John Bryden

[Access To Information Act, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get this debate on track immediately.

I obviously support Bill C-216. I think it is an excellent bill in every way, and very important right now. However, this morning when I arrived at my office, the effect of Bill C-216 was clearly felt because on my desk were representations by letter from the CBC and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited complaining that this bill, if passed into law, would be a serious threat to their competitive position and other things.

Let's just get it straight for everyone. Section 18 of the existing Access to Information Act fully protects the competitive position of any government institution. I will read a section from that. Section 18 states: “The head of a government institution”, which could be CBC or AECL “can refuse to disclose any record requested under the act that contains trade secrets or financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to a government institution and has substantial value”.

Furthermore, in subsection (b) of section 18 it states that the “government institution can refuse to disclose information that can be reasonably expected to prejudice the competitive position of a government institution”.

I have the greatest respect for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey, but the reality is that the current Access to Information Act fully protects an institution's competitive position.

If you go further through section 18 you will find other provisions. In fact, it is too broad because it does not put a monetary value on the commercial information that belongs to the government institution. It should, and I think an amendment is in order there. Let's get it straight from the outset that there is no problem with respect to the competitive position of Canada Post or anyone else. That is a red herring. It is a red herring that has been around for years and it is time we were done with it.

Second, I received a letter from the CBC and it raised an additional concern, that we should hesitate with regard to applying the Access to Information Act to an organization like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It brought up the question of journalistic integrity.

I have been a journalist for a long time, both as a reporter and as an editor, and I cannot say that I can remember a single instance in which I received or sent a note that I was not willing to let the public see. Journalists are like politicians.

The reality is that neither journalists nor politicians want to do anything that is improper. When we talk about journalistic integrity, we mean not only what is open and public but also what is not open and public. There should be nothing in journalism that should not be available to the public to read. There may be some things that would cause embarrassment, but that is another case entirely.

I cannot see the problem of opening up the CBC to the Access to Information Act. There may be an argument that the journalists receive all kinds of information in confidence from the people they talk to. Indeed, editors and reporters do discuss with individuals in confidence when they are preparing stories.

Section 19 of the current Access to Information Act covers that as well. It says that a government institution may refuse to disclose any information which is considered personal information under section 3 of the Privacy Act.

I happen to have that section 3 of the Privacy Act. I will not read all of the types of personal information protected by the Privacy Act and consequently would be protected under the Access to Information Act, but section (b) says it would be information relating to the medical, criminal or employment history of an individual. Another section says correspondence sent to a government institution by the individual is implicitly confidential and the views and opinions of another individual about the individual.

When we examine that section of the Privacy Act which is covered by the Access to Information Act, we realize that a journalist and an MP for that matter in dealing in a confidential manner with the public, those confidential dealings would be excluded under the Access to Information Act.

The CBC has no case for exclusions under the act because the act already provides for the type of concerns the CBC might raise. On the other hand, what would we get if the Access to Information Act did apply to the CBC or AECL? What would we get access to? We might get access to records that deal with mismanagement. We might get access to records that deal with nepotism. I understand from some of my sources that nepotism is a little bit of a problem in the CBC. We might get access to records that deal with laziness or political correctness. I bet the CBC has a problem with political correctness.

Would we not as parliamentarians and the public love to see documents pertaining to political correctness. What it boils down to is this. We cannot regulate institutions whether they are for profit government institutions or whatever unless we have transparency. We cannot have accountability without transparency. We must have a certain level of confidentiality.

In the Access to Information Act there is plenty of provision for that and maybe too much. The important thing is for open government. An institution that proclaims itself to be an institution of integrity should be willing to have much of its documents open to the public so that we the taxpayer, the MPs who are actually paying the salary of the CBC, can see whether its is running as efficiently as it should.

I support Bill C-216. I think every member of this House should get onside.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Instead of the smoke and mirrors of a false debate, of a phoney debate about a preamble that has no force or about accountability that cannot exist, we are talking about a government board that has producers on it. It is accountable in the traditional way that government bodies are accountable. They are accountable to their elected representatives who are represented in turn by the minister.

He, in his wisdom, has set up a board which does have composition with farmers. That is the real debate. If the members of the opposition really want to do something constructive, then by all means they should have a debate that criticizes clauses in the bill.

It is the clauses in the bill that will be ruled on by the courts which actually govern how the bill will operate. Please, a debate about a preamble that everyone knows is meaningless is not really a serious debate at all.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

They protest. What they are proposing is unions. That party does not want government in Ottawa. It does not want government in the provinces. It wants some sort of people's parliament that can only translate into a union. As usual, the Reform Part is on the same side as the Bloc Quebecois, wishing to dismantle government institutions in favour of regional institutions. That is an absolute formula for disaster for the country.

Thank heavens you were not going away, Madam Speaker; I was a little worried there.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Hansard

will disclose that this comment was made.

I feel very strongly that it is a privilege to speak in the House, on either side of the House, on the opposition side or on the government side. We all have a duty to examine legislation whether or not we have special expertise in the area under debate.

The suggestion that only westerners can debate a wheat board bill plays right into the hands of the separatists who would suggest that the only people who can debate the future of Quebec are people who live in Quebec. I reject that and I think most Canadians reject it.

What I would like to contribute to this debate is what little I can contribute to the debate. I would like to talk about the question of preambles.

As I understand it, Motion No. 1 put forward by the official opposition would establish a preamble to the bill. I am not a lawyer and many members on the other side are not lawyers, but if they would care to pick up the telephone and ask for advice, they would discover that preambles do not count for anything in legislation. Legislation begins where it states “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts”. The legislation follows that.

I have been campaigning on my side of the House to stop government legislatures, bureaucrats, whoever writes the laws, from writing preambles. Preambles are smokescreens. Preambles are when the clauses in the legislation are not sufficiently exact. The clauses do not say and do what the government is convinced they will do.

We have the opposition suggesting that we should pass legislation which carries on a tradition that really got rolling in the 35th Parliament of smoke and mirrors through preambles.

What does it really mean if there is a preamble which states “whereas agriculture is a basic foundation stone of the Canadian economy?” What does that mean? What will it do for a judge? Does it really matter? Will it affect how the law will be interpreted? I suggest not.

It has no force on judges. My colleagues opposite can check it. In the legal profession they call it the pious hope clause. It has no binding implications for what the judge must do. The judge must read after enacts.

There has been debate about the wording accountable to farmers being in the preamble. This is where I will have to accuse my colleagues opposite of not wanting to have a rational debate.

The phrase accountable to farmers sounds noble. I know it will play very well in western Canada, but we are talking about government legislation. We are talking about setting up a federal government body. We are not setting up a provincial body. We are not setting up a farmers union. We are setting up a body that has to be responsible to the federal minister because there is no other way of doing it.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting to take part in the debate because agriculture is an area of great expertise. I draw your attention to members opposite who have just asked me to sit down. I apparently in the opinion of some members opposite should not speak because I am not directly involved in agriculture.

One of the reasons I am speaking is that I have sat here for about an hour and a half listening to the debate, especially the comments from the opposite side. Among the things that have been said by those opposite is their suggestion that everyone on this side is a lawyer as if somehow that is something reprehensible and a reason for not commenting on legislation.

At the time that comment was made there were quite a number of Liberal MPs on this side of the House, and I have to say none of them were lawyers including myself.

Another thing I found reprehensible in the debate coming from the other side was the suggestion from one member of the Reform Party that because MPs may not be from the west, may not be from the prairies and may not be directly associated with farmers growing wheat, they somehow had no right to participate in a debate on the bill. It is certainly true that I am from central Ontario—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The colleague opposite keeps referring to individuals on this side and suggesting to the Canadian people that there are lawyers and only lawyers on this side who are listening to the debate. I think that is an irrelevant point and he should not be calling attention untruthfully to the composition of the people on this side of the House. I am not a lawyer.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is true. It is very simple.

I have a question for the member. Is it true that Mr. Bouchard is still the real leader of the Bloc and it is he who is leading the attack against the government on this subject?

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is all very clear. The Bloc wants compensation for the GST for reasons that are not valid.

It must be remembered that the Premier of Quebec is the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois. When Mr. Bouchard was leader of the official opposition, he argued in favour of sovereignty. Before the referendum, he said that it was possible for Quebec to stand alone. He said that sovereignty was simple. Then there was the referendum.

Now, Mr. Bouchard is Premier of Quebec and has to deal with an unhealthy economy in that province. Unemployment is high, there are problems in the business sector, and Mr. Bouchard has made major cuts. I think Mr. Bouchard is looking to get money from the rest of Canada to pay for the cuts he made.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, during question period today the health minister in reply to a question from the opposition said that Canada has one of the toughest anti-tobacco laws in the world. He also mentioned that this government, Health Canada, was planning on spending $100 million on tobacco control in the next few years.

Tobacco never killed people on the highway. Tobacco never broke up families. Tobacco never led to beatings. Yet the government, and governments traditionally, not just the current Liberal government but the government before it, Health Canada, has a whole division and countless employees focused on tobacco.

I wonder if the member for Mississauga South would give his feelings with respect to why Health Canada does not invest at least an equivalent amount of money on alcohol control. Why do we not have a tough alcohol law?

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague of the Bloc. I do not often have occasion to congratulate my Bloc colleague on an excellent speech. This issue is so important that it must cross party lines. We must all try very carefully to avoid trying to make political capital out of it.

As my colleague said, it is a case that goes beyond simply increased penalties. It is not a matter of increased penalties. It is a matter of finding a solution that is more equitable for victims, for everyone who is involved in the tragedy of drunk driving. If it is a matter of changing the mechanism by which we appoint judges, so be it.

I take it from the remarks of my hon. colleague opposite that he agrees with me that in matters of justice, justice must be tempered with compassion. We can only have compassion in the courts if we give discretion to judges and we can only give discretion to judges if we have good judges.