John Bryden

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would not for one instance disagree with any ruling that you make with respect to this issue being a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I realize that you have carefully considered the issue and you have consulted with the experts you have around you.

My concern is with the motion itself. I have to say to my House leader and to my colleagues on all sides of the House that I believe the motion is of sufficient importance that we should treat it as an issue of conscience and as a free vote.

It is for this reason. If my colleagues speak out in criticism of you, Mr. Speaker, which is what this is all about, and they are then as a consequence brought before a committee of the House and required to defend what they have said, I feel that their punishment has been meted out, that they have been called to account, that there have been sanctions.

As I spoke earlier, I believe in our parliamentary system and our democracy that every MP should have a right to criticize anyone as long as the criticism falls into the realm of fair comment. In this instance the criticisms fell into the realm of fair comment. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would have found ample precedents on other occasions where MPs have suggested because of a Speaker's ruling that the Speaker's election may be in jeopardy at some future time.

I am concerned that this issue strikes at the very heart of the freedom of MPs to speak out both within and without the Chamber. If they do not feel free to speak out, if they hesitate to speak out because of some perceived sanction that may be imposed upon them at a later time by their colleagues in committee, I do not think we will get the debates, either in the Chamber or in public, that we need in order to proceed to consider the issues carefully in a democratic fashion.

I hesitate to say this because I always want to support my side in the House. I considered very carefully the comments of the government House leader. However, on an issue as close to the heart as the freedom of every one of us in the House to speak out, both within and without the House, I have to say I cannot support the motion.

[Privilege, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit that this is certainly not a case of contempt of parliament because the comments and questions attack individuals and not parliament as a whole.

As it happens we in the House are always subject to criticisms and attacks. The Prime Minister is subject to it on a daily basis in question period. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should be subject to it from time to time as well, if MPs so choose to make these comments.

The very essence of free speech in a democracy is that every member of Parliament has the opportunity and the right to express his views no matter how unpalatable they are to the rest of us. It is the very essence of a democracy that the newspapers have a right to seek and report those views.

In this case there was no threat. There was merely speculation that you, Mr. Speaker, would be subject to extreme criticism from within this parliament because of whatever decision you might bring down in this instance.

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, you are an elected person. I can remember at the end of the last parliament there was a great deal of newspaper speculation about whether you would be re-elected in the next parliament as a result of some of the decisions that you made. This is normal. This is the kind of fair comment that should exist in a democracy.

We cannot stop MPs from expressing themselves even though the majority of us may disagree with what they say. It is a threat to free speech if in any way, Mr. Speaker, you rule that this is a case of contempt.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I note that Canada is ending this millennium and about to enter the next as one of the best countries in the world. It is very appropriate to celebrate this by introducing this type of millennium fund grant program for young people.

Is there not room in the heart of the hon. member across the way, in the heart of Bloquistes and the heart of souverainistes, to have pride in a country that has been so successful and to encourage that pride among young Quebeckers who, after all, will not be dictated to on what to think as a result of the millennium fund and are simply being invited to share in one of the best countries in the world?

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question very quickly. You are quite right.

Conservative members suggested cutting taxes, which would cost $2 billion. They proposed through the member for St. John's West free tuition, which would cost $2.6 billion. They also proposed increasing transfers for another $1 billion.

Does the member for Calgary Southeast agree with the $5.6 billion in new spending suggested in the Conservative motion?

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Yes, I did. Early in his remarks he criticized the government for having incurred a hundred billion debt in the course of the four years of its mandate. He was alluding to the fact that it took us four years to reduce the deficit of $44 billion a year down to zero. He was criticizing us for not cutting spending fast enough.

We are Liberals, not Reformers. We believe we have to move rather reasonably on these things and not an immediate slash and burn. We tried to move ahead in cutting spending in an orderly fashion so the economy could get used to it.

Nevertheless, after four years we did get there. I am sure the member for Calgary Southeast will agree it is very good to get the deficit down to zero and to start paying down the debt.

If the member for Calgary Southeast who supports the Conservative motion listened very carefully to what the Conservatives were saying, he would have heard that the Conservatives—

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of the member for Calgary Southeast.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the member for St. John's West commented considerably on the fact that student unemployment is the crucial problem. Would he not agree that student debt is not the problem, it is student unemployment? They come out of university and cannot get jobs to pay off their debts.

Does he not agree that is because the economic situation which exists in his province and across the country was a result of Conservative mismanagement of the economy for nine years? That is why there are no jobs. It is his former government that is—

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a contradiction in the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat in his support for the motion.

The member repeatedly said the debt should have priority. He said that over and over again. Yet when we look at the motion it does not discuss debt at all. It discusses only tax cuts.

I cannot understand why the member for Medicine Hat would want to support the motion when his own leader has said that debt reduction has priority, yet this motion gives priority to tax cuts. Is he not in a contradiction here?

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Kings—Hants in his remarks said that members opposite were smiling. I was watching along here and there was no one smiling at the time.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Reform Party at this time. Generally I find when Reformers make their points in debate, while sometimes wrongly thought out, they are always genuine, whereas the member for Sherbrooke has offered the scenario that because disposable income is going down, it is somehow the fault of this government.

He knows disposable income is tied to economic health and he knows that the government of which he was a part ran up an annual deficit of $44 billion and a debt of $600 billion plus. He knows full well that no government can turn that around overnight. This government has reduced the deficit and will reduce the deficit to zero. Will he acknowledge that the situation of which he complains is his former government's fault?