that the Roman ruins and Roman cities are very well preserved in north Africa. One can actually walk down the streets of these cities and feel as though one is back 2,000 years, because the streets are there, the shops are there and the aqueducts are there. The only thing that is missing is the people.

I point out that 2,000 years ago the world was not that much different than it is today. In fact, there are eerie coincidences between the state of the world 2,000 years ago and the state we find the world in today. I point out that at that time, the time of the city that I walked through, Rome ruled the world. Rome was the superpower and from Rome it ruled all the civilized world. Roman culture was everywhere.

I point out that we have the same type of situation now, 2,000 years later, when we have another superpower, the United States, that not only is its political influence felt everywhere but so too is its cultural influence. That was precisely the situation that existed 2,000 years ago.

Indeed Rome was known for its military might. Not only was it tremendously far advanced in the military technology of the day, in the type of weapons the Roman soldiers used and the catapults and the other kinds of siege weapons that the Romans had developed, but it had a tremendous martial spirit so the quality of its soldiers was what basically kept the peace in the world of 2,000 years ago.

We cannot help but be struck by the parallel that the United States again has a similar military power, an all pervasive military power. Yet we have to remember that pervasive military power has been tested, as it was later in Rome, in places like Yugoslavia and Somalia.

What has been found, as was the case 2,000 years ago, is that all the military technology in the world does not save a nation when it has problems with its soldiers losing the esprit de corps, shall we say, and that happened in Rome. We see that again happening in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia where despite all the technology the Americans and the United Nations, if you will, were not able to control the type of independence movement that occurred in these countries. Indeed, that is precisely what happened in the Roman world.

Then we had a kind of global free trade 2,000 years ago.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you did something on your own initiative and I know unintentionally that deprived me of an opportunity to speak at what I thought was a crucial time. I point out to you this is possibly the last debate for the end of the millennium. I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to make a couple of comments. Is this going on tomorrow?

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for an excellent speech.

In Ontario, we have to deal with a premier, Mr. Mike Harris, who is using money that should be going to social programs for other purposes. Faced with a province that will not support social programs, I wonder if the solution would not be for the federal government to give more money to charitable and non-profit organizations, which in turn could deliver social programs.

Would the hon. member opposite be comfortable with such a solution?

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.

Is it true that one of the winning conditions for the separatists would be to have as prime minister a party leader like Joe Clark, since Mr. Joe Who likes to be chummy with the separatists? If we had not a clear question, everything would be lost with Mr. Clark as prime minister.

[Blood Samples Act, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Lakeland and I would like to change positions on the order of precedence of our Private Members' Business. He is on for tomorrow and I am about 12 down. Members might recall that my bill is Bill C-206, which is a bill to amend the Access to Information Act. There are about 80 proposed amendments and the bill has all party support from every party in the House. All the backbenchers support it, Mr. Speaker.

But my problem, or our problem, the member for Lakeland and I, is that his position is tomorrow and the rule of Private Members' Business is that there should be 48 hours notice. I would ask the House if I could get unanimous consent to waive the 48 hour rule and replace it with 24 hours notice so that we can make the exchange tomorrow.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at last I get to speak on the Nisga'a treaty.

I would like to begin by picking up on something the former speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, said when he pointed out that it was the duty of the opposition to oppose. I noticed that throughout this debate there have been representatives of the Nisga'a people in the gallery. I would like to say to them that the member for Selkirk—Interlake is very correct. Something goes absolutely wrong in parliament when there is no opposition. This place becomes a dangerous place when everyone is on side, Mr. Speaker. I do believe that the Reform Party, which seems to be the sole party that is opposing this legislation, is doing its duty, and quite properly so.

Having said that, I would like to look at some of the arguments the Reform Party has put forward. I have to say that I do find some of the arguments wanting. I would like to just strip away some of the rhetoric of those arguments which seem to fall into three categories.

The first argument is that the Nisga'a treaty is wrong because it transgresses the constitution in some way.

The second argument is that there is great uncertainty about how the laws will be applied by the Nisga'a; those laws that are given to the Nisga'a people as a result of the treaty.

Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the other major concerns expressed by the opposition was that somehow the citizenship that would be applied to the Nisga'a lands is a race-based citizenship.

Firstly, Madam Speaker, on the constitutional question, I followed the debate very, very closely. Quite frankly, there is no substance to the fear that the constitution of Canada is being somehow circumvented through the back door. The reality is that there is nothing in this legislation and in the treaty that does not fully empower this parliament to devolve certain privileges in law to the Nisga'a people. It is no different than when the constitution or the Parliament of Canada gives certain privileges in law to a province, to a municipality or anything like that. I just did not find any substance in the constitutional issue at all.

However, the second problem, the problem that pertains to how the Nisga'a people will manage those laws. Well, there is always fear and this is where the debate from the Reform Party has had substance, because it is correct to look at what powers the Nisga'a people are going to have and to wonder whether the Nisga'a people are going to apply those powers in a just and equitable manner.

There is some reason for concern in B.C. on this very issue right as we speak, because not long ago the Musqueam Band in Vancouver acquired from the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs the right to manage its properties that were on the reserve. It had a number of rental properties that came up for lease renewal involving some 71 non-native families. This has led to a very unfortunate confrontation between the Musqueam leadership and the tenants on this property.

I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that I went out there to try to arbitrate and bring the two sides together. It seemed to me that if both sides could sit down and work out their differences in good faith, the situation could be resolved. But, Madam Speaker, I failed in my mission, and as a result I wrote a letter to the minister just summarizing the results of my mission to the Musqueam, shall we say.

I would like to read a few passages, Madam Speaker. I will not take too much time on it. If you are patient, you will see how it does relate to the Nisga'a peoples' agreement. Anyway, I met with the Musqueam Band and its tenants on September 30-October 1. In writing to the minister, I said:

I met with representatives of the tenants first. Given the acrimony of the current situation, they said they would like nothing better than to leave the reserve but, naturally, want some kind of compensation for the money they have invested in their homes. In some cases that money may have been considerable.

The next day I met with the chief, the band lawyer, and a handful of the band council. The discussion was dominated by the chief, the lawyer and one councillor whom I will refer to as the band leadership. They were adamant that the tenants should either pay up or get out.

In my presentation I stressed that in my opinion while the tenants had long enjoyed an unreasonably low rents and probably did not have any legal basis for compensation, it was in the band's material interest to be conciliatory and offer the tenants something in exchange for the good will that would be engendered. I emphasized that if the tenants are evicted summarily, this could compromise the band's ability to attract new tenants and other investors. The leadership rejected this proposition outright, although I do not know what impression I made on those councillors who did not speak.

Clearly under the influence of their lawyer, who has no other client than the band, the leadership is convinced that the tenant properties are worth the rents decreed by the courts ($22,000 average plus taxes of about $5,000). The leadership contends that it has the full support of the band community in insisting on these rents. I suggested that notwithstanding the court decision, rental properties are only worth what people are willing to pay. This idea was rejected.

I am quite convinced that because of the failure between these two groups to come to terms, and because there is a lawyer involved who is preventing people of goodwill from speaking one on one, that not only will the tenants lose but I believe the band will lose. I believe the band will lose heavily because I think it will have terrible problems getting any kind of income on those properties. Nevertheless, it has become a political issue within the band.

As a matter of fact, the chief said to me that he does not like politicians, and yet he appears to me to be playing politics himself.

Finally, I have one other paragraph. I said to the minister:

If the band is to learn a hard lesson by its unyielding attitude, then it must do so. Self-government by any community means that the community must bear the consequences of the decisions of its elected leaders. Enough advice has been offered the leadership. In the end the decision is theirs.

What does that have to do with the Reform Party's concern about the Nisga'a? It is simply that when we give people independence, when we give people the right to make their own choices about their future, we also give them the right to make mistakes, and that is democracy.

How many times has the Reform Party—and it really only has been the Reform Party-raised concerns, and very legitimate concerns, about what the Nisga'a will do when they get this right to manage their own affairs. Will they always make the right decision? No, Madam Speaker. They may make many mistakes, just as the provincial government makes many mistakes, just as my own municipality and the city of Hamilton often has made mistakes that are quite contrary to the interests of the people in the region.

So, too, the Nisga'a must be allowed to make their mistakes because, Madam Speaker, that is democracy. When it really comes down to it, what is sovereignty but the ability to make our own mistakes and be responsible for it. So, I say that what we see is democracy in action. Actually, I would hope that the Nisga'a will be tremendously successful, more successful, because if they leave the lawyers alone and if they negotiate and talk with other Canadians, with the spirit of goodwill, their own conscience and their own good judgment, I am sure that the Nisga'a nation will be a wonderful success.

The final question is the race-based citizenship. I want to draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the fact that what we are really talking about here is not race-based citizenship, what we are talking about is territory. We are talking about territory in the same sense that we talk about Quebec as a territory. I noted that during the debate often the Bloc Quebecois supported the Nisga'a in their aspirations because the Bloc Quebecois saw resonance with the situation with the Quebecois, who wish of course to have a sense of preservation of their identity.

What is it that the Quebecois or the Nisga'a are preserving? Are they trying to preserve the race? I think not in the case of the Quebecois. They would never that they want a province to be based only on the white race. Are they trying to preserve francophones? No, because there are allophones and anglophones in Quebec. Are they trying to preserve the French language? No, not just the French language because there are people who speak other languages, many other languages in Quebec.

What I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that they are trying to preserve in the territory of Quebec, and I suggest to you this is the same situation with the Nisga'a people, is they are trying to preserve a culture, a heritage. They do not want that heritage to be lost. When I read the Nisga'a treaty and the legislation, I noticed that the Nisga'a have provided for the fact that ultimately—and maybe it will become that way—anyone could become a Nisga'a. The key thing is to preserve a tradition, a tradition that goes back hundreds of years and goes back before Quebec.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure to rise in this debate because just yesterday I was saying that I felt that the Bloc Quebecois, despite their agenda of sovereignty, contributes mightily to this parliament. I think this motion today is an example of a very positive contribution of the Bloc Quebecois.

I do not have a lot of time, but I would like to take this debate in a particular direction. I would like to draw the Bloc's attention and this parliament's attention to the fact that organized crime has also entered the field of charities. I think this is something that should be of concern to the justice committee when it comes to act on the motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

Mr. Speaker, organized crime enters the field of voluntary service in a number of ways. One way is the proliferation of various telemarketing and direct mail scams. The commercial crime squad of the RCMP has recently reported, in Montreal in fact, that there have been links to the biker gangs. They have established links to biker gangs of organizations that are engaged in soliciting funds by telemarketing.

These are the people, Mr. Speaker, who phone and chiefly prey on the senior citizens in our society, both in French and in English, I have to say. It very much is a Canadian thing because this type of activity occurs and all we Canadians, our elderly parents, actually are very vulnerable to it.

So this kind of thing is going on, Mr. Speaker. The other thing that is occurring that again I believe is the effect of organized crime, and this is the case of international organized crime where organizations take advantage of the ethnic makeup of Canada and perpetrate scams that basically involve making contact with individuals from whatever ethnic group and saying that a long lost relative has died in Africa, or Europe, or the former Yugoslavia, or the far east, and that they have been left an inheritance.

A lot of people have lost a lot of money through these scams which, again according to sources in the RCMP commercial crime squads, often are linked to international organized crime. Canada's ethnic community is very vulnerable to this kind of thing.

But, Mr. Speaker, probably the most significant penetration of organized crime into the charity field has to do with the fact that as the law stands now with respect to non-profit organizations, and especially charities, because there is so little scrutiny on the way charities operate, and so little scrutiny on the financial affairs of charities, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that charities have become a major conduit for the laundering of money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give you chapter and verse on which charities are engaged in this or which organizations are actually involved in it because, frankly, I do not know. I am not a policeman. I am not somebody who is involved in ferreting out criminal activity. I can tell you though, Mr. Speaker, based on my research, and you know, Mr. Speaker, I am very active in examining the charity sector, I can tell you that there is a lot of evidence, and recorded evidence, that charities have been used as fronts to finance overseas ethnic conflicts and terrorism.

That stands to reason, Mr. Speaker, because a charity can collect money. Under the current rules a charity can collect in loose change, shall we say, at bingos and lotteries and all that kind of thing, more than a million dollars and there is absolutely no way that that money can be audited as it stands now. On the other side with charitable organizations that have overseas branches, again there is no mechanism, Mr. Speaker, to be sure that when that money of that charity is transferred out of this country to its parent organization in another country, that that parent organization is not using it to finance ethnic conflict or some very non-charitable activity.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what is good for international terrorism, I suggest to you, is good for international organized crime and I will say that the government has shown some interest in this area and we can hope that perhaps we will move with some kind of legislation, or some better regulations at the very least, to control charities which I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, is a $90 billion industry that has run for years and years without any kind of meaningful oversight.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I am glad to put that on the record so that that can be part of what the justice committee considers when it follows through on the motion by the Bloc Quebecois, but I will end my remarks by saying that I think it is an excellent motion. I think it is the credit to my colleagues opposite and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, you know they do so well, that sometimes I wish that they were the official opposition but then, what can I say, Mr. Speaker. They would have to change their politics for me to really believe that. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank them as well.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it gives me an opportunity to conclude by observing that what I was trying to say, and I do not know whether I was successful or not, was that Canada is bigger than just tourism. We are admired worldwide because of our spirit of tolerance. There is no better example of it than the fact that we can have a dialogue here, a real dialogue among Canadians who do not share the same views of national unity.

I think that is something to celebrate. I think that when we speak of tourism I want to brag about not just my lakes, forests and mountains, but I want to brag about this parliament that permits the kind of debate that we have here.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have said all I wanted to say.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is how separatists and federalists speak to each other.

I was there when the Prime Minister ran into that demonstrator in Hull. It was quite dreadful, because the Prime Minister and the demonstrators exchanged words in front of school children. For a brief moment, in an amusement park with ice sculptures, a demonstrator shouted dreadful things. Then, the Prime Minister left the stage and the demonstrator stepped in his way. Any normal human being would have reacted the same way, and I saw how the Prime Minister reacted.

In British Columbia, RCMP officers had to deal with students in a very difficult situation. I once was a reporter and I can tell the House that the media have exploited the situation and ignored the facts.

Lastly, I think Reformers have created quite a stir with the questions they chose to ask in the House of Commons about this event, because I believed that Canadians for the most part understand what happened when the students decided to confront the RCMP in order to grab the headlines.