John Bryden

[Canada Marine Act, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill. It is a very fine bill. At third reading I hope to speak at greater length than the five minutes I have allotted to me now.

This is a very good bill because it replaces, in my region, an appointed harbour commission with a port authority of seven to eleven directors. In Bill C-44 is built in an elaborate series of systems of accountability and checks and balances where a board of directors is required to file annual reports, make annual statements, disclose salaries, subject themselves to periodic audits and thus forth.

When I examined the bill, however, I found it deficient in one small corner. That was with respect to the appointment of the board of directors should a port authority replace the Hamilton Harbour Commission in my riding. As the bill is now composed, the board of directors would consist of a member appointed from the province, a member appointed by the minister and a member appointed by the municipalities that might be mentioned in the letters patent.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the two specific sections which apply to my Motions Nos. 20 and 31. The one that clearly states the situation is the one which states that the letters patent shall set out the following information for the appointment of directors and it will be one individual appointed by the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent.

My amendment would simply add the word "each" between the words "by" and "the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent". As the wording currently exists it gives the minister the opportunity to name only one director from all the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent. If the word "each" were inserted in this clause it would enable the minister to appoint as many directors representing as many municipalities that are mentioned in the letters patent.

That seems like a very small point and it is. But it is very significant in my riding because Hamilton harbour, as everyone knows, consists on one side of the city of Hamilton and on the north shore the city of Burlington. Historically the two communities have shared the harbour even though in the early days of the 19th century Hamilton grew much faster than Burlington and consequently most of the harbour facilities are on the south shore.

On the north shore there is a lot of residential development and some very fine shoreline wildlife and recreational facilities. Whatever happens to the port of Hamilton ultimately impacts on the city of Burlington. This amendment I proposed simply would guarantee the city of Burlington having representation on the new port authority at such time as the Hamilton harbour commissioners are replaced by a port authority.

It is a matter of fairness but it is also a matter of relevance. I think the city of Burlington has now grown significantly in economic strength to stand on an equal footing with the city of Hamilton.

Therefore this is simply an amendment that will not affect other communities because the minister still retains the right to name which municipalities in the letters patent he thinks should have a membership on the board of directors. It does not impede his freedom of action when it comes to making a decision about port authorities.

Traditionally Hamilton harbour has always been called such by the people of Hamilton. However, on the north shore it has always been called Burlington bay. I think the bill is an opportunity to bring these two communities together on the management of a very important body of water which, indeed important to all residents of the Golden Horseshoe.

The city of Burlington to stress its feelings that it needed representation on any port authority board of directors, should a port authority be named for the Hamilton area, passed a resolution on Monday, February 10. This is Motion No. 24 from the council of the city of Burlington:

"Whereas Burlington and Hamilton each share approximately one half of the shoreline of Hamilton harbour; and whereas the harbour provides many beneficial uses and amenities for residents of Burlington; and whereas harbour governance in decision making is vitally important to the city of Burlington;

"Now therefore the city of Burlington hereby endorses the efforts of Mr. John Bryden, MP to seek amendments to the proposed Bill C-44, the Canada ports authority act, which would promote the creation of a Canada port authority for Hamilton harbour, governed by a board of directors which includes representatives of both the cities of Burlington and Hamilton".

The House has an opportunity to listen to a municipality which is making a request to this Parliament. It is a very fair request. I hope the House will see fit to support the two amendments I brought forward at report stage.

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was disappointed with my hon. colleague's swan song and remarks at the end of his speech.

His speech was fine but he concluded his remarks by saying that Parliament was useless. That is basically what he said. Perhaps Parliament does not necessarily agree with the positions taken by his constituents which he feels he reflects when he stands here. He says that there is great cynicism in the land because Parliament is not acting on the viewpoint he presents on child pornography and child prostitution. That is unfortunate. Everyone in the House feels very acutely the horror of the abuse of children in any sense.

I support Bill C-27, but it opens some very difficult areas. My hon. friend mentioned one of those areas when he talked about child pornography. He said that Parliament has to do something about the distribution of materials which celebrate sex and violence, especially when these materials are aimed at children.

One of the reasons we have these debates and one of the reasons I am here is to say to the hon. member that he is right, we have to act on child pornography. We have to act on pornography of any

kind. However, how do we do that and not interfere with free speech? That is the problem.

Whenever we get into areas of crime and victims rights we always have to weigh the other side, the interests of seeing that the accused has a fair day in court and that the innocent are not punished. We always have that balance in debate, even though in our hearts we reach out to the victims of crime. Certainly children are the ultimate victims of crime.

Does my hon. friend not agree that we have to debate these issues in the House to make sure that in our desire to address the victims of crime we do not interfere with fundamental liberties like freedom of speech? There are video games, board games and television shows which cross the line with respect to violence and pornography which are aimed at children. Would he stop those things?

These are the problems which we face. I would ask him to comment on that. How do we balance in a parliamentary debate the interests of the victims with the interests of the rights of the citizens of this country?

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, earlier in the debate I raised the issue that Bill C-46 involves prohibitions on the opportunities of the accused to seek information that is relevant to his defence. It was elsewhere said that this was not really a prohibition, but it was a limitation that was being talked about in the bill and that the point I raised earlier was entirely a question of semantics.

I would like to draw the attention of the Speaker to some definitions in the Oxford Concise Dictionary. For "prohibition" we find in the dictionary the definition of "to prevent, make impossible". Then elsewhere in the dictionary under the word "limit" we find "a point or line, or level beyond which something does not and may not pass". Elsewhere under the definition of "restrict" or "restriction" we find the definition of "a limitation placed on action".

I would suggest the point that I made earlier is not a matter of mere semantics. It is at the very core of this debate. If we are talking about limitations on the rights of the accused to defend himself, to prove his innocence or to demonstrate his innocence, if we are talking about limitations or prohibitions, they are one and the same. We are limiting the right of the accused to defend himself and we run the risk of sending an innocent person to jail.

I believe that is something we should give the highest priority to prevent.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam for her very excellent speech which covered a number of very important points, points of reservation about this legislation.

I wish to convey to her this information. The Canadian Association of Defence Lawyers has declared that if the bill goes through as currently written, innocent people will go to jail. The reason is that the bill puts limitations on what records the accused can obtain because it puts prohibitions on what the judge can request of a third party. These limitations, these guidelines, and the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam gave some examples, restrict the opportunity of the accused to have a fair trial because the judge does not have unlimited discretion to determine what third party records can be called forward.

The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam made the interesting point that the symbol of justice is a female and it is sort of relevant to this. It would be terrible if this legislation were to go through and innocent people did go to jail, remembering that the symbol of justice is a woman.

Nevertheless I would ask the hon. member whether she feels that in principle we as legislators should always protect the rights of the innocent versus the rights of people to privacy. In her mind which is more important?

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the member for Windsor-St. Clair with great interest.

The bill is fundamentally flawed because of a misunderstanding of the import of certain words used by the member for Windsor--

St. Clair. She said that the bill did not provide any prohibitions for the production of records. She went on later to explain that the bill, with its amendments to the Criminal Code, set out criteria the judge must use to consider whether the records are to be produced.

Later she went on to say there were underlying rules the accused must meet to be entitled to have access or to have the judge demand the records the accused wishes to have.

When we set out rules and criteria by which records are to be produced or not to be produced we are setting up prohibitions. The best way to approach the production of records is to leave the production of records to the discretion of judges and not to set rules which are in fact prohibited reasons for the judges to consider demanding records as requested by the accused.

Is it not true that if an accused does not meet the underlying rules or the criteria laid out in Bill C-46 the judge will prohibit the production of records? Is there not a prohibition there in fact?

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way with great attention. I have to tell you that his words cause me great distress.

The reality is, whatever the shortcomings of the budget, and I do not think it has many shortcomings, it has done nothing to attack organized labour. It has not attacked unions. Indeed, other legislation is drawing a line in the sand on replacement workers. The government has taken very positive steps toward supporting organized labour.

Does the member opposite recommend therefore that the government, in order to save money, should have attacked the spending on the unions? Should we have sought the rollbacks and cutbacks that the provincial government in Quebec and Mr. Bouchard are applying to the unions in Quebec? Is this the model that we should be following? Should we be doing what the Parti Quebecois is doing to the unions in Quebec? Is this what he wants the government to do? Please answer.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks with great attention. He commented on how this budget takes aim at certain areas of the economy, that it does not attack multinationals.

This budget has spared the big unions. It has not done anything that would erode the rights of organized labour to earn a wage and to have its rights. In Quebec we have a situation where the Government of Quebec is attacking the public service unions. it is trying to cut their pay and benefits. I suggest to my colleague that we have a federal government that supports the traditions and rights of organized labour, yet we have a provincial government that has been threatening those very rights and those very incomes of organized labour. Could he comment on the situation in Quebec vis-à-vis what the federal government is doing?

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand and reply to my hon. colleague whose remarks were very well taken.

However, I would like to react to his observation that because the federal government is cutting transfers to the provinces for health and education it is irresponsible.

He correctly points out that we certainly are trying to stimulate business. On the one hand, by stimulating businesses we create energy in the economy. Businesses, for profit industries, do make money and they are self-controlling to a certain extent in that they are accountable to their shareholders. By stimulating small and medium size businesses we do much good for the economy.

The problem with the health and educational sector is that they are industries which are entirely not for profit. The difficulty is that at both the provincial and the federal level, and I think my colleague will agree, there has been a lack of scrutiny and demand for efficiencies that perhaps there should have been, particularly through the late 1970s and early 1980s.

As I see it, the problem is that when the federal government is giving transfers to the organizations which are under provincial control, it realizes that there are enormous efficiencies, perhaps operating at about one third of their maximum efficiency. What is the choice if we are going to bring efficiencies to this sector but to cut the transfers from the federal government to the provincial governments? How else can we encourage the provincial governments which actually control these sectors to demand better accountability and better efficiencies?

[Privilege, March 11th, 1997]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Canada Labour Code, March 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville made reference to the one clause in the bill that pertains to grain shipments. I think we all agree on both sides of this House that is an incredibly progress step to limit the stopping of grain shipments as a result of third party work stoppages.

Because that clause is so important and so progressive and it is going to do so much to encourage the movement of grain, is he going to reject the bill because it does not do everything else he wants, therefore rejecting that clause as a consequence?