John Bryden

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for York South—Weston knows and the member for Wild Rose ought to know, the issues we are debating tonight are considered and deliberated on in committee, either the finance committee or the justice committee.

I would like to ask a direct question of the member for York South—Weston. Does he have the courage to tell the House whether in this current session of parliament he has attended a single committee meeting and if—

[Division No. 203, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I know voting this late in the evening is very stressful for us. I also know that you are very concerned, as are the rest of us, about decorum in the House. I would appreciate it very much if you would rule on the propriety of the member for Medicine Hat and the member for Edmonton North playing cards in the House of Commons while the Leader of the Opposition looks on.

[Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I can get unanimous consent to rise on debate for about 30 seconds in order to move an amendment to the motion before the House?

[Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that this is Canada. In some respects perhaps Billy Barker did not do so badly for not having recognition when we remember that Billy Bishop got the recognition as the kid who could not miss.

In the National Film Board treatment of Billy Bishop's career it was posed that Billy Bishop lied about the victories that gave him the Victoria Cross. This was the subject of a great debate in the Senate. There were protests around the country on the fabrication of the story that maligned one of our first world war aces.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. I find it slightly flawed in only one respect. It celebrates only Billy Barker and his roots coming from Dauphin, Manitoba. I appreciate why the member for Dauphin—Swan River wants to celebrate a local hero. The problem is that we have to be a little careful in that respect because the same may be argued with respect Billy Bishop who was born in Owen Sound and certainly ought to have a similar memorial. So it should be argued with respect to various other military heroes of various communities across the country.

That being said, what is so fine about bringing the issue before the House of Commons is that it is not a just question of Billy Barker. It is not just a question of Billy Bishop either. What we are remembering about these two men is the tremendous contribution that Canadian first world war fighter pilots made to the first world war. They were legends in their own time. It was a different era. It was the last era of military chivalry. The best knights of the air were Canadian pilots Billy Bishop and Billy Barker.

I remind the member for Dauphin—Swan River that there are other less well known heroes but heroes nevertheless. I refer to Wop May who went on to be one of Canada's most famous bush pilots and Roy Brown who was remembered as the man who shot down Baron von Richthofen, the Red Baron.

Billy Bishop is famous because he was the surviving ace with the most victories at 72. Richthofen was the ace of the second world war with the most sheer victories before he was killed, some 80 victories.

I have read the autobiography of Billy Bishop. I recommend that all Canadians read it to get into the mind of an individual who reflected the spirit of chivalry that existed on all sides in the air battle during the first world war. It also reflects the Canadian independence of spirit that made Canadian soldiers both in the first world war and in the second world war some of the most admired soldiers of any nation in the world. Certainly that was the case with the fighter pilots of the first world war.

Fortunately, I assure the member for Dauphin—Swan River, there is one very excellent memorial to Billy Barker, Billy Bishop, Wop May and Roy Brown. It is a series of novels by Donald Jack that are loosely called the Bandy Papers. Three Cheers For Me is one of the titles and there are several others.

I say to all Canadians that if they want to read good Canadian literature about Canadian fictional heroes taken from the real life stories of the real heroes they should read the Bandy Papers by Donald Jack. They are some of the most amusing reading I have ever read.

They are very insightful. They build on the wartime careers of both fighter aces. They describe the struggles these two men had. How do I describe it? The British were not great champions of independence. In fact one of the problems of the recognition of the first world war fighter pilots of Canada was that the British were very loath to recognize the colonials for what they did as colonials. In fact they would only acknowledge anyone who was flying the British roundels as a British pilot. They would not acknowledge that Canadians were actually the lead pilots in the Commonwealth forces during the first world war.

I will digress for a minute. If members of the House would like to get an idea of what it was like in Billy Bishop's day or Billy Barker's day, I recommend they go to the Canada warplane museum here in Ottawa. There is a ride available on a Stearman biplane. For $40 one can fly over Ottawa.

I had the great good fortune last summer when my son and I went out to the warplane museum and we took a ride in the biplane. It is quite incredible. We flew over the parliament buildings and over the river. We had this great sense of slow motion and this great sense of being next to the sky, next to the air. We could see what inspired those Canadian pilots of so many years ago. For anyone who wants that thrill, that thrill is available.

To come back to the point, my problem with the motion is simply that it does not go far enough. I wish it were a votable motion and that we could amend it to honour all the Canadian first world war flying aces. I agree with the member. We cannot leave it to bureaucrats, to academics who are sitting out there surrounded by weird senses of personal power.

It does not matter a fig what Billy Barker did after the war. It does not matter a fig what Billy Bishop did after the war. They were heroes during the war. They were special heroes. They were heroes who were admired the world over. Can we in Canada not do anything better than condemn one of those heroes with a National Film Board production called The Kid Who Couldn't Miss which actually maligned one of our heroes?

I hope the minister is listening to this. I hope all Canadians are listening to this because I congratulate the member for Dauphin—Swan River. However, it should not be just Billy Barker, it should be all the Canadian fighter pilot heroes of the first world war.

[Year 2000, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, governments are spending millions of dollars trying to fix the so-called millennium bug. This is the glitch whereby computers have a two digit date code that cannot recognize the year 2000. Unless their microchips are reprogrammed the machines and the systems they serve will come to a crashing halt at the end of 1999.

The Reform Party has a similar millennium bug. Its constitution is like a microchip in that it contains the party's entire philosophy in a very small space and, like a microchip, also has a self-destruct clause that requires the party to dissolve itself in the year 2000.

Unless Reformers reprogram their constitution at their convention this weekend the party will soon be no more. If I may suggest it to the members opposite, don't do it. They should encourage their delegates to do nothing. Let the millennium bug bite. If they really want to unite the right, then they should let the party and especially its leader simply go “poof”.

[Criminal Records Act, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member turned this into partisan politics when this is private members' hour because Bill C-284 is very important. If he is seeking the support on this side of the House he should have spared us the shots against the government and the shots against the Liberals in suggesting that we have no compassion.

Indeed this is an important bill. On this side of the House we do have free votes in Private Members' Business. This is why we are here. This is why we hear different points of view.

I have to say to the member for Calgary Centre that I think it is a very good bill. He has introduced something that a chord that is of great concern to all of us. What is interesting to me is he actually touches on a much broader issue, privacy and criminality.

We have a situation now where we can make the parallel between what is proposed by Bill C-284, the release of certain criminal record information in relation to people who have received pardons, and the Young Offenders Act. Young offenders after being convicted have certain protections, certainly in family court.

This whole issue of whether when a person is convicted of a serious criminal offence they should be entitled under any circumstances to privacy I think is a broader issue that deserves a lot of future debate.

Normally I am uncomfortable with some of the anti-crime stances the Reform Party takes. Often they seem to be very extreme. In this instance the member for Calgary Centre is proposing something the government should pay very careful attention to.

In the last parliament the government proposed Bill C-55. That bill was related to the one we are talking about and the parliamentary secretary to solicitor general made reference to it in his speech. That bill addressed the problem of what to do about convicted and released sexual offenders to avoid them coming back to the environment in which they are tempted to act out another crime. That bill proposed electronic monitoring. It was to give judges the discretion to put electronic shackles on individuals without warrants, without charges even, so that when they came into the area of a playground or something like that a bell would go off via satellite and the police would come and pick them up.

If there is ever any question in this House that the debates we have on legislation can have an impact, the debates that Bill C-55 sparked and the criticism that came in this House as a result of the concept of putting electronic shackles on people before there had been any arrest or charge resulted in that bill being thrown out. In other words, in the last parliament a bill came forward from the justice department which in comparison to what has been proposed by the member for Calgary Centre was draconian. What the member for Calgary Centre proposes does have merit.

What the member is simply saying is that when a pardon is granted it should be a discretionary pardon in the sense that the solicitor general through the Criminal Records Act reserves the right to release the information of that record to certain groups and individuals who seek to know whether a person soliciting employment that involves responsibility with children has a previous conviction.

This is not unreasonable. This is actually much more reasonable than having some sort of device attached permanently to someone to prevent them from coming anywhere near children.

My problem is simply that I am not sure we need the legislation of Bill C-284 to accomplish the mission the member for Calgary Centre is setting out to do. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the Criminal Records Act but I have read all the previous speeches, including his, and it does seem the solicitor general already has latitude. I agree with this legislation in principle, but rather than using legislation to accomplish what he is trying to do we could probably do it by regulation.

Partisan politics aside, this is where private members' hour becomes very important. The member for Calgary Centre has raised an issue that does concern us. He suggests the direction the government may take and if we set aside partisan politics, if hon. members listened carefully to the speech of the parliamentary secretary for the justice department, they would have heard her say the government is interested in this. The government is listening. The government does care about it.

I think the member for Calgary Centre has accomplished something very important. He is touching on an issue that is much broader, privacy and criminality.

I congratulate him on bringing this before the House and I think at the very least he has brought his message forward to all Liberals on this side and to the government. This is an area where a fix can and should be made.

[Criminal Code, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue because I believe it is a classic example of the value of Private Members' Business.

I congratulate the member for Drummond for bringing the bill forward. It addresses one portion of an issue that was covered in Bill C-47, the bill that died on the order paper as a result of the last election which purported to make all kinds of fixes to issues of human reproductive technology.

One of the problems with our present system of government sponsored legislation is that the government tries to get, and rightly so, as much bang for its buck as it can. It prepares omnibus bills that address entire issues.

For instance, Bill C-20 is a very elaborate bill that is looking at amendments to the Competition Act. There is a group of bills that look at whole issues that are debated in very grand style. Sometimes they occasionally come to grief because they try to fix so many areas that many flaws are discovered and the bills fail. Bill C-47 on human reproductive technology is a case in point.

What killed it for me was that it wanted to stop genetic research which would have in effect led researchers along avenues that would have corrected genetically inheritable diseases like muscular dystrophy. We had this incredible situation where a law was coming down the pike that would have stopped cloning of human beings, which we all agree is frightening and something we should at least have a very long moratorium on. By the same token it would have attempted to kill research in areas very much in the public interest that hopefully would alleviate human suffering.

The problem is that the government—and I do not mean it as a criticism of the government—traditionally in the parliamentary system has always come down with big bills.

Where I think Private Members' Business has a tremendous role is doing exactly what the member for Drummond is doing with her bill which looks at one urgent issue. That urgent issue is that at least Canadian society and at least this MP, if I may so, are not prepared to have research go forward which could possibly lead tomorrow to the cloning of human beings. That is a frightening concept.

Not that we can make jest of it, but there are certain members of the opposition I would only want one copy of. If we had multiple copies of them I think we would all be very worried. That aside, the reality is that we are not yet sufficiently sophisticated as human beings to play God. I do not think we can afford to go back into the science fiction books and actually produce multiple copies of the same human beings. Quite apart from religious ramifications it would raise huge ethical dilemmas.

I cannot even begin to imagine the ethical problems that would confront society in the process of choosing who would be copied. Who would it be? Would it be some top politician? Would it be some artist? Who would be the first to be cloned? Then how would we prevent people being copied illicitly who might be carrying genes or characteristics that are reprehensible yet have the money to copy themselves? It is an absolutely unacceptable concept.

The difficulty is we know now that it is possible, or if not possible it is immediately on the horizon. The member for Drummond recognizes this. Discarding all the controversial aspects of Bill C-47, she focused on the one thing that I think most Canadians would absolutely agree with, that we must at least have a moratorium now on the cloning of human beings.

The government's objection, as I understand it, is that the bill would put the restriction and the penalty in the Criminal Code. This is not an appropriate place for this type of penalty. We can give the government the benefit of the doubt on that. The government has to be very concerned about tradition, the appropriateness of legislation and its effect.

I must say I tend to support the member for Drummond on this issue. We must remember that if it goes into the Criminal Code it will only be a temporary measure until we can come back to the issue. Maybe it will take us a year. Maybe it will take us two years. Maybe it will take us ten years, but we can come back to the issue with a more comprehensive bill on reproductive technology.

Quite frankly I do not think we will have an easy ride with any new omnibus legislation on the subject. We need the bill to make very clear that the country does not tolerate and will not tolerate attempts to clone human beings. We can be open to other forms of genetic research because we have to, because it is in the interests of humanity to encourage our scientists to continue with genetic research, but we should draw a line in the sand.

The bill does it. It puts it in the Criminal Code but probably only temporarily and later we can move it to a more appropriate place.

This is a classic example of Private Members' Business which raises an important issue, offers Canadian society and the government a way of putting on the back burner a very difficult and emotional issue and sets it aside for now until society knows better how to address it.

I have to say the member for Drummond has done us a service by bringing the issue before the House and I thank her for it.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Upholder is the Shawinigan . Vessels like the Shawinigan are more than a match for vessels like the Upholder, and the Shawinigan costs a lot less.

The reason the Upholder is a good investment, and I support the government on this, is that we need to have modern submarines in order to play games with the Americans. Basically that is what it amounts to. In order to stay abreast of any submarine warfare we have to have the latest in technology and the Oberon class of submarines is the latest in technology.

I also note that the purchase of the British submarines is basically an exchange deal for time on Canadian ranges for British troops. It is not so much a dollar investment as it is a military exchange with the United Kingdom.

In the end, in tomorrow's world, smaller is better, although I do support, in principle at least, the purchase of the four British submarines.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the member's question is, we need to make more of a financial investment.

We already have the infrastructure because the armouries are there, but if we invest in another 10,000 reservists and the equipment they require we will more than recoup that investment in the savings we make on intercity problems. It is not that we are taking off the street kids who would otherwise be involved in crime. It is not that at all. When we take young people into the Canadian forces in a reserve capacity what happens is that they go back into their communities with their uniforms and they become a part of the community. It is like the Boy Scouts. They return to their communities and they have a tremendous role to play.

We saw the value of the reserves, of the citizen soldiery, in the ice storm incident and in the problem we had with the floods out west.

It is a worthy investment. Let us agree on all sides of the House that we can conclude this debate by saying there is consensus on all sides of the House to invest more in the reserves and to do more for the young people of Canada. It will promote the nation, it will promote the flag and it will make Canadians that much more proud of themselves.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of a debate like this is that we can raise genuine issues that we are concerned about.

When I was at Meaford I was impressed by the basic weaponry they were supplied with. They had excellent weaponry. But I did notice that the tents, for example, in the communications area, although well organized with maps and so on, had holes in them. My thought was that if it rained they would get pretty wet. There was no doubt about it.

I would also like to say that while I applaud the fact that the primary reserve level has been brought up to 30,000, I would actually like to see it increased even more. I would like to see the reserve increased by another 10,000.

What I failed to mention in my speech is that the reserves have an enormous role to play in our society in giving young people an opportunity to serve in an environment in which they put selfish motives aside and look at larger issues such as serving their country and being part of an effort that is not celebrating just the individual, but working together as a group.

Do not mistake my remarks that I am only here to praise the government. I believe there are things the government can do. I agree with the member on the equipment problem. I believe from what I have heard the defence minister say, especially during question period, that there is a move afoot to re-equip the Canadian forces. If we are going to send these kids out to fight it is very important that they have the best weapons.

I believe that someone at the head of the defence establishment, and I would like to think it is the minister but I suspect there is some brass involved as well, is thinking ahead and will supply the Canadian forces with the appropriate weaponry first. Next must come good equipment and, I agree, more hours if possible.