EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 137
CONTENTS
Monday, October 19, 1998
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| SALARIES FOR STAY AT HOME MOTHERS AND FATHERS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1110
1115
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1120
1125
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1130
1135
| Mr. David Price |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1140
1145
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1150
1155
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
|
| Bill C-54. Second reading
|
| Hon. John Manley |
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1340
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| STUDENT WEEK OF ACTION
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| APEC SUMMIT
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1400
| THE LATE RIGHT HON. BRIAN DICKSON
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| GOVERNOR GENERAL'S AWARD
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1405
| THE LATE RIGHT HON. BRIAN DICKSON
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| THE CABINET
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| JULIE PAYETTE
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| CANADIAN COAST GUARD
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| ANDRÉ O. DUMAS
|
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
1410
| CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| FAMILY SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| 1998 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW BRUNSWICK
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE SENATE
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
| ACTION PLAN FOR FOOD SECURITY
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1450
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1455
| MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1500
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
1515
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1520
| REFORM PARTY'S ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT
|
| Bill C-442. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
|
| Bill S-11. First reading
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1525
| PETITIONS
|
| Indonesia's Chinese Community
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| The Family
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Alcohol
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1530
| Bill C-68
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Bill C-225
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| Justice
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Bill C-225
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Cruelty to Animals
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Bill C-68
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| The Hon. Allan Rock |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1535
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
|
| Bill C-54. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1540
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1545
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1550
1555
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1600
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1605
1610
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1615
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1640
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1645
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1650
1655
1700
1705
| Mr. John Bryden |
1710
1715
| Mr. John Bryden |
1720
1725
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1730
1735
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1740
1745
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1750
1755
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1800
1805
1810
1815
| Mr. John Bryden |
1820
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
| Asbestos
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 137
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 19, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[Translation]
SALARIES FOR STAY AT HOME MOTHERS AND FATHERS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at
home to care for their children.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 1997, I tabled the
following motion in the Order Paper and Notice Paper:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at
home to care for their children.
I thank the Liberal member for Mississauga South, who seconded
my motion today.
We have been promoting this idea, with the support of many
Canadians, for several years. On April 28, 1998, I said in this
House that Canadian and Quebec parents seem to have the best of
intentions about sharing the job of raising children.
Canadians must recognize the contribution made by parents in
raising their children and governments must give them the
maximum support possible.
It is my view, and that of many Canadians, that a guaranteed
annual salary would be an important tool in the fight against
poverty.
At the instigation of the Minister of Finance, an ad hoc Liberal
committee was formed in April to examine possible solutions to
the problem of unpaid work in the home.
In point of fact, the Income Tax Act discriminates against
Canadian parents who choose to care for their own children,
especially those who have large families.
An example is the Côté-Germain family of 1016 Quessey Street in
Val d'Or, Abitibi, whose child tax benefit was cut by a whopping
$280 a month this year. Right now there are nine children in
this family, and in a few months there will be ten.
The eleven of them are relying on a single gross annual salary
of $55,000 and, to add insult to injury, are not entitled to a
GST refund.
The Government of Canada's tax legislation does not take size of
family into account. We should rethink our approach and draft
legislation that is fair to Canadian families.
I would like to thank Beverley Smith of Calgary, who has worked
for years with a group of Canadian stakeholders in support of
salaries for women and men who stay at home to raise their
children. For many years now, the people of Abitibi and
Canadian MPs have known about my efforts to see mothers or
fathers who stay at home to care for their children paid a
salary.
I turn the floor over to my colleagues. Canadian parents want
to hear whether or not you will be supporting my motion today.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to the motion which has been presented by the
hon. member for Abitibi. For many of the people watching it
might be wise to read the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at
home to care for their children.
For many years, in spite of the concerned voices of many
Canadian families and the intense lobbying work by many in this
House including even some in the Liberal Party, the government
has chosen tax funded support of only one approach to child care.
That one approach is institutional day care, not parental care or
extended family care, but only formal day care.
In the current budget I thought the Liberal cabinet and the
finance minister might finally have heard parents who want the
discrimination against their options of child care, including
full time homemaker and parent, to stop. But they went in the
other direction again. They increased the child care expense
deduction for the cost of institutionalized day care by up to
$2,000 more per child but did absolutely nothing to recognize the
cost and value of other forms of care parents choose to provide.
It is interesting that this is what they have done.
1110
I have consulted a number of studies that point out how
important parental care is to the long term emotional stability
of children. Even without considering those studies, let us
consider why the government cannot treat parents' choices
equally. If the government will provide up to a $7,000 deduction
for institutional receipted care expenses, why can parents who
choose other options not also be considered? This question has
been asked again and again by parents and it was asked loudly
after the current budget ignored them one more time.
Perhaps the motion on the floor of the House today which calls
for parents to be employed by the government, i.e., the
government would pay them a salary to be parents, is the Liberal
government's best solution, but surely we can do even better. I
appreciate the member's attempt to recognize the value of
parental care in the motion. I truly hope it is a real start.
However, based on the federal government's repeated determination
to only subsidize day care, and it increased the tax breaks for
it just eight months ago, there is little real hope that the
pattern will change with the current government. Parents will
continue to be told that through the tax system the only valuable
child care is non-parental day care. That is tragic.
Let us assume somebody is listening and perhaps today's debate
will influence the government to finally consider changes to
bring in fair family tax reforms. The Reform Party has long
called for fair family tax reforms.
Let us seriously consider the motion. It calls for the
government to pay parents. Does this give parents the freedom to
choose the child care arrangement that best works for them? Does
it allow them to make that choice without discriminating tax
treatment? Is it really simple?
I have had parents ask me these questions. How would this work?
If parents work part time and only use day care a little bit and
care for their children at home the rest of the time, do they get
a salary for being stay at home parents? What if a grandparent
or another member of the extended family looked after the kids
when the parents were working and occasionally day care was used
but three days a week mom was home for part of the day, what do
they get?
There are some families where parents work alternative shifts.
One parent is with the children in the day and the other at night
and maybe there is an hour with a sitter. Do these parents
qualify? They both work but they both stay at home with the
kids.
Add to this that life is dynamic. Situations change because of
illness, job changes, moves, et cetera. Child care arrangements
within families may often change several times in the same year.
Picture trying to figure all this out on an already overly
complex tax form. Does this not add more stress to the family?
Maybe there is a better way. There is and I am going to get to
that in a moment.
First let me ask are Canadian families not also concerned about
their country and the overall prudent operation of the
government? I think they are. Why then would they want to pay
the high taxes that they pay? I should point out that the
Liberal government has raised taxes 37 times since coming to
power. Why would they want to pay these high taxes and have the
government flow that money through Revenue Canada and only have
Revenue Canada give some of it back to the same taxpayer? This is
expensive bureaucratic manoeuvring. Where is the value added by
flowing the money through Revenue Canada? Put a dollar in and
get 75 cents back out. The bureaucracy burns up the rest.
Why not just leave the dollar with the taxpaying family in the
first place? Save us all the money. That family pays less tax
and has more disposable income now when it is needed. Other
taxpayers are saved the expense of collecting dollars from and
returning dollars to the same people.
The Reform Party, driven by its membership made up of thousands
of Canadian families, has long called for fair family tax
treatment when it comes to child care costs. Instead of just a
child care expense deduction for day care, Reformers have long
proposed a child care expense credit that would be available to
all parents. This per child credit can be deducted directly from
the tax the parents are required to pay thereby leaving the money
and the child care choices with them.
1115
If the family has no tax to pay, then the credit would be paid
to them in the form of a refund. This way everyone receives
equal monetary recognition for the costs of child care,
regardless of the method of child care chosen. As well, there is
no added bureaucratic cost flowing through Revenue Canada.
Finally, let us examine the concept of paying someone to be a
parent. The proposal in this Liberal motion today would give the
appearance that stay at home parents are employed by the state.
In effect, parents would be hired using their own money. This is
strange. Down the road would conditions be applied to the
salary? Is it conceivable that parents would be required to meet
some government set of parenting rules or risk loosing the
salary? Is that far-fetched? Perhaps, but why go down that
road? History is full of examples of things that people thought
would never happen, but they did. Do parents have children so
they can be employed by the state? No. Parents have children to
build a family and express their love.
It is better to recognize that there is a cost and a social
contribution to raising the next generation of Canadians and all
parents, regardless of the change in child care options chosen,
should be given the same degree of tax relief. There is no
salary that appropriately addresses the interaction between
loving parents and their children and it is inappropriate to try
to set one.
In summary, it is good that this motion is a recognition of
significant tax inequities and tax discrimination against
homemakers. Unfortunately, this government, in typical fashion,
also demonstrates an approach that increases government
dependency and wasteful spending through an inefficient
methodology. Instead, replacing the child care expense deduction
with a fully refundable child care expense credit is a much
superior means to addressing the current inequities in the tax
structure. It would not be dependent on the method of child care
chosen and it would reduce both family and government
administrative overhead.
This approach to a fair family tax system for Canadian families,
which the Reform Party has long advocated and developed, is
simple, flexible and efficient. Most importantly, it is good for
Canadian families and it is good for the children they care for.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise on this motion on
behalf of the people in the riding of
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at
home to care for their children.
My first thought is that the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik has introduced an interesting
subject for public debate, but that his position is either very
naïve or out of touch with reality.
Everyone in Canada knows that family policy is a provincial
responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Government of
Quebec. Furthermore, the proposal by the Liberal member, a
member of the majority, is totally contrary to the approach his
government has taken in recent years.
We will recall that, in 1993, the electoral promises of the
Liberals included a national child care service. In short, they
said:
We must try harder—A Liberal government will create up to
50,000 child care spaces—
We are still looking for them. The project was cancelled. It
was swept under the carpet. This is the first contradiction
with the motion of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
In
the meantime, the government responsible for family policy set
up a $5 child care service, which is so popular that they are
looking all over for money to meet the demand. People in Quebec
gave some thought to finding the appropriate solution. It was
put into effect and is working.
This is an example where the federal government and federal MPs
should limit themselves to proposing interventions in areas of
federal jurisdiction.
There may well be a certain amount of visibility involved.
There may also be a real desire to improve a difficult
situation, but I cannot say the solution proposed is the right
one.
1120
During their prebudget consultations throughout Quebec, Bloc
Quebecois members held information sessions and listened to what
people had to say. Let me give you an example.
Take the case of a young couple who earned $20,000 in a given
year, or about $10,000 for each person. They have three
children. At the end of the year, they receive their income tax
assessments, and are asked to pay $500 and $800 respectively. On
the same day, they also receive a letter telling them they are
allowed to invest $10,000 in an RRSP. We are talking about a
couple with three children and an annual income of $20,000. To
tell them they owe taxes and then say that they could have
invested up to $10,000 in an RRSP is adding insult to injury.
These are the real tax problems in Canada. They have to do with
the indexing of tax tables. We must make sure that low income
people can manage adequately, and not necessarily by having an
additional salary, as suggested in the member's proposal.
The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is contradicting his own
government. Let us not forget that, over the two mandates of
this government, transfer payments to the provinces have been
reduced by $42.2 billion. In order to truly improve the plight
of our families, would it not be better for the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik to propose that the money be given back
to the provinces, now that we will have budget surpluses? Is
this not a much more pressing need, and would it not be a much
more realistic solution to the problems being faced?
Here is another contradiction. The Liberal government reduced
access to employment insurance benefits for women on maternity
leave by implementing a reform that makes it much more difficult
to qualify for benefits. On the one hand, they want to pay a
salary to the spouse who stays at home, while on the other hand
they make it harder to qualify, so much so that women on
maternity leave can no longer qualify for employment insurance
benefits. This is another contradiction that dampens the
member's good will. I think there are other initiatives he could
propose that would produce much more positive results.
There is the whole issue of pay equity. There is talk of paying
a salary to the stay-at-home parent, but the government does not
even comply with the rulings issued by its own tribunals, which
provide that there must be equal pay for work of equal value.
This principle was confirmed by a tribunal, and now the federal
government is trying to find some way to avoid having to pay the
amounts involved.
They refused to settle out of court, a ruling was handed down
and now they will not abide by it. This is yet another example
of bad faith.
While the intention behind the motion of the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is good, the solutions put forward are
not first rate.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are proposing constructive solutions,
which I will outline again. First, to use the surpluses to
restore social transfers to the provinces. If they get their
share back, the provinces will be able, within their
jurisdictions, to direct the funding where it is needed and to
decide where it is best invested; as a result, individual
citizens will have an adequate income to ensure the economic
well-being of their families.
The second solution is to negotiate in good faith with the
Government of Quebec so that its new family policy can be fully
implemented. We also ask that the federal government withdraw
its appeal before the federal court on the issue of pay equity
in the public service and make changes to employment insurance
to provide greater access to maternity leave.
The whole issue of income for stay at home spouses is a complex
issue that must be examined thoroughly. We must seek the opinion
of women's groups on this. We must consider solutions people put
forward.
There is a problem that needs to be resolved. Traditionally,
women are the ones who stay at home for thirty years or so.
By the time they reach retirement age, they may be widowed,
divorced, separated or what not, and find that they have to fend
for themselves. But unlike women who have been on the labour
market, they do not have access to a plan like the Quebec
pension plan or the Canada pension plan.
With respect to social protection, we should give serious
thought to ensuring that women do not find themselves in a
difficult financial situation at that time in life. But the
solution is not necessarily to provide a salary to stay at home
parents. I think this whole issue needs to be revisited.
1125
In conclusion, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik has
proposed a significant motion for ensuring that our families
have a decent income. As far as solutions are concerned, he is
disadvantaged by being a member of a government that has been
unwilling to find solutions to problems and is now living with
the results of its inaction, namely increased poverty in Canada.
The gap between rich and poor is widening. It is becoming
increasingly difficult for families to survive as families.
There are no easy solutions to this problem, but there is a need
for an overall strategy, a collective intervention strategy
which will make it possible to find a satisfactory solution.
This is why I wish to see a strategy that respects
jurisdictions.
If there is one instance where Quebec can show that it is
working efficiently within a jurisdiction that belongs to it, it
is the way it has defended social rights.
At the present time, there is someone in Quebec who wants to
become premier and who has no concern whatsoever for providing
people with social protection, and he has decided that Quebec
needs to be nothing more than a market-based economy. It is my
impression that Mr. Charest will be getting the very clear
message that the people of Quebec want nothing to do with this
model. They have developed another, and are capable of
continuing to develop it.
This motion by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is a
good starting point for reflection. He will need to see that it
is debated further within his caucus so that we may all work
together to focus the same amount of energy on overall solutions
to poverty as there was on overcoming the deficit.
More original solutions must be found, and not at the expense of
the poorest members of society, so that in 10 years from now
when we are retired, we will be able to say we did our part in
the battle against poverty.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion
that is before us.
I would like to thank the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for bringing forward this motion
because it provides us with an opportunity to talk about a very
important issue, that is, the role of caregivers who are
primarily women in the home in our society. It is a very
important issue that I think must be debated in the House.
We in the NDP believe that it is very important that the role of
caregivers, primarily women working in the home, is recognized.
Women working in the home are often portrayed negatively in a
society that seems to place value only on economic pursuits. In
fact, child rearing is the most important task that we face as
individuals and as a society.
From that standpoint this motion is grounded on some important
principles that we should be debating. One of those principles
is that our children are our most valuable resource and those who
care for children on a full time basis must be recognized as
providing an important service to society. They are nurturing
those who will shape the future of our society.
However, having said that I must point out that we have some
concerns about this motion because it is put forward in a very
simplistic way and does not give any context to the condition
that we now find ourselves in of growing poverty, growing
unemployment and fewer and fewer options for caregivers and
parents who remain in the home.
For example, what safeguard is there that the salary that the
motion refers to will be adequate to ensure that caregivers, who
are mostly women, will have the options that women have been
struggling for over the course of the last 100 years? I think
the danger here is that the salary the motion refers to will be
so far below the poverty line that it will serve the opposite
purpose than that which is intended. Instead of adding to the
value of the work that women do in the home, it could actually
undervalue the important contribution that caregivers make.
Instead of opening doors for women it could limit the options.
We only have to look at other issues of public policy and at how
we treat caregivers in the home to see how we undervalue that
work. This is where the danger lies in the motion. We only have
to look at welfare policies. In most provinces welfare payments
are way below the poverty line. Many people who are on welfare
are women. They are raising children. They are struggling to
pay rent and to meet the daily needs of food. We only have to
look at the situation with the EI cutbacks which are forcing more
and more women into a range of more and more limited options, if
they can even claim EI.
1130
We note from the changes in the regulations that less than 40%
of workers who pay into UI, many of whom are women, are now no
longer eligible. It is forcing those women back into poverty and
back into a situation where they cannot meet the basic needs of
raising their families. Those are the kinds of public policy
decisions we have had that have really pointed the finger at the
Liberal government as to what it really thinks about the role of
women and caregivers at home.
We only have to look at pay equity and the disastrous course
this government has embarked on in terms of denying federal
civil servants what has rightfully been theirs for so many years.
That struggle has gone on for more than 14 years. The member
needs to go back to his own caucus and his own government to
establish accountability and to point out the contradictions and
the hypocrisy this government has put to Canadians in terms of
policies that have actually penalized women and caregivers.
A program of affordable quality child care would truly provide
women with meaningful options. At the same time it would ensure
all children were given the necessary early education and care
despite a woman's income. There is no question that families in
Canada are under incredible pressure. Prolonged high
unemployment, a labour market in which wages are stagnant and
jobs are hard to come by, and massive cuts to social programs and
public services have made it more and more difficult for families
to meet their own needs and the needs of their children. The fact
is that affordable, accessible, high quality early childhood
education and child care are critical components of an integrated
strategy to meet the needs of families. Unfortunately this
motion does not address that.
Child care performs many important functions in our society,
functions that improve the quality of life for children and
families, both for those who are poor and for those who are not.
High quality child care and early childhood education ensure
children are given important foundations necessary for healthy
growth and development throughout the rest of their lives. Access
to child care is a key source of equality for women because it
allows women access to jobs, therefore improving their chances
for greater economic equality. As such we should look at child
care as an anti-poverty measure for Canada's children.
The sad reality is the Liberals and the Tories before them have
not taken this issue seriously. The Liberals delivered the
biggest blow to Canadian children by eliminating the Canada
assistance plan which was the only source of federal funding for
regulated child care in Canada. Under the Canada health and
social transfer there is now no provision for federal-provincial
sharing of subsidized child care. Therefore there is no
incentive for provinces to provide more child care spaces. By
eliminating the Canada assistance plan, the Liberals effectively
cut $350 million from federal spending on child care. This hurts
poor women and children the hardest.
Canadians do care about child care. A national survey
commissioned by the child care sector studies steering committee
and conducted by Environics in May found that 89% of Canadians
agree that high quality child care is an important factor in
helping to ensure Canada's future social and economic well-being.
Eighty-one per cent of those surveyed think the government
should develop a plan to improve child care, and seventy-eight
per cent would like to see government spend more money than it
does now to ensure high quality care exists at fees families can
afford. That is a very important matter in terms of
accessibility. Despite promises to the contrary, this government
has done nothing.
In the throne speech of the member's own party, the Liberals had
the gall to say “one of our objectives as a country should be to
ensure that all Canadian children have the best possible
opportunity to develop their full potential”. The truth is that
while 1.4 million children participate in some form of paid child
care, the organizations operate without the support of clear
public policy and with little or no public funding. The shocking
reality is that on average child care workers are paid less than
zoo keepers. In 1996 the net average annual income of caregivers
in regulated family child care was $8,400.
1135
That is the kind of value the Liberal government has placed on
caregivers. I think it raises very serious concerns about where
this motion is coming from, that it is not connected to the
reality of what has happened in Canada which has undermined the
ability of families to provide care at home or to give options to
women to improve their equality and to ensure there is early
childhood education for children.
In 1993 the Liberals abandoned their 1993 election promise to
create 150,000 new child care spaces. The 1997 platform does not
even mention child care, so we have a travesty on our hands.
While we support the idea of remuneration for the important work
mothers and some fathers do in the home, the real issue and the
ideal is to have this become one component of a much broader
comprehensive initiative centred around early childhood care and
education, the equality of women and ensuring there are real
options in the home as well as in the workforce to make sure we
do not see a situation of growing poverty among children and
families. It is to make sure we do not see a situation where
women are denied EI benefits, where women are denied pay equity
and where women are struggling, living below the poverty line
caring for their children.
I urge the member to go back to his government and to point out
the stark realities and the contradictions and the victimization
that has happened to women and children of this country because
of policies from the government.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik has long worked on this. He
presented a similar motion in 1993, when he was a member of the
Progressive Conservative Party. The only difference is that he
referred only to women then. In five years, not only did he
become a Liberal, but he now includes men too. I congratulate
him on that.
The motion is a good idea, but it should be looked at more
seriously. I think that everyone agrees the work done by
parents who stay at home is important and should be recognized
in some way or other. However, a guaranteed hourly salary of
$5.40 is not very realistic these days.
The member must realize that his own government will never agree
to his motion. But it is nice to dream.
If the member were serious, he would perhaps be looking at more
realistic solutions. My colleague from Shefford introduced in
this House a motion to index the child tax benefit, which was
agreed to on division. Perhaps the member should try to
convince his own government to introduce legislation consistent
with his motion.
The government could perhaps think about investing more money in
child care or about giving tax credits. More flexible work
schedules could be established. The hon. member could also
pressure his own caucus to get the government to consider these
proposals.
The cost of such a project could reach $9 billion. I do not
think the government is prepared to spend that kind of money.
I thank the hon. member for proposing this motion, but,
unfortunately, I do not think it is very realistic.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak to this motion today. I extend my
congratulations to the member for Abitibi for taking the time,
with all the issues he could have raised in this House, to put
forward the family and investing in children as the issue he
wanted to bring before the House and phrase it in a way that did
not lock people into anything but rather gave us the opportunity
again to talk about investing in children and the family.
1140
There is no doubt that the Government of Canada has taken
positive steps to invest in our children such as the increases in
the Canada child tax benefit, cumulatively about $1.7 billion of
additional investment. Is it enough? No, but it is a start and
we are working in the right direction.
This is not a debate about child poverty. This is a debate
about the principle of how to invest in children so we improve
the probabilities of better physical, mental and social health
outcomes of children.
Dr. Fraser Mustard, the founder of the Canadian Institute for
Advanced Research, came before the Standing Committee on Health,
of which I was a member, in October 1994. Dr. Mustard provided
us with substantive evidence that childhood outcomes were not a
question of being rich or poor but rather of other factors
related to the quality of care during the formative years of
infancy.
That is a very important point. Poor people can raise very
healthy, well adjusted children. Rich people can have very
poorly developed children. It is not simply a matter of rich and
poor. Poverty is an exacerbating factor, not a causal factor.
I have spent a lot of time on this issue and I want to share
with the House some new research that has come out this year
regarding why it is important to have direct parental care. It
came out in a report that was completed in April 1998 and
published in June 1998. It came from Dr. Christopher Ruhm of the
University of North Carolina.
The study was of population data from 1969 to 1994, 25 years of
population data. It looked at nine European countries, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway and
Sweden.
The study is long but the conclusion is not. The conclusion is
very important. Dr. Ruhm found up to a 29.1% reduction in infant
mortality where paid maternity leave, direct parental care, was
given for the first year of a child's life. That first year is
very important.
The study does elaborate a bit. When he broke down the 29% of
the reduction in infant mortality, Dr. Ruhm found more
specifically that there was a 25% decline in post-neonatal
deaths. That means the first year. Of the 29%, 25%, almost all
of it, had to do with the first year of life. Eleven per cent of
the total was for the period from age one to age five.
This is an issue of quality of care and it has to do with a lot
of issues. One really important issue is breast feeding. There
is a lot of research regarding the importance of breast feeding.
In February of this year the president of the Canadian Paediatric
Society, on behalf of the society said to Canadians that they
wholeheartedly support the international guidelines set by the
World Health Organization and UNICEF that breast feeding should
be given for one year at least for the optimal health of the
children during that first year.
That is not an insignificant amount. They indicated that about
1.5 million children in the world die each year because they are
not breast fed. That is an outstanding statistic that members
should keep in mind.
There is no question in my mind that it is important that we
invest in children and it is not just a matter of throwing money
somewhere and hoping something is going to happen. The issue is
trying to improve the quality of care given to children during
the formative years.
In the Carnegie task force study of 1994 entitled “Starting
Points” the research observed that good physical and mental
health, the ability to learn, to cope with stress, to relate well
with others and to have a positive outlook were all rooted in the
earliest experiences of life. They concluded that where, how and
with whom children spend their early years of life are the most
significant determinants of health.
When we consider the impact on the brain development of a child
and the fact that 80% of the lifetime development of a human
being's brain is complete by age three and that the issue of
abstract reasoning, problem solving and general logic in a
child's brain is all wired and established by age one, there is
no question based on current research that the first year of life
is where we should be investing in our children.
1145
There have also been a number of other studies but I will not go
into them because members have them on the record. Many
initiatives have been brought forward in this place. There have
been bills, such as Bill C-256 in the last parliament, on income
splitting between spouses so one could stay at home and care for
preschool children.
There was Motion No. M-30 on the caregiver tax credit. It
passed in this House in the last parliament. It proposed a
caregiver tax credit for those who supplied care in the home to
preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged and the
disabled. It passed 129 to 63 in this House. I know who the 63
were and they opposed the motion on a technicality, of not
supporting anything that involves spending money. The point is
that when we had the debate in the House, member after member
stood up during the three hours of debate and supported the issue
that we have to support caregivers.
Some suggest that maybe this should go through the Income Tax
Act. I will give one example of why this should not go through
the Income Tax Act. It has to do with farm mothers. Under the
Income Tax Act a woman working on the family farm is not
considered to be working. Therefore she does not qualify for the
child care expense deduction or any other deduction because she
has no earned income. To do it through the Income Tax Act would
be discriminatory against every farm mother in Canada.
It also does not address lone parent families. If the lone
parent cannot work and there is a benefit through the Income Tax
Act and there is no earned income, there is no way the lone
parent could benefit from anything through the tax act.
The best approach is to go back to something we had earlier. It
was called the family allowance. The family allowance was an
allowance for parents because they had children.
Child care costs exist for no other reason than the fact that
the child exists. Parents who provide direct parental care also
have real costs in raising their children.
These are some important points which we should really take into
consideration when we consider a motion like this one. This
issue transcends partisan politics. Some issues are brought up
by private members in good faith. They are not motivated by
partisan politics, not motivated by trying to rattle somebody's
cage, but motivated because those members are prepared to stand
in this House and declare what their interests are and to declare
to their constituents that they care about family and children.
Again I want to congratulate the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. The member has done this House a
service by raising again that investing in children and the
family is the dollar best spent by Canadians. I know that this
is an issue which is shared by many people in this House. I hope
that as we get more and more opportunities in this place to talk
about investing in children and not just about child poverty but
the poverty of physical, mental and social health, we will see
that directing some sort of a benefit to our children is in fact
the best thing for our children.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss this very
important issue. I have to say at the outset that I have some
serious reservations about the hon. member's motion. I ask the
question, would it improve the lives of Canadian children more
than the current initiatives undertaken by the Government of
Canada and our provincial and territorial partners?
It may be helpful at this time to consider the initiatives
presently under way to help give our children every opportunity
to develop their full potential as Canadian citizens. I am sure
that is what the hon. member is hoping to adopt if his motion in
fact were to proceed and go forward. I commend him for his
initiative.
Some of our hon. colleagues have already outlined the
effectiveness of the Canada child tax benefit and other measures
that benefit families with children. I would like to talk a
little about the national children's agenda. I will begin by
briefly outlining the positive history of the development of this
agenda.
In January 1997 at a meeting of the Ministerial Council on
Social Policy Renewal, federal, provincial and territorial
government officials agreed to work together to develop a
national children's agenda.
This agenda was confirmed as a priority for government in the
September 1997 Speech from the Throne. To quote from that speech
“Federal, provincial and territorial governments will work
together to develop this broader agenda for children, including
clear outcome measurements by which to gauge success”.
1150
Further confirmation to the high priority given to the national
children's agenda was evident in the publication of “Securing
our Future Together” and again at the December 1997 meeting of
first ministers. In fact the development of the national
children's agenda to date is a superb example of what can be
accomplished when we work in partnership.
The national children's agenda has a broad scope. The government
and its partners recognize that the full development of our
children cuts across many sectors: health, social services,
justice, and education to name a few. It involves participation
at many levels of authority.
In a February 1997 speech to the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade,
the Prime Minister said that the national children's agenda will
be “an effective, modern, truly national approach to benefits
and services for children and for families”.
At the same time, the government and its partners are not about
to reinvent the wheel. The national children's agenda will build
upon efforts already under way by federal, provincial and
territorial governments, community groups, business and voluntary
sectors, child care professionals and of course families
themselves who have the greatest responsibility for their
children's welfare.
One of the major provisions of the national children's agenda is
that it will act as a springboard for future and further
initiatives. It will be a magnet that will draw partners
together to continually enrich the provisions under that agenda.
Some people may ask why a national children's agenda is
necessary. There is strong evidence including scientific
research which shows that what happens to children when they are
very young shapes their health and well-being throughout their
lives.
We need the national children's agenda because unfortunately
some Canadian children are especially vulnerable in today's
rapidly changing world. We know that although children in many
families experience a great deal of love, others experience abuse
and neglect and suffer from physical and mental health problems.
We need then to pay particular attention to family difficulties
to ensure that these disadvantaged children have the chance to
get a good start in life.
Many people and levels of government are already involved in
helping Canada's children grow into healthy and well adjusted
adults. There is however widespread recognition that no one
individual or organization can meet all the child's needs. That
quite frankly is why we need a national children's agenda. We
need a truly comprehensive and complementary approach to ensure
that there is no wasteful duplication of services and to ensure
that no child falls between the cracks. That is very important
for all of us as Canadians.
Some of the national children's agenda initiatives have already
been announced, such as the national child benefit. The learning
readiness indicators are another priority which is being worked
on. A lack of readiness to learn can harm a child's chances of
fulfilling his or her potential. Data from the national
longitudinal survey on children and youth indicates that up to
15% of all Canadian children who begin school may not in fact be
ready to learn. Learning readiness indicators also will help us
to measure the readiness of our children to learn. That will
enable us to assess just how well we are doing at giving our
children the very best possible start.
Under the national children's agenda the Government of Canada
will also expand the aboriginal head start program to cover First
Nations children living on reserves. Begun in 1995, aboriginal
head start already helps First Nations, Metis and Inuit children
living in urban centres and large northern communities to prepare
for school. This initiative responds to the report of the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples which underlined the importance
of extending corresponding assistance to First Nations children
living on reserves.
The national children's agenda will establish centres of
excellence for children's well-being. This also is important to
note. The purpose of these centres will be to help us understand
and respond to the physical and mental health needs of children
and to understand the critical conditions for healthy
development.
This represents an overview of the national children's agenda.
I would ask the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik to
support this agenda and other measures mentioned today and to
work with the government to implement them before we take on the
massive legislative changes necessary to adopt his motion.
1155
I believe we should take one approach and evaluate the results
before trying another. I appreciate the intent of the hon.
member's motion but I am unable to support it at this time.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it must be abundantly obvious to everyone sitting in
this House that we need more time to debate this very important
issue.
I am very thankful that I have the opportunity as someone who
has helped to develop Reform's family issues policy to be able to
address this motion for a very brief time this morning.
I want to immediately let everybody know where I am coming from.
Caring for our children is the most worthwhile and important
task anyone in this country can perform. I think we all agree on
this. I have been listening to the debate and we may not agree
on the solution but we do agree that this issue is very important
and needs to be talked about in this House.
There is one thing that I have not heard very much talk about
and which needs to be discussed. Whenever we talk about
developing a program such as this one, we have to first ask what
the costs will be. I am talking about money but there are also
justice, education, health care and social costs such as welfare
that need to be factored in when we develop a program like this
one.
I have studied this for quite some time. If, as we have
advocated many times, we were to run this through the tax system
and recognize child care in that way for those parents who wish
to stay at home and take care of their children, the reduced
justice costs, education costs, health care costs and social
costs would more than pay for any program.
One of the things that disturbs me and actually surprises me is
that members who have been talking about this have not told us
what the costs would be if we simply paid out a certain sum of
money for child care to the parent.
The second point I would like to make is incentive. Every time
we have a government program there is going to be an incentive of
some kind or another built in and that needs to be analysed. If
we were to simply pay out the money through another large
government program, what kind of an incentive would that give?
Would a small percentage of people abuse it and have children
simply for the sake of having children rather than having them
because they wish to raise the next generation?
Finally, the devil is in the details. What regulations would
accompany this? When the state gets involved and interferes in
family affairs, problems will come down the road. We will run
into problems unless parents take care of their children as they
wish rather than as the state dictates.
In conclusion, the highest quality of child care is given by
parents who care for their children because their motive is love.
Unless that is happening, we are going to have problems. That is
why we need to run this through the Income Tax Act, income
splitting and so on.
Because of the importance of this issue, I would like to ask for
unanimous consent to make this a votable motion so that we can
debate the issue further.
The Speaker: At any time members can
appeal to the House for unanimous consent. Does the House
understand the request made by the member?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting to hear members from the other parties here.
It is true that I can continue the debate this morning on
family, mothers, fathers and, particularly, children. A number
of members from all parties in this House have put forth ideas
this morning.
1200
It is important for the government to realize that members from
all parties are here today to find solutions for families and
children.
I said during my speech that we must respect all governments,
including the provinces. But the important thing today is the
ideas expressed by members. We should take the time at some
point to discuss the motion put forward by the hon. member
opposite seeking the unanimous consent of the House to continue
the debate.
All the members who spoke this morning should table motions
relating to their speeches. The issue must come back before the
House, on behalf of all stakeholders in Canada, including
Beverley Smith and all the groups that work for families, for
mothers and fathers.
It is important that we find solutions. It is also important
that the government listen to families.
The Speaker: It being 12.03 p.m., the hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
this item is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by
protecting personal information that is collected, used or
disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of
electronic means to communicate or record information or
transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the
Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the
House regarding Bill C-54, the personal information protection
and electronic documents act.
With the advent of the new information economy, Canadians are
finding new ways of connecting to each other, to markets, to
governments and, indeed, to the world. All Canadians have a
stake in the new knowledge based economy which brings with it
changes that profoundly affect all of our lives.
Canada's success in the 21st century depends increasingly on the
ability of all Canadians to participate and succeed in the global
knowledge based economy. To ensure that participation we must
move quickly to provide Canadians with the necessary access,
skills and confidence.
Bill C-54, the personal information protection and electronic
documents act, is a significant step toward achieving these
goals. In very significant and practical ways it will help build
the confidence of Canadians in a field that will be key to
Canada's prosperity in the 21st century.
The bill addresses three issues to help Canadians fully exploit
the true potential of the Internet as a medium of information and
commerce. The proposed legislation would protect the personal
information of Canadians in their dealings with private sector
organizations. It would create an electronic alternative for
doing business with the federal government. It would provide a
legal footing for electronic records and secure electronic
signatures.
[Translation]
The bill demonstrates leadership in building the information
society. It will make it both easier and more secure for
citizens to deal with the government electronically, when they
choose to do so.
Already, the federal government has pioneered the use of the
Internet as a means to improve service to Canadians, increase
efficiency and lower costs. Many of the federal government's
transactions with the public—from filing for patent protection
to the provision of information on any number of subjects—can
now take place electronically.
Much more can be done if we update federal statutes and
regulations to capture the opportunities presented by the
Internet.
Many existing statutes and regulations often specify that
information must be given “in writting,” or “signed.” Such
references can be interpreted as restricting transactions to
paper only, and as precluding the electronic provision of
information.
1205
[English]
In fact, the Department of Justice has found that more than 300
federal statutes contain references that appear to limit
electronic service delivery.
Bill C-54 allows us to make existing statutes and regulations
compatible with an electronic environment. It will enable us to
provide an electronic alternative to the transmission of
information on paper.
With regard to the operations of the federal government it
addresses very real needs in three specific fields.
Bill C-54 gives federal departments, agencies and boards the
authority to decide how requirements in existing statutes and
regulations can be satisfied by electronic means in place of
paper. Since the integrity and reliability of electronic
transmissions must be ensured, provisions to foster the practical
development and implementation of secure electronic signatures
are a key component of the bill. A federal department, agency or
board must be technologically and operationally ready before it
offers its services to the public via electronic media. The time
required to attain readiness will undoubtedly vary.
Accordingly, each federal body will be given flexibility and
have the discretion to apply the new law and do business
electronically when it is fully up to speed and has both the
technological and operational capabilities necessary to do so.
Electronic technology is affecting evidence presented to
Canadian courts in ever increasing ways. Bill C-54 will clarify
how the courts assess electronic documents and recognize
electronic signatures, give recognition to notices and acts
published electronically by the Queen's Printer and give official
status to the electronic version of the consolidated statutes and
regulations of Canada.
I would like to stress that the creation of an electronic
alternative does not mean the federal government is doing away
with the more traditional methods that it uses to communicate
with Canadians. People will not have to throw out their pens and
paper and typewriters or be forced to communicate exclusively
over the Internet. Rather, we are enabling the federal
government to accommodate a way to do business that is more and
more popular with Canadians through electronic means. Canadians
increasingly have demonstrated that they want to do business
electronically, not just with their governments but with the
private sector as well.
Electronic commerce conducted over the Internet is currently
estimated at about $45 billion Canadian. However, exponential
growth is forecast, with e-comm revenues expected to reach $600
billion Canadian by year 2002. This is a reflection of the
skyrocketing growth of the Internet. The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business has found that the number of small
businesses with Internet access doubled in just one year between
1995 and 1996.
[Translation]
Building of an environment where electronic commerce can
flourish is a key component of the government's commitment to
ensure that Canadians can take advantage of the opportunities
offered by today's connected and global economy. We want to
establish Canada as the world leader in electronic commerce by the
year 2000.
For electronic commerce to flourish in Canada, the first
requisite is clear: a predictable and supportive environment
wherein citizens, businesses and institutions can feel
comfortable, secure and confident.
All of us, consumer, business and government alike, need to feel
confident about how our personal information is gathered, stored
and used. The protection of our personal privacy is a basic
right which Canadians cherish.
To safeguard privacy, however, there is a significant challenge
to be met. In the electronic age, every time we make a
transaction we leave a “data trail,” traces that can be
compiled and assembled to provide a detailed record of our own
personal histories and preferences.
1210
[English]
There is a risk that these records may be sent across provincial
and national borders, or sold, reused or integrated with other
databases without our knowledge or consent.
Consider just some of the ways in which Canadians already can
and do use the Internet. We already use it to shop and to plan
vacations from our homes. We use it to do banking from home. We
use it to correspond with family and friends wherever they may be
in the world. We use it to read on-line magazines and to
participate in discussion groups. All of these uses can
unavoidably reveal traces of personal information.
As consumers and citizens we need to know that we have some
control over our information and be assured that it enjoys a
basic level of protection. Bill C-54 will provide this
protection. It addresses the need to safeguard personal data by
establishing a right to the protection of personal information.
It sets clear rules for how that information will be collected
and used and disclosed in the course of commercial activities.
In January 1998 the departments of industry and justice released
a public discussion paper entitled “The Protection of Personal
Information—Building Canada's Information Economy and Society”.
This paper outlined the various issues which must be addressed in
the development of legislation to protect personal information
and it sought input from Canadians.
Canadians consistently expressed concerns about their privacy in
light of the new technologies, particularly with regard to the
control of personal information. Canadians have told us that
they want legislation that is light, flexible and effective and
that provides meaningful recourse for consumers. They support
building on existing instruments, especially the national
standard for the protection of personal information of the
Canadian Standards Association, and they told us that they wanted
independent oversight, someone to investigate complaints and
ensure compliance.
In the development of the legislation before us the CSA standard
was a particularly relevant avenue to explore.
[Translation]
It is a set of ten fair information principles. They address
the ways in which organizations should collect, use, disclose and
protect personal information. They also concern such things as
accuracy and security safeguards; the need for an individual's
knowledge and consent regarding information collection; and
measures to provide organizational accountability.
The CSA standard was developed in the early 1990s, through a
broad consultative process that included representatives from the
public sector, business, consumer advocacy groups, labour and
others.
[English]
The legislation before us will require organizations to comply
with all 10 fair information principles of the CSA standard for
the protection of personal information. Furthermore, compliance
with the legislation will be overseen by the privacy commissioner
of Canada. The privacy commissioner's role will include
receiving and investigating complaints and mediating disputes.
Unresolved disputes can be taken to the Federal Court of Canada
for final resolution.
At the present time in Canada the protection of personal
information in the private sector can, by and large, best be
described as sporadic and uneven. Many industries are not
subject to any rules at all concerning the collection, use and
disclosure of personal information. The rest are covered by what
the privacy commissioner of Canada has called a patchwork of
laws, regulations and codes. The result is that protection is
incomplete and, quite possibly, inconsistent. This situation is
no longer acceptable.
1215
In our consultations regarding privacy, Canadians told us over
and over again that they were very concerned about having
consistent protection across Canada for their personal
information.
Canadian business raised similar concerns about consistency and
the need for a single set of rules to ensure a level playing
field.
To address these concerns the legislation will apply first to
the federally regulated private sector. Three years after coming
into force it will apply more broadly, covering virtually the
entire private sector, except where a province or territory has
passed similar legislation. Where and whenever organizations are
subject to such provincial or territorial law they would be
exempted from the application of the federal law by order of the
governor in council.
[Translation]
Bill C-54 also has the great advantage that it builds upon the
existing CSA voluntary measures. It is designed provide a regime
that is simple, yet effective, consumer friendly, not overly
burdensome for industry, especially small and medium sized
enterprises, cost-efficient and with a minimal administrative
burden, and, in conformity with Canada's international agreements
and trade obligations.
Canada needs new legislation to protect privacy. Legislation
must strike a balance between the right of individuals to have
some control over their personal information and to have access
to avenues for effective redress, and the need of industry to
collect and use personal information as a vital component of
success in the information economy.
[English]
The legislation before us strikes that balance. It addresses
both the business need to gather, store and use personal
information and the consumer need to control the collection of
information, to be informed about how that information will be
used and to be assured that the information will be protected.
Bill C-54 will help build the consumer trust and market
certainty needed to ensure that Canada is a world leader in
electronic commerce and the global information economy.
Information privacy is crucial for a number of reasons. First
and most basically, it is related to a series of other rights and
values, such as liberty, freedom of expression and freedom of
association. Without some control over our personal information
our ability to enjoy these fundamental rights may be hindered.
Moreover, in the new information economy information is a
valuable commodity that can bring jobs, prosperity and higher
levels of customer service. This reality, along with other key
factors, is creating mounting pressure to collect and use
personal information more broadly than ever before.
Canadian citizens are right when they ask for adequate privacy
protection in the new digital economy. The legislation before us
will help to provide that protection. It addresses both present
and future challenges, and I am confident that it will receive
justly deserved support from the House of Commons.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to discuss Bill C-54, which I believe goes in the right
direction. Some very good points have been made in the bill.
The minister's statements of a moment ago illustrate the
significance of electronic commerce in Canada and virtually the
entire world. We need to recognize and accept that, and I think
we all do.
The problem I see with this bill has to do with what is really
being done here. It is not as if electronic commerce developed
yesterday. It has been with us for quite some time. It has
existed for at least 13 years in terms of doing business, in
terms of consumer shopping, and we have had ATMs for a number of
years. It is almost as if suddenly something has happened, that
it is recent and has happened just now, but it has not happened
just now.
1220
We need to recognize that this is really a catch-up system, and
for that I want to commend the government. This bill will make
it possible to use some of the modern technology, to do some of
the filing that needs to be done electronically and to get
information and things of that sort.
Perhaps there are some people who wonder: What is this
electronic commerce anyway? What are we really talking about?
We are talking about the business of making transactions via
telecommunications systems using computer technologies. It is
almost as if computer technologies and telecommunications are
separate. I do not think one could exist without the other. The
telecommunications industry depends upon computers and computers
depend upon the telecommunications industry. The two are very
much involved.
How big is electronic commerce? It is big. The minister just
indicated to us some of the dimensions of the electronic commerce
industry and we know they are true. It looks like there will be
not only a tenfold increase, but a manifold increase. Nobody
knows exactly how fast this electronic commerce area is going to
grow.
Why is this an issue today?
First of all, we have many laws in Canada covering paper
transactions and paper commerce. Paper transactions are founded
on the notion and the awareness of boundaries: provincial,
federal and international. Laws and taxes are applied within
these boundaries and there are agreements as to which law or tax
has precedence in cross-boundary transactions.
However, traditional boundaries do not exist on the Internet.
Therefore, legal rules and consumer protocols become unclear,
especially when the consumer is not even aware that they have
crossed a traditional border in making a transaction.
Which law or tax then applies? Can the same law be applied to
the electronic world as is applied to the paper world? This is a
fundamental question because it raises the kinds of principles
which ought to govern legislation with regard to electronic
commerce.
This bill is not complete and I think the minister would agree
that it is not complete. It is be a good beginning, but it is
only a beginning.
We have to be very careful that in this beginning we do not
chart a course that ends up with errors of some kind. We have to
be very careful that we choose the right course at the beginning.
We use electronic commerce to transfer funds in banking, to pay
our bills and to access automatic teller machines. We use it in
the operation and in the guidance of trucks, ships, planes;
vehicles which are in the air, on land and at sea.
The global positioning system, for example, is strictly an
electronic mechanism. Satellites such as RADARSAT make a very
significant contribution to electronic commerce. What does it
do? It provides information, for example, about what is
happening to the ice caps. It also inventories and gives
information almost immediately about the moisture conditions in
various parts of the world.
What are some of the issues involved? The minister said that
one of the big issues is privacy. Yes, privacy is a major issue,
but I would like to raise another issue before I speak about
privacy, and that is the integrity of the information.
Integrity means that we can have trust and confidence in the
information that is made available to us by electronic means. For
example, can we be assured that what we think is happening is
actually happening? Is the money being transferred from my bank
account to somebody else's bank account as it ought to be? Is my
account being credited or debited as it ought to be? Will the
person receive exactly what it is they thought they were buying
via the Internet or the telephone?
Verifying signatures is a very significant issue as well.
1225
The public information cryptography issue is involved. The
business of recognizing the public key infrastructure on
cryptography is something that this bill wants to control. We
need to ask ourselves the question: To what degree can or ought
the government be able to control the various encryption methods
and systems?
Earlier this year there was a discussion regarding the type of
policy the government should pursue with regard to encryption.
There was a lot of resistance to this particular issue. A policy
statement was finally drafted. I believe there are some good
aspects to this particular policy. However, I would like to ask
whether the provisions in the legislation before us are
consistent with the provisions of the policy on encryption.
For example, one of the elements in this encryption policy
states that Canadians are free to develop, import and use
whatever cryptography products they wish.
The government will not implement mandatory key recovery
requirements or licensing regimes. The government encourages
industry to establish responsible practices, such as key recovery
techniques for stored data. The government will act as a model
user of cryptography through practices of the Government of
Canada public key infrastructure program.
The policy indicates that Canada will take into consideration
the export practices of other countries and the availability of
comparable products when rendering export permit decisions. The
export permit application process will be made more transparent
and procedures will be streamlined to ensure the least regulatory
intervention necessary.
If the issue is to ensure that the integrity of information from
one business to another business is indeed safe, secure and
private, that is one thing. However, if the issue is government
intervention and the ability to intervene, to read, to uncover
and to break through the encryption that is used by businesses to
do their business, then all privacy will be destroyed.
I think the policy suggests that the government will not do
that. However, the issue is that it is not protected in this
particular legislation. This legislation does not say that the
government may not or the government shall not get into the
encryption systems that various industries may use in doing their
business.
I would like to deal with encryption a bit further. Someone may
ask: What is encryption? It is actually a code. Someone who
does not know the code cannot uncover the message. We must
ensure that a message which is designed to reach a particular
destination only reaches that destination.
We know that the Internet is accessible by many. That message,
once it is put on the Internet, can be retrieved by virtually
anyone unless it is encrypted. The person who receives the
message must either decipher what the encryption is or have the
key that gets them into the message immediately. There are many
people who are pretty sharp at discovering encryption systems.
We need to accept that the new laser technology and the
application of the laser technology is one that we need to look
at carefully. There are experts in this field who say that if
one human being has created a code another human being can
decrypt that code. Dr. Paul Corkum of the National Research
Council makes the statement that unbreakable codes for secure
information transfer can be based on the basic structure of
light.
When we enter the field of laser technology we are dealing with
a complicated issue. Nevertheless, Dr. Corkum makes the
unequivocal statement that unbreakable codes for secure
information transfer can be based on the basic structure of
light.
Nowhere in this legislation is there reference to unbreakable
codes or the use of encryption codes being limited to business,
government or anything of the kind.
1230
If we are to have privacy we must be absolutely sure that if
someone wishes to encrypt a message the message can be encrypted
to the degree that no one else can understand it except those for
whom the message was destined in the first place.
We need to recognize not only the need for privacy but another
area in the legislation which has to do with privacy. It has
nothing to do with encryption but it has something to do with the
provision of privacy of information. I refer to the beginning of
the bill. In division 1, which is headed “Protection of
personal information”, subclause 5(2) says:
The word “should” when used in Schedule 1, indicates a
recommendations and does not impose an obligation.
“Should” is a guidance and not an obligation. Let us go to
schedule 1 and have a look at what is there. In section 4.2.3 it
states:
The purpose should be stated. It continues:
Depending upon the way in which the information is collected,
this is can be done orally or in writing. An application form,
for example, may give notice of the purposes.
This is a possibility. It should be there, but it is not a
requirement that it be there. However, the next section, which is
section 4.2.4, states:
When personal information that has been collected is to be used
for a purpose not previously identified, the new purpose shall be
identified prior to use.
Is that not an interesting contradiction or at least an
implication of confusion? In the first instance it is not
obligatory that the purpose be stated, but if it is stated and it
is changed then there is a requirement that the individual be
notified. If we wanted to protect ourselves and wanted to be
flexible, we would simply never state the purpose. Then we could
do whatever we wanted because section 4.2.4 would not apply.
There are some interesting questions about what is being done
and being proposed in the legislation. As the committee deals
with it, I hope it will be in some detail and that some of the
weaknesses will perhaps be rectified.
We need to look as well at the conflict of interest issue. In
the bill there is no statement about the use of private
information in a conflict of interest situation. I refer
particularly to the application forms currently in vogue and used
by certain banking institutions in Canada.
Until very recently an application form to do business, for
example with the security branch of a bank, contained the name.
Underneath there was very tiny print stating: I hereby allow or
give permission to this bank to use the information given for
trading securities to be used in other parts of its operation.
We know that banks today own trust companies and insurance
companies. Some of them are health insurance companies and life
insurance companies. They have investment dealers and clearly
they have the banking institution. Is it not interesting that a
bank which collects information to trade securities may use it in
other parts of its operation?
Let us suppose one has a loan in the particular bank and an
insurance problem. Is it not interesting that individuals may
suffer ill health which as a consequence, at least in the mind of
the bank, places in jeopardy their ability to repay the loan?
Information was collected for the purpose of doing trading only
in a particular bank. Yet the bank is now able, through its
insurance branch, to transfer the information. That insurance
branch may and will, if it owns an insurance company, have
transactions with other insurance companies and may trade
information.
The potential for a conflict of interest is very real.
1235
It is interesting that although one has given voluntary
permission to the bank to use this information and suddenly
withdraws that permission, the bank reserves the right, in very
tiny print, to close one's account with 30 days notice.
There are some very interesting issues. Compliance is granted
by giving permission, but it is used in a way that was never
intended, or the customer never believed it would be used in such
a way. The action is unilateral on the part of the financial
institution to close the account if the individual suddenly
chooses to withdraw access to the information for a purpose other
than the one for which it was intended originally.
I now wish to move to the interdependence between electronic
commerce and traditional or other commerce. Electronic commerce
cannot exist without a traditional infrastructure for moving
things and people. For example, a service may be ordered through
the Internet but the product or service must be delivered. A
contract must ultimately be signed and become operational. Funds
must actually be moved from one state to the other.
It is not just the ability of being able to do electronic
commerce. There is an interdependence between electronic
commerce and regular or traditional kinds of commerce. This
requires an infrastructure that is ready and able to meet the
requirements, one of which is speed.
Time delivery is all very well if it is in a beautiful computer
and it has to be deliver, for example, on September 30 of a
particular year at one o'clock. However, if the truck does not
get there it does not help. There is no relationship. If the
relationship is not there and it is not working, there are
backlogs and queues and things break down.
We need to recognize that there needs to be a back-up for
intercommunication. We need to trace the trail. If something
goes wrong we need to know where it went wrong, why it went
wrong, who is responsible and how can it be fixed. It involves
all kinds of aspects. It involves many people and things. We
need to know where are the airplanes, the satellites and the
rockets on land. Will it be done by foot, by truck, by rail or
by any other method? The situation on the sea is similar.
It is not just the business of controlling electronic commerce.
It is also the matter of developing adequate human resources. The
number one requirement in the whole business of electronic
commerce is the ability of personnel. Ultimately people will
make the system go. They need the ability to use electronic
commerce information.
They must know how it works. They must understand how it works.
Then they must expect to be able to apply it. There must also be
confidence and faith in the integrity of the information. All
else depends on it. Because it is so fast and because it allows
transborder transactions very easily, errors are multiplied and
magnified if they occur.
There also must be integration. We need to recognize the
interconnection of nations, the interconnection of industries and
the interconnection of people. There will be a tremendous
requirement in the ability of management to integrate what
appears to be separate and disparate parts into a corresponding
and working whole.
It really does something to me when I hear our Prime Minister
answer the question about how far the dollar has to sink before
we become alarmed. The minister has often talked about the
issue. The Prime Minister, the senior minister in the country,
is the one who should know. He is the one who is asked this
question because it is fundamental to our economy, to electronic
commerce and to any other commerce. He answers that the problem
is market decisions.
He answers that either it is floating currency or monetary policy
under Canadian law like in most of the countries managed by the
Bank of Canada. According to him it is the way the system
operates. It is never the Prime Minister; it is the Governor of
the Bank of Canada who makes these daily decisions.
1240
The Canadian economy is functioning very well. We reduced the
deficit from $42 billion to a surplus that was billions of
dollars for the first three months. In spite of strikes at GM,
in construction and in the paper industry in Quebec, unemployment
did not go up. It remained at 8.4%. We have around 1%
inflation.
A few weeks ago there was a report for the first time in a long
time that activity in Canada had been higher than in the United
States. It is a very positive sign. The monetary policy of the
Canadian government is made by the governor of the bank under the
Bank of Canada Act.
We need to do better. What can we as parliamentarians learn
from the complications of electronic commerce and from the need
to protect the privacy of individuals and to do business
successfully and well? We need to learn about a couple of
issues. We need to recognize that our ability to do things has
been magnified manifold. That means the responsibility of doing
it right is greater than it has ever been. We also need to
recognize that one error can cause many other errors and have a
far broader impact than was the case before.
Above all we need to recognize the need for integrity and
leadership in the country. We need to know more. The bill is
not sufficient. It is a good beginning but is not a leadership
document. If anything it is a document that catches up to where
industry has been for the last 10 years. We need leadership. We
need to understand the significance of what we are doing. We
need to be confident. We need to have an attitude of
co-operation, humility and self-control. We need to recognize, as
never before, the absolute necessity and the centrality of
integrity, truth and honesty in whatever we do.
It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to try to explain
the value of the Canadian dollar and its fluctuations the way he
does. It is not good enough for the Minister of Finance to say
we have a surplus while recognizing full well that the surplus is
built on sand. In fact it is not even good sand. It is shifting
sand because it is built on the revenues collected for the EI
program rather than on the management of the finances of the
country.
We need to tell the truth. The Prime Minister, the Minister of
Finance and the rest of the ministers need to tell the story the
way it really is. If they do not it will not be long,
particularly with the transfers across borders, with e-commerce
and any other mechanisms available to us, that the truth will be
known. Where is the confidence going to come from when in fact
we recognize that the Minister of Finance has not told us the
truth?
Where is the confidence when we recognize that we do not have a
balanced budget, that it is a concoction of numbers which makes
it look as if it is balanced but is not really balanced? This is
dangerous. If there ever was a time for us to learn from a bill,
it is this one which is at the cutting edge. It does not provide
leadership but it is at the cutting edge, and for that I commend
the minister.
1245
We need to recognize, however, that within this lies the seed of
our undoing if we do not recognize the need for integrity of
information, integrity of communication of the people of Canada
and integrity within the civil service of Canada so that the
ministerial position, the government's position and the position
of the bureaucrats are identical, and that government can be
there with integrity so that we can depend on what it tells the
people and base our future direction on that. That is what we
need to learn from legislation like this.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, for very
many years now—as I am going to document—Canada has been waiting
for legislation on the protection of personal information,
privacy legislation relating to the private sector. The bill we
have before us this morning is titled as follows:
An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting
personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in
certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic
means to communicate or record information or transactions and
by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments
Act and the Statute Revision Act
The problem with this bill is that it is not a bill addressing
the protection of privacy. My colleague has just referred to
the need for leadership, and the Minister of Industry has spoken
of his desire to take a lead role by introducing this bill in
the House of Commons.
Where he was expected to show leadership was not only in
protecting consumers involved in electronic commerce—and even
here we need to look at how much protection they have, because
it is far from sufficient—but also in protecting privacy.
Privacy is a fundamental right. In 1983, Canada enacted privacy
legislation relating to government bodies coming under federal
jurisdiction. The Charter contains certain provisions, but the
minister himself has acknowledged that this protection is
sporadic and uneven, and no longer acceptable. This situation
is no longer acceptable.
The leadership in privacy protection came from Quebec. Since
1984 Quebec has had legislation, effective legislation, to
protect personal information in the private sector. That
legislation has proven itself.
We would have expected to see it used as a model, because it is
the only legislation based on experience and know-how. It has not
had the catastrophic results some were predicting in the private
sector.
Now more than ever, when private information can be collected
and collated without an individual's knowledge, transmitted,
sold, used for all sorts of reasons, with impunity, or just
about, except in Quebec, what we would have expected from the
minister was a bill with some teeth.
1250
That is what we are going to ask him for. And we are going to
take this opportunity not just to talk about the importance of
the right to privacy, but also to get some information across.
Because, all too often, members of the public, who are not just
consumers of commercial services, but people living in the real
world, faced with a plethora of intermediaries collecting
potentially erroneous information and selling it or using it for
their own or other purposes, deserve much more.
Members will tell me that, if Quebec's legislation is so
effective, it can go on being effective, and Quebeckers should
decry the fact that Canadians cannot count on a better law. But
it is much more complicated than that, because not only does
this bill fail to provide sufficient protection for the public's
privacy but, as it now stands, it undermines—yes, undermines—the
protection Quebeckers enjoy under Quebec's legislation. And
that is even more unacceptable.
I will give clear and documented examples. Right now, under
Quebec's legislation, an Eaton's employee in Montreal has access
to his personal file held by his employer, even if this personal
information is kept in Toronto.
With Bill C-54, this request for access becomes part of a
interprovincial access request. Thus, since it is not part of a
commercial transaction, according to the interpretation in the
bill as it now stands, and given the recourses available, that
employee will no longer be entitled to access.
Let us consider another example: at the present time, if a
person undergoes a medical examination for insurance purposes,
the results of that medical are recorded by an American
organization with a branch in Toronto. At this time, the client
has the right to access his records. Since this will no longer
be part of a commercial transaction, there is a good chance that
right will not continue. This is not taking into consideration
the type of recourse that is in the federal legislation. I will
come back to this point a little later.
We have read the minister's press releases which intimated that
the Quebec legislation would apply in its entirety. Yet this is
not at all what we see in the bill, in a number of aspects.
Clause 27 gives all of the power to the governor in council, or
to put it more simply, to the government, for deciding whether
or not a provincial act will apply in whole or in part. I think
it is worthwhile reading this clause, although it is couched in
the curious language used in bills.
It states:
(d) if satisfied that legislation of a province that is
substantially similar to this Part applies to an organization, a
class of organizations, an activity or a class of activities,
exempt the organization, activity of class from the application
of this Part in respect of the collection, use or disclosure of
personal information that occurs within that province.
1255
It is all very well for the law in Quebec to be the law in
Quebec, the governor in council can decide what part of the law
applies or does not apply within the province involved.
This provision is shocking. I could say we are used to this,
but it is more than that. This is serious. In the very area
the minister wants to open up, electronic commerce, there are a
number of players, including a major one, our neighbour, the
United States. We know that, in the United States, and this is
one of the problems we will talk about, the government wants to
let business regulate itself.
Then there is the European Union. Canada wants to establish a
free trade zone with it. A meeting to this end is being held
here right now.
The European Union has already established guidelines that are
very much along the same lines as the law in Quebec, in fact so
much so that it had planned not to authorize any business links
except with Quebec, because the other provinces and the United
States could not properly guarantee the protection of the
personal information of the people of the European Union. This
issue of effectively and efficiently guaranteeing personal
information is more than a Quebec-Canada dispute. It is far more
than that.
I must underscore, and perhaps members will think excessively
so, the fact that Quebec was really at the forefront in
formulating clear, readily implemented and effective
legislation—unlike the federal one—which meets the criteria of
the European Union.
Had the minister wanted to demonstrate the leadership he is
claiming, he should have adopted these principles, not because
they are our principles or because Quebec is involved, but
because this is the sort of protection the people of Quebec and
of Canada are entitled to expect. Instead, Quebeckers' rights
are being infringed. And Canadians do not have enough
protection, not in the least.
A number of the provisions in this bill fall short, but one
involves the reduction of Quebec's rights and that is the one
concerning all the provincial provisions. Under Quebec law at
the moment, as I was saying earlier, an individual working in
Quebec can access his record, wherever it is, or a person having
a medical examination can see his records, wherever they are.
From now on, it will no longer be the case, since all the
provisions that go beyond provincial jurisdiction will be
subject to federal legislation. One might wonder whether federal
legislation will provide the same protection. The answer is no.
When it comes to information that is not of a commercial nature,
the act is vague, to say the very least.
1300
The core of Bill C-54 is a standard, a CSA national standard that
bears a number and that was approved in a totally different
legislative context by the standards board, in consultation with
the telemarketing board and another body whose name I forget, as
well as with consumer representatives.
While this self-regulating project is commendable, particularly
since it originated with the private sector, it is also full of
conditions. There are a number of very important provisions for
people on the information needed to create their files, and on
the use of these files, that are full of conditional “may”.
The act provides that these conditions may be overlooked. The
problem is that all this is extremely confusing.
What can a person do when he or she is refused access to his or
her file?
Under the federal act, the person may file a complaint with the
privacy commissioner, who then conducts an investigation. Fine.
We hope he will have the proper means to do so. The commissioner
may attempt to resolve the complaint through mediation. Fine. If
a solution can be found, great. But what happens if no solution
is found? This is what people want to know.
What happens is that the person must go to court. The
commissioner can take it upon himself to go to court, but this
is not automatic. The person, even assuming he or she has the
means to do so, cannot do it. He or she cannot directly take his
or her complaint to a court at the beginning, because he or she
must wait for the commissioner's report.
There is question of means involved. There is a delay,
because the person must wait for the commissioner's report.
First of all, there is a degree of confusion in the drafting of
the legislation, a lack of clarity that surprised even the
experts from what they told me.
This means that, instead of the legislation the minister
promised, one that would be user friendly—he described it as
simple yet effective—where users may not always be commercial
services consumers but are citizens, the legislation before us
is not simple to use and, on the face of it, certainly not
effective, except when good will is involved and mediation may
suffice.
We agree it will work that way some of the time, but legislation
is required when the government has to say where it stands, on
whose side it is, the unco-operative business or the citizen; the
government does not side with citizens unless the commissioner
himself decides to go to court.
Do members have any idea what this means?
This bill will disappoint a great many people. I for one might
say I understand the minister may be feeling stuck between the
United States on the one side and the European Union on the
other, but his primary duty as minister is to reassure the
people of Canada and Quebec that the current level of protection
will be maintained.
1305
It is not the role of Canada to undermine the protection they
are currently afforded. It is not to reduce the level of
protection but to increase it because, as a country, together
with other countries—and I have never found it so sad that
Quebec was not one—it could push to have all countries adopt
compatible rules, to reassure the public. But the public will
not be fooled and no one will believe that a meaningless piece
of legislation will provide consumers across Canada and Quebec
with greater protection against American companies. There is a
real problem.
An OECD conference was held in Ottawa on the initiative of the
Minister of Industry, and I congratulate him on this.
One thing came out very clearly at this conference, however.
Right now, 80% of e-commerce is U.S based, 80% of it in business.
When it comes to the defence of consumers and the public,
governments should sit up and take note. Many have said so. I
was pleased to hear that the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business does not want it forgotten that consumers are not just
individuals, members of the public, but also small and medium
sized businesses, which do not have the wherewithal of big
business, and which are also in a David and Goliath situation,
much worse in fact, as things now stand.
This bill is extremely disappointing. It fails to give citizens
the protection they are looking for.
The Internet is not just a place were business is transacted,
and cannot be divorced from civil society.
Telemarketing was debated in this House. We saw that the
government wanted to clamp down on businesses engaging in
deceptive telemarketing, by requiring them to state very clearly
over the telephone who they were and the purpose of their call.
We wanted to amend this to apply to the Internet as well, and
now we are looking at a bill on e-commerce. This provision
remains completely vague in the bill. But members of the public
wishing to use this medium—which is just a medium, and not
another way of life, as the OECD recognized—will increase their
use of it only if they are truly protected.
The first step is protection that is not just partial, not just
aimed at e-commerce, but real protection of privacy. Then we can
consider it further, but first there will have to be
international agreements.
Yes, we are waiting for Canada, the country we are depending on,
to show some leadership, but not without first reassuring the
public.
Successive Liberal governments have repeatedly promised real
legislation, legislation that would protect privacy. In 1982,
the then communications minister, Francis Fox, said that the
next step with respect to privacy legislation would be to extend
the principles governing the protection of privacy to the
federally regulated private sector.
1310
In March 1987, the Standing Committee on Justice and the
Solicitor General endorsed this recommendation in its report
entitled “Open and Shut: Enhancing the Right to Know and the
Right to Privacy; a Review of the Access to Information Act and
the Privacy Act”. Quebec embarked on a similar process which
resulted in 1994 in the passing of its current legislation.
In his 1996-97 annual report, the privacy commissionner saluted
as a fundamental and highly significant event the undertaking by
then justice minister Allan Rock to enact before the year 2000 a
bill protecting privacy in the private sector in a real and
effective fashion. What happened next?
In 1996, the industry minister himself promised an umbrella bill
on the protection of privacy in response to the Information
Highway Advisory Council's report. I stress that the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques moved a motion
which was unanimously approved providing that all crown
corporations be subject to the Privacy Act, but not all of them
are.
In April 1997, the Standing Committee on Human Rights adopted a
report entitled “Privacy: Where Do We Draw the Line?” recommending
that the current act be replaced by one applying only to
parliament and to all government agencies as well as to private
sector entities under federal jurisdiction.
Today the minister is tabling a bill to promote electronic
commerce by protecting personal information. I will not read the
full title again. This is sad and woefully inadequate. This bill
will not meet the desired goals and will actually weaken the
current rights of Quebeckers while recognizing the efforts by
the private industry in its own code, which contains many
conditions.
We have to demand that the federal government give proper
protection, not one that is so limited, so minimal, and in many
cases inexistent, because of the nature of the procedure, of the
conditions and of the confusion and also because of the power of
the governor in council, who can even change the content of the
legislation to adjust to the changing standards of private
business.
We cannot let this bill go unnoticed. We cannot be content with
saying that we would like to see many more provisions included
in this bill. This was to be such an important piece of
legislation, but, should it pass without amendments, it will
create more problems than it will solve in the long run.
The Bloc Quebecois and all governments in Quebec, of whatever
political stripe, have always very strongly supported the
principle of respect for privacy and personal information. The
Parti Quebecois and the Liberal Party did so again, recently, in
a review of the legislation.
We are deeply committed to this principle, and that is why we
cannot agree with this bill to promote electronic commerce,
because it does not meet its stated goals, and does not protect
the needs of citizens and consumers.
1315
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to join in the
debate of Bill C-54, the personal information protection and
electronic documents act.
Today's debate may be the beginning of perhaps one of the most
important debates in the House for many months as we begin the
discussion of virtually a new form of commerce, a form that is
already beginning but a form of commerce with dimensions that are
somewhat awesome, the whole issue of electronic commerce.
I will refer to what could be exploding as a new way of doing
business. At the recent OECD conference in Ottawa it was
suggested that electronic commerce transactions totalled about $4
billion in 1997. Within another three years from now that could
accelerate to nearly $400 billion. In Canada it could reach as
high as $13 billion within that short period.
We are talking about a totally new way of doing business, a
complete transformation of commerce not only within Canada but
all the other nations with which we do business. On a business
level there are tremendous implications and on a personal level
tremendous implications, and of course that is what the debate is
all about. We are going to hear the term e-commerce, electronic
commerce, a great deal in the next few weeks and months.
Recently the House has heard much discussion of the transfer of
vitally important information. Rather than discussing the
dangerous transfer of cabinet secrets in public places such as
airplanes or gymnasiums, today we are gathered to discuss a
transfer of a different type of information, the electronic
variety. The bill before us aims to support and promote
electronic commerce by increasing Canadians' confidence in online
transactions, providing protection for personal information that
is collected, adjusting the legal framework of the electronic
environment and providing an alternative means for the federal
government of providing valuable government services.
It is fair to say that Bill C-54 is part of a much larger
overall strategy to make Canada an international leader in the
growing realm of electronic commerce. The debate today is timely
because if there is one role that Canada can play it is to widen
the debate on future electronic commerce within our borders and
beyond. At this point it would appear that Canada is playing a
leadership role.
I want to talk about some of the contents of the bill and
outline some of the reservations my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party and I have with the bill. I begin by discussing
the phenomenon of electronic commerce in the information age. A
variety of commentators from all sorts of disciplines have
commented on the increasingly important role electronic commerce
is playing in the lives of everyday citizens.
Recently the chairman and CEO of Bell Canada, Mr. Jean Monty,
told delegates at the Ottawa OECD conference: “What we are
witnessing today is the birth of a new economy, a new economic
order that is based on networks and chips”. This electronic
transfer of information has changed the way humans interact with
each other and for this reason it is the subject of great
importance and we would be wise to consider very carefully any
decisions we take. That is why I say the bill is really the
first piece of direct legislation that says something about this
whole new issue of electronic commerce.
1320
First, it may be helpful to discuss the very definition of
electronic commerce itself. If we are to adapt a broad
understanding of the concept of e-commerce we will see that it
includes two very different types of transactions. One type,
which has proven quite successful in this country, involves the
exchange of information through closed networks. This would
include such systems as those used for debit cards and credit
cards. As I say, Canada is recognized as a world leader in
developing the infrastructure for these kinds of closed networks.
Other types of transfers are those conducted through open
networks such as the Internet. This type lags far behind its
closed network counterpart for numerous reasons which I will
examine in a moment.
Perhaps it would be useful to outline very briefly what
e-commerce is and how it works. In the friction free ideal of
electronic commerce, a typical catalogue order for example would
happen like this. A consumer would fill in an order form on a
computer and file it through the Internet directly to their
retailer's computer system. The system would immediately process
the information to create a shipping weigh bill, a packing list
and would be electronically charged to one's credit card. A
likely low paid warehouse employee might then prepare the
shipment and deliver it to the loading dock, but other than that
the human element is removed.
In other words, a job that perhaps would involve four, five or
six people would now be handled by a single person and likely one
who would be relatively low paid, removing any need for data
processors, bookkeepers, shipping clerks and others. These types
of jobs would become automatically redundant.
When one starts to think about the online world a certain
minister comes to mind. Just as the solicitor general has had
some difficulty lately maintaining the security of his
department's private information, so does the Internet in
ensuring the confidentiality of important matters.
Canadians have demonstrated a lack of faith in the minister as a
result. This is similar to the reservations Canadians also have
about entrusting their own personal information in cyberspace. It
is our job as legislators to address these concerns adequately.
The Internet remains mainly an intimidating world for most
Canadians in which trade relations are purely developed and
people cannot be certain of the ways in which confidential
information is being handled. Business as well as consumers are
often unsure exactly with whom they are dealing, whether payment
measures are secure and just what the legal frameworks are for
these types of transactions.
The Internet for most Canadians remains as a sort of computer
wild west where law and order at the moment is relatively poorly
represented and in some cases not represented at all and one
enters at one's own risk. Many parents are reluctant to
establish these Internet accesses because of well founded fears
that the online environment has become a haven for those who
traffic in such horrible issues as child pornography.
Business as well as consumers have been clamouring to build
confidence in terms of building measures with this electronic
commerce for some time. I think it is fair to say that Canadians
do not want cyberspace to be lawless. Proof of this can be found
in the recent controversy surrounding Mr. Zundel's events in
British Columbia.
One part of the bill which attempts to tackle people's
reservations about trade on the information highway is the
section on privacy rights. The bill adopts a set of guidelines
developed by the Canadian Standards Association for using,
gathering and disclosing the personal information of Canadians.
At the present time the federal Privacy Act deals strictly with
information that is collected by the public service. Bill C-54
goes further than this. After a period of three years the
guidelines for the handling of personal information will apply to
all commercial transactions. For example, the bill would force
companies to obtain the consent of individual Canadians in order
to collect personal information. It would force them to only use
this information for the purpose for which it was collected.
Under the bill people would be granted access to the information
held about them and would also have the right to make changes to
it when there are inaccuracies in the information regarding their
personal financial holdings and other relevant personal
information.
1325
Bill C-54 significantly strengthens the office of the privacy
commissioner and allows Canadians a means of recourse against
those who abuse confidential personal data. New Democrats
support these provisions in principle and feel they are long
overdue. With the rapid manner in which information can be
transferred in today's world it would be reassuring to know that
individuals do have some control on this information as it
relates to them personally.
In order that Canadians can feel confident enough to engage in
electronic commerce, common guidelines for the handling of
personal information are totally essential. They would benefit
business as well as the piece of mind of the consuming public.
The other prominent feature of this legislation that attempts to
remove the fears of Canadians is the discussion of security
features such as secure electronic signature which would now be
recognized by law. More noticeable, however, is the absence of
any discussion on encryption technology. I know my hon. friend
across the way is very interested in encryption technology, as we
all are, in terms of what we this can do for the whole privacy
issue. At first glance this appears to be an adequate solution
to addressing security concerns. However, the way the government
is going about this raises some very serious concerns about our
future.
Cryptography technology allows users to encode information then
pass it along the Internet; in other words, use various codes to
codify information being passed along so that others, without
knowing that code, would have a difficult or impossible time
deciphering what it is all about. This can be used to encode all
sorts of information such as credit card numbers, medical records
and private correspondence. In itself it is a good thing.
Unfortunately this legislation has adopted a completely hands off
approach in the area licensing encryption software. This
government has indicated no concern about licensing this type of
software. It has not demanded any sort of access mechanism that
would allow it to intercept and decode these kinds of messages.
I fear that the government has forfeited any means whatsoever of
policing the Internet when it comes to these critical matters.
For example, the privacy commissioner would have little power to
actually see whether personal information is being mishandled and
transferred illegally. The privacy provisions of the bill seem
to be weakened by the rather hands off approach to cryptology.
Also, law enforcement agencies might see their ability to thwart
child pornography traffickers severely curtailed as a result of
this omission. Similarly, without any source of access
mechanism, cryptology technology will possibly play into the
hands of organized crime and the perpetuators of corporate
sabotage.
The fact that government will allow any type of cryptology
technology will serve only to increase the security fears of
Canadians using this system. The thought that the RCMP and other
police forces will be basically powerless to investigate Internet
abuses is obviously something of great concern. This is really a
violation of the peace and good government principle on which
this nation was formed. It will do little to make Canadians feel
more secure.
It is true that the Internet presents a very difficult medium to
regulate. However, Canadian law enforcement agencies must be
permitted to fulfill their basic obligations to protect the
public. Barbara Roche, Britain's parliamentary undersecretary of
state for small firms, trade and industry, stated recently that
governments must not loose sight that electronic commerce is at
heart a human issue.
The point is that people risk being hurt if any encryption is
not regulated. In this area the government has shirked its
responsibilities to protect our citizens of all ages by taking
this hands off approach.
Other countries have expressed serious opposition to
unrestricted cryptology, including the United States, France,
Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Clearly there exists some
international consensus as to the dangers of allowing any sort of
cryptology products to be used. I wonder why the government has
chosen to ignore this concern. An opportunity to co-operate with
other nations on this security issue seems to have been missed as
a result of this omission. I hope the government will see fit
when this legislation moves through the House to change that and
enable Canada to join with these other nations to control the
misuse of cryptology products.
Bill C-54 attempts also to establish the federal government as a
responsible and model user of the Internet as a tool for
delivering services. With this in mind, many federal statutes
have been examined to see whether the references to means of
collecting information were limited only to paper. The result
that nearly half seem to indicate that paper transactions are the
only legal means of sharing information is worth noting.
1330
Bill C-54 attempts to adjust or apply current laws so that there
is an electronic alternative for transmitting appropriate
information. In principle, when asked to only say that this is a
good proposition, it would offer Canadians access to a new and
faster means of communicating with their government bodies
regarding important services.
The government believes that by acting as a role model it can
stimulate a substantial increase in the use of technology in all
realms. A quick glance at the current electronic commerce
situation reveals that Canadians are far from embracing the
Internet. In many cases this is because they simply cannot
afford to. Even if we assume that about 30% of Canadians have
some sort of access to the Internet, which may be just the fact
that they have connected computers at their schools, we must
acknowledge that the other three-quarters of the country are
presently in the dark.
I noted some statistics the other day, which are not much more
than serious estimations. Approximately 13% of Canadians had
home Internet access in 1997 and I suspect that number probably
has not changed much. We are talking about a relatively small
number of Canadians. We recognize Canadians are world leaders
in access to the Internet so we can see this is just the
beginning for this technology. This affords Bill C-54 an
excellent opportunity to do the job correctly.
Many Canadians in rural areas have begun to voice concerns. They
foresee exorbitant increases in the cost of local phone services
in their areas in the near future. We have all been hearing from
rural Canadians. With the competition between existing phone
companies they are concerned with what we have known for many
years as cross-subsidization. Charges levied on long distance
charges and related charges provide phone companies the ability
to keep rates relatively low in rural areas. That is now coming
under some question.
Will people living in rural Canada have reasonable phone rates
and therefore reasonable access to services such as the Internet?
How can a farmer in rural Saskatchewan be expected to invest in
a second line for Internet purposes if these service charges are
not kept affordable?
It seems that the government has put the cart before the horse
on this issue. In order for electronic commerce to work, New
Democrats believe all Canadians must be given an opportunity to
get on board this new technology. Otherwise we risk creating a
future society of information haves and information have nots.
One of the concerns that was raised in the commentary at the
recent OECD conference in Ottawa was the development of a select
technological elite not only in the world of commerce but in the
world in general. There would be people with access to the
Internet with a sophisticated knowledge of computer use and there
would be a vast majority of people who would be marginalized and
would have neither access nor that type of knowledge.
Small and medium size businesses have complained that the costs
of participating in electronic commerce are simply prohibitive.
Ideally, electronic commerce would provide an excellent means for
small businesses to expand their market reach but unfortunately
many cannot afford the fees charged by banks for setting up
secure on-line ordering services. The costs are keeping
electronic commerce in the big leagues. Small businesses will be
put at a competitive disadvantage unless this issue is
considered.
Industry Canada has addressed this issue with the community
storefront program which helps many small businesses become
on-line merchants. However we believe that a significant
expansion of this program will be absolutely crucial in order to
ensure the equitable growth of electronic commerce for the big
players as well as the small players. The present program is
good but certainly is not good enough at its present stage.
There is another important issue surrounding electronic
commerce. Very drastic economic changes will take place should
this type of on-line trade take off the way governments and others
predict. It is impossible to deny that when electronic commerce
becomes a more popular means of conducting business, thousands of
Canadians will risk losing their jobs.
Jeremy Rifkin, the American expert on the future of work,
concluded in his recent book that adverse effects of electronic
technology will have major impacts on Canadian society and other
societies around the world. There is a danger that electronic
commerce will eliminate whole types of workers.
Those at risk are a diverse group, everyone from stockbrokers to
call centre operators to shipping clerks in warehouses. A
society in which there is a large pool of unskilled labourers
with no work and a small compact group of informational elite is
not a desirable outcome.
1335
I see my time is quickly wrapping up. We have a number of other
concerns which I do not have the time to elaborate on but my
other colleagues will. It is clear at this point that we oppose
the legislation in its present form as being somewhat short on
the details required.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a short question to ask the hon. member from the
NDP.
The member made a statement that everyone must have access to
the Internet but the member did not indicate who was going to pay
for it and how the program was going to be paid for. We all like
to have services but we have to come up with a way to pay for
them and who is going to pay for them.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that
my colleague was paying attention.
That is exactly the point I was making. As we develop this
technology option in terms of electronic commerce, it is
imperative upon us as legislators that all Canadians have access
to this crucial service of the future. At the moment the way the
legislation is in this bill, this is not taking place. Small
businesses tell us that they are unable to take full advantage of
the service because of the cost.
As I said earlier we do not have to look far to find out how we
can go about it. I refer to the community storefronts program
which was introduced to assist small businesses in particular but
also medium size businesses in accessing this type of technology
for market development.
We will have to ensure that this program is expanded in all
regions of the country. There was an announcement just the other
day by Bell Telephone indicating its intention particularly in
the province of Ontario to provide this type of technology option
for the small and medium size business sector.
Our job is to ensure that these opportunities, as we move into
this new form of doing business, are available to all Canadians,
consumers and businesses alike.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Madam Speaker, I did not receive
the answers to my questions of who is going to pay for it, how we
are going to pay for it and how much it is going to cost to make
Internet available to everyone in Canada. I ask the member for a
short answer.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon.
friend has asked for a short answer. There are some things in
life that simply cannot be answered in a snappy, quick way and
this is one of them.
My friend makes an important point. This is something we cannot
rush and that is what we are saying. I think all the speakers I
have heard so far, including those from the government side, have
indicated a concern that we take this step by step to ensure it
is developed properly.
It is fair to say that some countries are dealing with this in a
creative way. For example as of September one country took the
unprecedented decision to provide every child in the country with
a laptop computer as part of the infrastructure for their
education. It is a relatively small and a relatively wealthy
country.
The point is that if we are going to address this whole issue of
including all Canadians in the information culture of the 21st
century, we have to take some bold steps as a country and as a
parliament. We have to acknowledge the fact that there is an
elite in our country that has access to the Internet and the
sophisticated computers that are required, but also a vast
majority currently are not hooked into the Internet and do not
have computer technology expertise.
We have a challenge as legislators as we move into the
e-commerce of the 21st century. All Canadians should have the
opportunity to participate. In other words there should be equal
opportunity to participate in e-commerce.
1340
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Madam Speaker, today we
begin the process of crafting legislation to catch up with
technology.
If Canada is truly to become a cyberspace world leader and carry
the title of most connected nation, government must conduct
itself accordingly. Indeed if a balance is struck between the
privacy of Internet users and the legitimate marketing efforts of
Canadian businesses, we could face a situation where Canada is
the world leader in e-commerce importing.
Trust is at the very centre of this entire exercise. Internet
users need to trust the security safeguards put in place by
on-line marketers. Canadian industry needs to trust that
legislation will permit them to responsibly do business on-line.
The Canadian taxpayers need to trust that they are getting value
for their money from their elected officials and that out of
their work will come a comprehensive state of the art electronic
commerce policy.
It should come as a surprise to nobody that Canada is poised to
be one of the world leaders in e-commerce. Unlike almost every
other nation in the world, our massive geography has dictated
that we seek innovative solutions to draw our population closer.
This should not be lost on my colleagues in the House today.
Bill C-54 is the first step in developing an e-commerce
structure. In many ways it is the 21st century equivalent of the
first spike. The Internet continues to grow exponentially with
implications for every Canadian business, government department
and indeed every Canadian resident.
It will be a privilege for me to work with my colleagues on the
industry committee in a diligent and non-partisan effort to
achieve responsive legislation. However, this issue goes well
beyond the boundaries of the industry department. Just as the
Y2K bug impacts every facet of government and what we try to
accomplish in this House, so does the Internet.
E-commerce will have far more implications than just privacy
issues. This government needs to come up with a comprehensive
plan which addresses the issues of uniformity in the digital
marketplace, on-line eavesdropping by security forces, public
private on-line relationships, competition, the role of small and
medium size enterprises, Canadian heritage and culture, and the
list goes on and on and on.
One Canadian executive made an interesting observation on this
issue and I think it bears repeating in this House. He said that
a fax machine is only valuable when the rest of the world has a
fax. Value explodes exponentially with membership. Extending his
advice to its logical conclusion would see government treat this
very carefully so as not to allow the fledgling Internet commerce
industry to falter. Possibly this is legitimate advice but there
are other ramifications to this.
There are industries that are immune to Internet competition.
When a family in Markham decides they want to have a Saturday
night barbecue, it is unlikely they will turn to the Internet to
supply their hamburgers. It is probably reasonable to assume
that given the choice, most people would rather step into the
warmth and smell of a bakery to buy their rolls than to order
on-line.
Many consumer choices remain which can be reviewed and ordered
in a visually pleasing format on a computer screen. Perhaps the
message here is that the butcher and the baker are safe but the
candlestick maker should beware. There is no doubt that my
analogy is simplistic but it does lead me to the discussion of
the pending showdown between downtown and cybertown.
Incentives are a very intricate balance in the marketplace. Some
are intrinsic such as the desire to be self-employed. Others can
be nurtured through regulations such as those that favour the use
of tax implications. The important issue to note is that there
are artificial incentives created by legislation. It is almost
certain that an equal and opposite disincentive is created as
well. The job of legislators should be to determine what is a
disincentive and debate it rationally.
Recently the federal revenue minister announced that the
government is not interested in creating new taxes for
e-commerce. I wish to commend him for that position. Canadians
have spoken loudly and clearly that they do not have the stomach
for any new taxes.
Instead we should be looking for ways to cut taxes. The question
we must ask ourselves is how we apply existing tax legislation in
a fair, predictable, revenue neutral fashion.
1345
At the present time a situation exists whereby online retailers,
set up in Prince Edward Island as an example, ship to other
provinces like Ontario. They are not required to collect sales
taxes. Instead consumers are responsible to remit their own sales
taxes to the provinces in which they reside.
This may come as a shock to the revenue minister so I ask him to
brace himself, but by and large these taxes are not being
remitted. It is not an insurmountable problem. Time and time
again Canadian industry has shown its willingness to comply with
the necessary regulations which allow government to collect the
revenue needed to provide the services Canadians demand.
At issue is the interim situation. There appears to exist a
marketplace where those who open storefronts, employ sales clerks
and pay commercial property tax will also have to endure a
competitive disadvantage. They are required to collect sales
taxes that their online competitors need not collect. I suggest
that this situation be addressed sooner rather than later. There
should not exist a timetable for when tax regulations will be
fair. Fairness must remain an inherent fundamental.
I have dealt with a purely domestic Internet tax issue, so now I
turn my attention to taxation and the international marketplace.
At the recent OECD e-commerce ministerial conference held in
Ottawa much of the focus was on the principles of e-commerce
taxation.
There was fundamental agreement in five areas. They included
the following. The first was neutrality. This would see that
taxation would seek to be equitable and fair as it pertained to
both e-commerce and traditional forms of commerce. The next was
efficiency. This would target compliance to ensure that it would
meet the dual objectives of limiting costs in administration.
Next came certainty and simplicity. This would ensure that
taxation levels and collection procedures were transparent and
predictable. Then came effectiveness and fairness. This would
limit the potential avoidance and evasion and guarantee that the
right amounts of tax were collected at the right time. Finally
there was flexibility. This provision was included to assist
legislators in the attempt to keep pace with emerging technology.
Fair minded, far reaching in their scope, even highbrow, all
these terms could be used to describe these principles. The
dilemma is that taken together the principles seek to equalize a
world of incongruent tax regimes. Perhaps they could be
implemented in a single nation state or even negotiated for a
long term phase-in within the realm of a free trade agreement.
However this is not the world we live in today.
Quite frankly there is no international formula for taxation
that could possibly balance the playing field. If we were trying
to negotiate such a treaty we would be beginning a long arduous
process which would entail all the same pitfalls as currently are
being encountered with the MAI. How do we respond to this?
The House is charged with the duty of protecting and fostering
Canadian interests. As far as I can see we have to choose to be
a player in a liberalized trading world or we can follow the path
of protectionist policies, a trail that most assuredly leads to a
dead end.
The Progressive Conservative Party, as the author of the
greatest, most successful free trade agreement in the nation's
history, is not about to turn its back on free trade. However we
must be realistic about the competition that exists out there.
The cold reality is that Internet commerce cannot help but be
brutally efficient. Price comparisons will be performed in a
matter of seconds, eliminating what used to be an entire Saturday
of window shopping. Price as a determinate will become the
overriding decision maker on the Internet. When we understand
this and couple it with our knowledge of our completely
uncompetitive situation, when we compare our tax system to our
neighbour's to the south, the situation is a serious one.
If the success story of the Ontario provincial government has
not provided the Minister of Finance with enough evidence that
tax cuts create growth, perhaps the uneven environment may spur
him on.
By and large regulation of the Internet has been a failure in
every jurisdiction that has tried to overstep the boundaries of
common sense.
1350
On November 23, the CRTC will begin hearings into what kinds of
regulations, if any, are needed for new media and the Internet.
The commission has been vilified for this and has been accused of
empire building. The Progressive Conservative Party believes
that this is exactly the kind of exercise we must engage in.
Certainly that is not to say we will support any move to censor
the Internet. In fact quite the opposite is the case. The
private sector must determine what the future holds for the
Internet. However the public sector has a role to play in
facilitating the debate.
One of the realities we must accept is that the Internet is
expanding at a rate which far exceeds our ability to respond with
legislation. The biggest impediment to any regulation is the
fact that rules can only be imposed through national laws. Yet
the medium itself is global in scope. Therefore government will
have to rely on the private sector to produce new technology
which individuals can use to access or eliminate specific
Internet content as they see fit. Government's role will be
greatly curtailed in the exercise.
The expansion of this technology that was originally devised as
a research tool for academics has surpassed all of us. Recently
an IBM executive referred to the phenomenon as a digital
revolution and labelled its impact as being no lesser in scope
than that of the industrial revolution. Like the industrial
revolution the Internet and e-commerce have the ability to change
the way business is done, the way governments are organized, and
the way economies are structured. The major difference though is
that this revolution is happening 10 times faster than the
industrial revolution. Beyond that the Internet is doubling in
size at a rate measured in months rather than in years.
I am certain that the CRTC will generate many worthy submissions
and be provided with volumes of advice. However it seems clear
that any attempts to control levels of Canadian content on the
net would result in abject failure.
Instead it is time for government and the Canadian industry to
work together in this pioneering venture. As model users of how
the Internet can be adapted to the needs of Canadians we will
have the greatest impact. Uniformity of policy from nation to
nation will become a much touted idea. By responding early we
have the greatest opportunity to leave a lasting Canadian imprint
on this emerging technology.
The challenge before us is no less than monumental. Perhaps the
most daunting realization we have to come to as legislators is
the elimination of our influence. Instead of imposing our will
we will have to become more proactive in our spheres of
influence. The days of paying lip service to providing
incentives must come to an end. There is no way to legislate
others to invest in Canada. Thus we must back up our knowledge
based economy with incentives and access to capital, something
which the industry minister failed to do when he recently tabled
the revamped Small Business Loans Act in the form of Bill C-53.
Recently the Liberal newsletter, otherwise known as the
Toronto Star, offered up some free advice on how these
incentives might be implemented. The suggestion was that the
Income Tax Act be amended to provide incentives for Canadian
businesses to advertise on Canadian Internet services.
Whether this suggestion has merit or not is a point for debate.
However the overriding principle that we need to grasp and
incorporate is the need to pursue e-commerce legislation with an
eye to the carrot and not the stick.
The OECD estimates that by the year 2003 e-commerce transactions
will reach $1 trillion, a number so large in scope it represents
54% of the U.S. direct marketing sales industry. Governments and
business need to develop solutions which will make this bulging
phenomenon available to all.
Computer costs have come down dramatically in recent years.
However personal computers are still out of the reach of many
households. If this gap is not addressed now, it will only
result in a larger chasm in the future.
1355
One of the greatest reasons for the rapid growth of the Internet
is its ability to allow expression which goes right to the heart
of what it is to be alive, to be human. Knowing this we cannot
accept that some might be disenfranchised.
This is not a subject which should fill us with fear.
Predictably many in the union movement have reverted to their
Luddite ways and decried the potential loss of jobs. There is no
basis for such fears. Instead the reality is that many new high
salary positions have been created and in fact remain unfilled as
demand continues to outstrip supply. These same positions are
ones which traditionally have not leant themselves to trade union
affiliation. Perhaps those in the labour movement who engage in
such fearmongering should examine their own motivations. It
seems that job losses are not their greatest worry but instead it
is their own influence which worries them.
Other issues that need to be addressed include law enforcement
for serious egregious offences which are committed over the
Internet. Bill C-54 begins to deal with this issue in its
amendments to the Canadian Evidence Act. The proposed amendments
would create an admissible provision which defines electronic
signatures. This will make it difficult for online fraudsters to
lurk behind some perceived anonymity. It is also my hope that
this provision will assist in the identification of hate
promoters that will continue to permeate the Internet.
This issue will continue to be revisited as long as this virus
continues to exist in Canada. Whether it is on line or otherwise
it strikes me as ironic that tools such as the Internet, which
has so much power to unite the planet, continues to provide a
haven for blatant distorters of truth. I call on all my
colleagues in the House to work together so we can begin the
process of eliminating this plague.
Copyright infringements are a serious concern which cannot be
successfully addressed by one nation. Canada needs to show the
same leadership on this issue as we have exhibited in the past
when it comes to protecting creative capital. A point that we
all need to be reminded of, plain and simple, is that copyright
violations are theft and there is a victim.
The head of the digital crime unit, the Federation Against
Software Theft, FAST, recently confirmed that Internet crime is
growing. The Internet is a primary tool used for software theft.
It is also used increasingly for the distribution of counterfeit
software and other intellectual properties such as music. It is
imperative that we give law enforcement officials all the tools
they need in this battle.
I have spoken to some very large picture issues regarding
e-commerce. Now I would like to turn my attention to the
specific provisions of Bill C-54.
The Speaker: I think that this would be an opportune
moment to intervene because the member is just getting into his
last points and will have the floor right after question period.
It being 2 p.m. we will proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
STUDENT WEEK OF ACTION
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week students from Peterborough joined students across Canada in
the Student Week of Action.
Across Ontario students are concerned with the actions of the
provincial government which have cut funding to educational
institutions and deregulated tuition fees. The result of this
has been a dramatic increase in student costs.
Our government caucus on post-secondary education and research
supports actions by the federal government designed to help ease
the burden placed on students. Through millennium scholarships,
Canada study grants, tax free RRSP withdrawals, RESPs, tax relief
on student loans and increased funding to the granting councils,
the federal government is helping to bridge the gap to a good
education. We are doing this because we know that education is
the key to future prosperity.
I lend my support to students speaking out against the actions
of the Ontario government and urge all provincial governments to
follow the example of their federal counterparts.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in 1980 when the Prime Minister was Canada's justice minister he
said “There are many people in this land protected in normal
society but these rights can disappear very rapidly”. How
bizarre.
The Prime Minister forecasted his own actions 18 years ago. He
has made the rights of Canadians disappear rapidly. There is
clear evidence the Prime Minister and his office worked
aggressively to suppress Canadians' charter freedoms of speech,
expression and association at the APEC meetings in Vancouver last
year.
At hearings currently in process he is funding over $2,000 an
hour of legal protection for himself while he instructs Canada's
solicitor general to deny $1 of funding for protesters.
1400
The solicitor general who is supposed to be Canadians' protector
shamelessly is the protector of the Prime Minister. Shame on the
Prime Minister, shame on his servants and especially shame on the
solicitor general who has abandoned Canadians. He allows the
Prime Minister to act as a—
[Translation]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ahuntsic.
* * *
THE LATE RIGHT HON. BRIAN DICKSON
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, I
would like to speak in memory of one our most distinguished
legal minds, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Canada, the Right Honourable Brian Dickson, who passed away last
Saturday, at the age of 82.
He sat on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1973 to 1990, and
became chief justice in 1984, a position he held until 1990.
[English]
Before joining this country's highest court he sat on the
Manitoba bench. He also served his country heroically in World
War II. He made a lasting contribution to the law and played a
critical role in developing jurisprudence under the charter of
rights and freedoms.
He will be remembered as a jurist of keen intellect, discerning
judgment and great integrity. He will be missed by all who had
the honour of knowing and working with him. This is a sad loss
for all Canadians.
I know all parliamentarians will join me and the government in
extending condolences to his family and friends, and our respect
for a great jurist and a war hero who served his country well.
* * *
NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past weekend I had the privilege to represent the Minister
of Canadian Heritage at the Athletes Can conference in Vancouver
in British Columbia to announce the creation of the National
Sports Centre, greater Vancouver.
With this partnership program, the federal government and Sports
Canada are contributing $250,000 in 1998-99 and $350,000 for
every year thereafter.
The unique feature of the Vancouver Centre will be its delivery
of coaching development services and its partnership with
Victoria National coaching institutions.
Of interest is that the centre will also become part of the
National Sports Centre of British Columbia, which will
co-ordinate programming among five existing centres and two
national sports centres in Vancouver and Victoria.
By investing in these programs we are not only supporting our
athletes today but supporting an investing in our youth today and
our athletes of tomorrow.
* * *
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S AWARD
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to five women who received
in 1998 the Governor General's Award in commemoration of the
persons case.
The Governor General's Award was established in 1979 to mark the
50th anniversary of the persons case. It represents a salute to
the famous five who were successful in challenging our political
traditions and allowed for the admission of women into the Senate
of Canada.
This year's recipients of the Governor General's Award are
Jacqueline Sicotte Bétque, Alice Brown, Claire Haggtvelt,
Stella-Maria Zola Gule-LeJohn and Phyllis Seymour. These five
remarkable women have carried on in the footsteps of the famous
five whom we are honouring this month, women's history month.
Today's recipients join the ranks of the famous five by fighting
for women's right to vote, for equal treatment of women on family
farms, for safe havens for women who experience abuse and
providing us with a real picture of women's lives in Canada.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
is the day that Albertans vote for the people they want to
represent them in the Senate of Canada.
The Prime Minister has done everything he could to deny
Albertans this democratic right. He strong armed the provincial
Liberals into not running candidates. He has called Alberta's
Senate election a joke. He appointed his own senator part way
through the process, thereby giving Albertans his version of the
Trudeau salute.
He twisted reality by saying that a constitutional change would
be required to appoint an elected senator. He levelled all his
guns at Albertans to try to stop us but he has failed.
Today hundreds of thousands of Albertans will vote to send two
senators in waiting and a clear message to this Prime Minister.
Each one of those Albertans who gets out and votes today clearly
has more respect for democracy than the Prime Minister and all
his cronies put together.
* * *
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October was designated women's history month by the
federal government in 1992. I rise in celebration of women's
contributions to Canadian history and Canadian society.
1405
Women's history month coincides with the annual commemoration of
the persons case of 1929. Five Canadian women fought for and
won recognition of women as persons under the British North
America Act. This gave them the opportunity to be appointed to
the Senate.
In the words of Nellie McClung, one of the famous five women who
fought and won that historic case almost 70 years ago, people
must know the past to understand the present and face the future.
It is for this reason that we celebrate women's history month
every year. Each October we recognize women's past achievements
to instil a sense of pride in our historical origins and to
provide role models for other women across the country.
It is an honour to rise and celebrate with Canadians the
difference women have made in the past—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark—Carleton.
* * *
THE LATE RIGHT HON. BRIAN DICKSON
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
draw to the attention of the House the passing of the Right Hon.
Brian Dickson, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Mr. Dickson was named to the supreme court in 1973 and was chief
justice from 1984 until his retirement in 1990. He led the court
during the period when the charter of rights and freedoms was
presenting new challenges to our legal system. Mr. Dickson was
known as a strong supporter of minority rights. Many regarded
him as the greatest chief justice ever to preside over the
supreme court.
Brian Dickson was also a war hero and was grievously wounded
during World War II while serving with the Royal Canadian
Artillery. He continued to contribute to public life in Canada
right up until his death.
I am proud to have counted him among my constituents and am
grateful for all he gave to Canada during his lifetime and the
enduring legacy he left to this country.
* * *
THE CABINET
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us talk about the Prime Minister's secret code of conduct for
his cabinet.
It calls for the Prime Minister to defend his solicitor general
for freely and publicly discussing his department's
investigations even though it ruins them.
The secret code authorizes the finance minister to spend the EI
surplus, greedily siphoning it away from workers and employers.
The code calls for the finance minister to fire a public
servant for exposing the mismanagement of the CPP.
The secret code sanctions the firing of the government's own
fishery committee chairman because he gutted too many fish
stories.
The code obligated the health minister to deny compensation for
all victims of tainted blood. It safeguarded the Liberals when
they cancelled the Somalia inquiry, kept the Krever inquiry in
court and flip-flopped on the helicopter deal.
The Liberal cabinet's secret code of conduct is no secret to
those Canadians who are victims of this cold hearted government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.
* * *
[Translation]
JULIE PAYETTE
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
night, in Montreal, astronaut Julie Payette was chosen Person of
the Year at the 15th Gala Excellence organized by the newspaper
La Presse.
We want to salute the courage shown by this young astronaut
determined to succeed in a career that requires a lot of
strength, where “you can never fail, never make a mistake”, as
she put it herself. She has every reason to be proud of this
honour bestowed upon her.
I also want to congratulate all the other recipients who receive
similar encouragement in various areas, from the arts to
literature, business and sports.
We hope these awards will inspire our young people to follow in
the footsteps of the people who were honoured last night.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the merger of
the coast guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has
been absolutely disastrous.
In the past several years tens of millions of dollars have been
cut from the Canadian Coast Guard, severely limiting Canada's
search and rescue capabilities. By next April a further $55
million will be cut from the coast guard.
After the Swissair disaster the men and women of the coast guard
did yeomen's work. Their competence in extremely difficult
circumstances made all Canadians extremely proud and demonstrated
why the coast guard requires adequate funding.
Now these brave men and women are getting pink slips and tied up
ships. With a coastline as long as Canada's, this is scandalous.
The coast guard will not be able to do its job without the proper
tools and adequate resources.
What does the government plan to do next, contract our search
and rescue requirements to the United States?
* * *
[Translation]
ANDRÉ O. DUMAS
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute today to André O. Dumas, who
received the McKee Award at the annual meeting of the Canadian
Aeronautics and Space Institute, held recently in Calgary. Mr.
Dumas is the second francophone to receive this award in more
than 70 years.
This honour recognizes his remarkable contribution to the
aviation and aeronautics industry.
1410
Mr. Dumas started his career as a pilot with the Royal Canadian
Air Force during the Second World War. Among other
responsibilities, he also held for more than 10 years the
position of regional administrator for Transport Canada in
Quebec.
We are also grateful to him for his contribution to the
development of the Air Cadets in Quebec. Always eager to get
involved, he sat on the Mirabel Regional Development Commission
to come up with an action plan based on the airport
infrastructure.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to extend its most sincere
congratulations to André O. Dumas.
* * *
CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past October
15, our government announced a $41 million investment over the
next four years in three networks of centres of excellence, the
Canadian Arthritis Network, the Geomatics for Informed Decisions
Network and the Mathematics of Information Technology and
Complex Systems Network.
Such an investment will be of particular benefit to Laval
University, which houses a sizeable number of researchers in
these fields, but it will also have a significant impact on
Canada as a whole, through the presence of our top researchers
and their partners in the universities, government and the
private sectors
We must not forget that Laval and the Quebec City area have
played a role of excellence in geomatics for 10 years, and
provide support to the network through research infrastructure
and a pool of top-notch human resources.
* * *
[English]
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Interlinx, a company in my riding, received a cheque from the
Department of National Defence dated September 11, 1998 for the
sum of $1,182.56. Interlinx does not have an invoice for this fee
and has in fact done no work for the Department of National
Defence.
As the defence committee studied quality of life issues last
year it became apparent that the Department of National Defence
cannot afford this type of wasteful management. Yet the Prime
Minister found $14.5 million to build a new armoury in his
riding.
It is important that the Canadian public and members of the
Canadian Forces at all levels are confident that resources are
managed properly and not being wasted.
How many more cheques have been sent out? What assurance is
there that this type of wasteful management will not happen
again? To answer these questions to Canadians' satisfaction, I
have written to the auditor general to request an internal audit
of the Department of National Defence.
I will return the wasted money to the minister this afternoon
after question period.
* * *
FAMILY SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay tribute to Family Service Canada, a national
charitable organization with a mandate to promote the well-being
of families in communities.
This organization provided full services in counselling to more
than 400,000 Canadians. This year it launched a national
initiative called images of families. Canadians of all ages are
encouraged to send photos or stories capturing a moment in the
life of their family. Details can be obtained through Family
Service Canada.
Volunteers, staff and members of Family Service Canada are to be
commended for being there for our children, our country's most
valuable resource.
* * *
[Translation]
1998 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois wishes to pay tribute to 1998 Nobel Peace Prize
laureates John Hume and David Trimble.
These two workers for peace have earned this distinction through
their leadership culminating in the signing of the Good Friday
agreement, which lay down the foundations for a lasting peace in
Northern Ireland.
For John Hume, the Nobel Peace Prize is a recognition of his
peace-minded and democratic battle for peace in Northern Ireland.
For David Trimble, it is a tribute to a risk-taker who opted for
the route of reconciliation as well. This Nobel Prize is none
too soon in coming, and is richly deserved.
Peace in Northern Ireland is richly deserved. Thanks to John
Hume and David Trimble, the people of Northern Ireland have a
new peace, but through the Good Friday agreement they have also
given themselves the right to be masters of their own fate, the
right to choose their own political status. They have restored
freedom to Northern Ireland.
* * *
[English]
PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to state that today is a great day for democracy in the
province of New Brunswick.
The Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick is on the
eve of having three members elected to the legislature in
Fredericton. Those candidates are Everett Sanipass, Brad Green
and our leader Bernard Lord.
Today will represent the first day of Bernard Lord's entering
into the legislature in Fredericton. It will be the first day of
a long electoral career.
Congratulations on Bernard Lord's victory today.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has at least six high priced lawyers
defending it at the APEC inquiry, but the students who were
pepper sprayed currently have none. According to the solicitor
general this is fair.
Is the Prime Minister's idea of fair play giving one side of the
APEC inquiry a team of high priced lawyers and the other side
simply a blast of pepper spray?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a commission that has been established under
the law of this parliament. It is a commission that looks into
the interests of those who have a complaint. It has been done
many times.
There is a lawyer working for the commission who is helping the
witnesses and the complainants air their complaints. The police
and the government being challenged have a lawyer to defend them.
But there is no complaint against the students. They are the
ones complaining and they can make their case. If they have
problems as witnesses, the lawyer in charge—
The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every crook in this country can usually count on getting
legal aid from this government. Even murderers and rapists like
Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo received legal aid. There is no
law and there is no convention that stops the government from
giving help to the students at the APEC inquiry.
Why is it that criminals can get legal aid from this government
but legal protesters cannot?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not accusing the students of anything. It is the
students who are complaining about the work of the police. That
is what is happening. We are not, as the Leader of the
Opposition is, comparing the students with criminals. They are
not criminals. They are making complaints against the police.
The commission is willing to help them if they have problems with
their testimony before the commission.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is wandering around in circles.
Surely it is self-evident that it is not fair play when we have
an inquiry and one side has at least six high priced lawyers and
all of the resources of the Government of Canada behind it and
the other side has nothing.
Will the Prime Minister stand up in this House and say that he
thinks that is a fair deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I want to repeat that there is no complaint
against the students. They are not accused of anything. They
are the ones complaining against the activities of the police and
against the activities of the government. The students have made
their complaints.
There is a law of parliament that was passed to permit every
complainant to be heard, but complainants in front of any corps
of police in Canada do not ask for lawyers. Complaints are made
and the commission looks into the validity of the complaints on
behalf of the people of Canada.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
spent the last two weeks at the APEC hearing in Vancouver and I
can tell the Prime Minister that there is absolutely no sense of
balance. I saw the first student have his testimony completely
twisted and warped by a process that only a veteran crown
prosecutor can do.
How in the world can the Prime Minister say it is fair that he
is siccing high priced lawyers on these students?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, commission counsel said “The commission can and will
take extra measures to ensure that the protesters who cannot
afford lawyers are dealt with fairly. We are there to make sure
they are treated fairly and that is what we will do”.
There is no complaint against the students. They are the ones
complaining against the police. Of course the police want to
defend themselves because they are the ones being accused. No
one is accusing the students of anything.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister should spend one day at the inquiry to
discover exactly how unbalanced this process is. The difficulty
is not only will the students not get a fair hearing, but the
RCMP themselves will be seen as taking part in a tainted and
slanted process.
I ask again: Will the Prime Minister fund the students as they
should be funded? Would he appear at the inquiry without proper
legal counsel himself?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just explained the process. There is a law of
parliament that was created to help any citizen in Canada who has
a complaint against the police to complain without having to hire
a lawyer. That is why we established that commission. When
somebody complains about the activities of the police, it is
normal for the police being accused to defend themselves, but
there is absolutely no accusation against any student.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
politically speaking, the Solicitor General is being kept on
life support by the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, that still
does not prevent him from making bad decisions.
Is the Solicitor General not refusing to pay the legal fees of
the students who filed a complaint in the “Peppergate” affair
because he is afraid of losing control over the investigation
and because he is afraid the conclusions reached by the
commission of inquiry will be totally different from what he
anticipated three weeks ago?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, absolutely not. In fact the Public Complaints
Commission has distinguished itself for many years in its
capacity to do justice, to be fair to complainants and so on.
That is exactly what it is doing in this case.
A request was made. I considered it and decided against
providing funding.
There are many tribunals of this kind which operate throughout
government. It is very important that Canadians have access to
an informal process to lay these kinds of complaints and I have
every confidence in the Public Complaints Commission.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
one side, there is the government and the RCMP, the accused,
with a dozen lawyers paid for by the taxpayer. On the other
side, there are the students, who filed the complaint, who were
roughed up, arrested and deprived of their rights and who cannot
afford a single lawyer.
Does the Prime Minister not think the government's behaviour in
this matter is not verging on the indecent and immoral?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat, there is no charge against the students. No one is
accusing the students of anything. No charge has been laid in
court against the students as a result of the demonstration.
They were the ones who filed a complaint against the police, and
the law provides for a commission to protect all the witnesses.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
government is trying not only to control and manipulate the
ongoing investigation into the events at the APEC conference but
also, and this is serious, to control and manipulate its
coverage by the media. That is why a complaint was filed with
the ombudsman at the CBC and the journalist relocated.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by engaging in behaviour
that is totally unacceptable from a government, he is bringing
discredit upon all political institutions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an
ombudsman has been appointed, and former CBC chairman Patrick
Watson, who is also a journalist, stated, and I quote:
[English]
“I am not troubled by this because the ombudsman is independent
and will try to determine the facts. This complaint procedure is
far better than trying an end run to put pressure on a
journalist”. I am quoting Patrick Watson. We did not call the
president of the CBC. He wrote to the ombudsman, who can take a
complaint from this gentleman anytime he has a problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the House
no longer has confidence in the Solicitor General, the RCMP no
longer has confidence in him and neither does the public.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that, by adamantly defending
his Solicitor General, he is actually fuelling public cynicism
about politicians in general?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
commission has been established by the Parliament of Canada to
investigate public complaints against the police.
Complaints were filed, as they regularly are, and the same
procedure is followed regardless of who files a complaint
against the RCMP. That is how things are done.
As regards the CBC, its former chairman said that the thing to
do was to go to the ombudsman. I know the Bloc seldom has reason
to complain about the CBC.
1425
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The RCMP
describe pepper spray as stronger than tear gas or mace, an
inflammatory agent causing severe burning, contraction of the
eyes, bronchial spasms, gasping for breath, gagging and nausea.
This weekend I was asked by the mother of one of the UBC
students pepper sprayed at APEC why the PM keeps joking about her
daughter's pain. Will he apologize to her and all of the
students for his shameful and arrogant insensitivity? How does
the Prime Minister answer that mother's question? Will he
apologize.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the police are accountable to the commission for the techniques
they use. I do not know whether or not there are consequences.
All sorts of techniques were used in the past. Apparently, this
was a new one I did not even know about. The member suggests
that an individual may have been hurt. If she is still in pain,
I apologize.
Instead of using baseball bats or other weapons, the police are
now trying to use more civilized methods and that is why they
also had towels to help out.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the question was not about RCMP techniques, it was about
the Prime Minister's jokes.
I will repeat the question to the Prime Minister. This weekend
I was asked by the mother of one of the UBC students who was
pepper sprayed at APEC why the Prime Minister keeps joking about
her daughter's pain. Will he apologize to her and to all of the
students for his shameful and arrogant insensitivity?
Will the Prime Minister now stand in his place, do the right
thing and apologize for those disgusting jokes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am ready to apologize if some damage has been caused.
I have no problem with that.
The police technique to maintain order is not a domain that I
know much about. If they used le gaz lacrymogène and other
things that they decided to use—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: If the Prime Minister wants to continue his
answer, he has time.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I want to
categorically say that if this lady is suffering because of the
activities of the police, I apologize. That is it. What more
does he want? But if the hon. member, rather than trying to
score political points, would let the commission do its work, the
people of Canada would know all the truth.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the student complainants will have no one sitting at
counsel table at the APEC inquiry.
Taxpayers are shelling out for at least three lawyers to protect
the Prime Minister's interests at this inquiry, even though he is
not a witness nor under subpoena.
Pepper sprayed students have been denied this request. The
commission itself, the member for Vancouver Quadra and the
Liberals' own B.C. wing have urged the Prime Minister to do the
right thing.
Why does the Prime Minister get a blank cheque for his legal
team at this inquiry while the students themselves get blanked?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the law provides that commission counsel is there to
represent the interests of the complainants. They do that for
any Canadian who has a complaint against the RCMP.
If a witness feels they need help with their testimony, counsel
for the commission has said that he is there to help, and he has
the resources to make sure they have the help they need. That is
the way the commission was established.
But in no such complaint in the past—
1430
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, by the Prime Minister's answer, he does not
understand the process. This is like saying that you are going
to rely on a judge at an inquiry.
The Prime Minister has legal representation because he knows he
risks becoming the focus at this inquiry. In fact it was the
government itself that requested this spring that lawyers be
present at the inquiry.
Why is this same government refusing legal funding for the
students? How can it justify footing the bill for the RCMP and
the PMO while at the same time denying it for students? Where is
the basic impartiality, equity and fairness in this process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no accusation against any students.
An hon. member: Just throw them in jail.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: No, no. There is no
accusation. Therefore they are not being attacked by anybody.
The RCMP is being attacked. Some people in my office have been
asked to testify because members of parliament claimed that they
are responsible.
Let the commission do its work and we will know if it is
appropriate or not appropriate for the RCMP to use pepper spray.
It is the commission that will tell us. Let it do its work.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister says that no one had a complaint
against the students. Obviously he sure had a complaint against
the students when he ordered them pepper sprayed at the APEC
conference.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Prime Minister why is he unwilling to give one single nickel to
the legal case of the students when he is willing to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars to save the sorry butts of
himself and this government? Why is that?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the decision not to fund the complainants was
mine.
It was important in terms of the original intention of the
public complaints commission as it was established some 10 years
ago, to make sure that ordinary Canadians have access to an
informal process, not unlike a large number of similar
administrative tribunals throughout government. It was on that
basis I made that decision. I communicated that to the panel.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we will have to check the black box in the airplane
to see what the real thoughts are over there.
The fact is that Canadians are entitled to certain fundamental
principles of justice in this country. They are accustomed to it
and they deserve a fair hearing free from political interference.
I think both sides should get fair legal representation.
Canadians expect some sort of justice, not some sort of Suharto
kangaroo court in this country.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Show trials may work in
Indonesia but what is—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, I have every confidence in the public
complaints commission. It has a 10-year history. It is well
regarded internationally. The public complaints commission will
get to the truth.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada's unemployment survey
confirms one thing: 6 unemployed workers out of 10 are not
receiving EI benefits.
Now that the numbers are out, what does the minister have to say
to the 60% of unemployed workers who cannot rely on the EI
system?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the survey showed is that
78% of workers who have had some sort of connection with the
labour force during the previous year are covered by the EI
system.
What the survey showed was that the number of unemployed workers
actually receiving benefits was not an indication of the
system's effectiveness.
1435
What the survey showed was that workers who do not qualify for
EI are those the system was never intended to assist in the
first place.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister can try to dazzle us with his
survey but one fact remains: 6 unemployed workers out of 10 are
not receiving EI benefits.
What is the rationale for an EI system whose main purpose is to
create surpluses for the government, rather than provide
benefits for unemployed workers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the EI system covers 78% of
Canadians who have some connection with the labour force. What
the member is saying is that the EI system should cover people
who have never been employed, for instance.
People who have never been employed are not covered by the EI
system. People who have voluntarily left their job, without
justification, are not covered by the system, nor are
self-employed workers.
The member should wake up to the fact that the system is doing
what it is designed to do.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
over the weekend the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs came
to Alberta with a message to deliver. That message to Albertans
was that the Senate election that is being held today was a waste
of taxpayers' money.
My question is for the real deliverer of that message, the Prime
Minister. What does he think is a bigger waste of money,
Alberta's democratic Senate election or the present current
useless Senate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we voted here on this side in favour of an elected
Senate while members opposite were campaigning against it.
Hon. members opposite should deal with the real preoccupation of
the people, having an equal Senate, a representative Senate, but
they are not dealing with it.
It is like during the last referendum. When members on this
side were in Montreal trying to convince people to keep Quebec in
Canada, the Leader of the Opposition was talking with the U.S.
ambassador, telling him that he had a plan to split Canada even
before the—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has again slapped Albertans in the face.
Ninety-one percent of Albertans want an elected Senate. Both
Premiers Klein and Bouchard want to change this country. Premier
Klein wants to hold a good faith vote on an elected Senate.
Premier Bouchard wants to hold a vote on separation to break up
the country.
Why does the Prime Minister treat Premier Bouchard's negative
initiative with more respect than Premier Klein's positive one?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I dealt with it. We are for an equal, elected and
effective Senate, something that members opposite do not want,
because the minute they have an election, the number of senators
will never be equal.
The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand what I
was talking about. While we were debating to keep Quebec in
Confederation during the referendum, the leader of the Reform
Party was calling U.S. Ambassador Blanchard telling him that he
had a plan on the division of Canada's federal debt following a
separatist victory. Is that not shameful?
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance announced that the government has decided to
use the federal budget surplus to reduce Canada's debt. However,
a significant part of the surplus comes from the employment
insurance fund.
1440
In making this decision, is the Minister of Finance not saying
that he has decided to have Canada's debt paid off primarily by
those who earn $39,000 or less a year, that is the workers who
are the main contributors to the employment insurance fund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
clearly said that no decision had yet been made.
One thing is clear: tax cuts will certainly benefit the lowest
paid workers, the same way that our last budget benefited
400,000 people who used to pay taxes and no longer do so.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government always says it is keeping a close eye on the
provinces, to make sure the money transferred to them is used
specifically for the purposes intended.
How can the government impose this requirement on the provinces,
when it is using the employment insurance fund as it pleases,
without taking into account the purposes for which contributions
were made by businesses and workers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
I said in my economic statement is that the government was very
pleased with the provinces' initiative, whereby if transfer
payments are made for health, the provinces are prepared to
guarantee that the money will indeed be used in the health
sector.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister called the Alberta
Senate election a joke. He refused to allow Liberals to run a
candidate. He sabotaged the event by appointing his choice to
the Senate two weeks before today's vote. But when Quebec has its
provincial vote on separatism, the Prime Minister will not dare
call it a joke or try to sabotage it.
Why the double standard? Why does he treat Quebec voters with
respect and has absolutely no regard for the wishes of Albertans?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the Reform Party is comparing
the debate about the secession of Canada and the debate about how
to improve an important institution, the Senate of Canada.
The reform of the Senate of Canada must be a comprehensive one,
not a piecemeal one that would be bad for all Canadians,
including Albertans.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada frequently sends observers abroad
to monitor foreign elections to make sure that they are truly
democratic. However the Prime Minister in Canada is more than
willing to engage in a very non-democratic practice of appointing
party hacks as federal legislators.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to develop a truly worthwhile
millennium project, a Canada where all federal legislators are
elected?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we were for that and the Reform Party was against it. I
think that the Reform Party would be well advised to read the
letter that Senator Roche wrote last week giving a plan to try to
have an elected, effective and equal Senate in Canada and to do
it in a rational way.
The way it is being done in Alberta, the Conservative Party has
no candidate, the NDP has no candidate, the Liberals have none
provincially and federally. There is only the Reform Party with
candidates because the other parties knew that it was something
that would not work.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last week was Poverty Week in Quebec, and the Minister of
Finance celebrated it by confirming that the government had no
intention of reforming the EI system in order to improve the
situation of the unemployed and will continue to dip into the
surplus to pay down its debt.
Is the minister aware that one good way to battle poverty is to
enhance workers' access to employment insurance, so that people
who have paid into it do not end up on welfare when they are
laid off?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I totally agree, which is why I
note that close to 80% of laid-off workers are covered by the
employment insurance system, as this morning's Statistics Canada
report shows very clearly.
1445
There are other ways of fighting poverty as well, which is why
our government created a national child tax benefit specifically
to combat poverty where it counts most, with the children who
constitute our future.
* * *
[English]
ACTION PLAN FOR FOOD SECURITY
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday we commemorated
World Food Day. Some time next year there will be six billion
people on this earth. In a world that produces enough food to
feed every man, woman and child, more than 800 million people do
not have enough to eat.
Could the minister of agriculture please tell me what the
government is going to do?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, along with 186
other nations, has promised to cut in half the number of
undernourished people in the world by the year 2015.
The response from the government is Canada's action plan for
food security which I launched in Toronto on Saturday. It is a
national plan involving all levels of government as well as the
non-governmental and volunteer sectors. It calls for activities
and initiatives both in Canada and abroad.
We will be putting a bureau in place later this fall in order to
monitor and to conduct the process in the years to come.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty significantly changes the
relationship between the Nisga'a people, their neighbours, the
Government of Canada and British Columbia.
The treaty represents a fundamental change in the constitutional
arrangements in Canada and has resulted in a call for a
referendum by the B.C. Liberal Party.
When will the minister join B.C. Liberals and call for a
referendum on the Nisga'a treaty?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our position on the
constitutionality of the Nisga'a agreement has clearly been made
in the House and in other areas.
As it is now before the courts it is inappropriate for me to
comment further.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Constitution states that treaty rights include
rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be
so acquired. Thus the Nisga'a treaty becomes part of the
Constitution.
Will the minister accept B.C. Premier Clark's logic that a
change to constitutional arrangements is not a change to the
Constitution, or will she accept the will of the people of B.C.
and the B.C. Liberal Party and call for a referendum on the
Nisga'a treaty?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition would do well
to read the Constitution of Canada.
We believe firmly in section 35 of the Constitution and will
protect it.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
There are two things the Prime Minister does not seem to get. We
are asking him to apologize for his joke, not for the pepper
spraying itself but the joke about the pepper spraying. Second,
the commission itself requested funding. Presumably the
commission has some notion of its own mandate.
Could the Prime Minister take this opportunity to heal the wound
that he has created between himself and the students, apologize
for his jokes and respect the commission's request for funding of
the students?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a lot of people were making jokes on Saturday night
about pepper, not only me. That is part of debate.
I said that if this lady has suffered something because of
this abuse by the police it will be judged by the commission. I
apologized to her on behalf of the police, but let us find out if
it was appropriate for the police to use pepper spray or not.
I am not an expert. This is why we have a commission to look
into that. As I said earlier, if the commission needs more
funding it will be made available.
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will give up beating a dead horse and go to the Minister of
International Trade on another matter having to do with the
government's insensitivity toward a global economy that has no
regard for human rights.
The minister of trade knows that France has pulled out of the
MAI talks because it found them to be a completely inadequate
framework for multilateral talks. Will the minister of trade now
do the same and tell the House of Commons that Canada finds this
process to be inadequate and will not be participating in the
negotiations at the OECD?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the supplementary question has to do
with the first question beats me and everybody else.
We have said very clearly that Canada will only sign the right
deal when it comes along. Six months ago we agreed as a member
of the OECD to a six month reflection or a six month pause.
1450
We also agreed that we would rejoin in October to have a take
note and a take stock debate. We think that is appropriate. We
will be there.
If it is the end of the road, Canada will not loose any sleep
over it. If we can continue to put in place a regime of
investment rules, that is also good for Canadian companies.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general said moments ago that he has
faith in the public complaints commission. How can it have faith
in him? This commission reports directly to the solicitor
general who then in turn reports to the Prime Minister.
The solicitor general has compromised this process without
regret or responsibility. Did the solicitor general further
undermine the APEC inquiry by discussing his decision not to fund
the students with the Prime Minister's Office?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in response to another question,
a whole series of departments is affected by this. There are
many tribunals throughout the government that might be affected
by this precedent setting decision. Consequently there were
broad consultations before I made my decision.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I guess that is yes.
The solicitor general should not have made the decision about
the APEC funding in the first place. He breached his oath of
office when he spoke at length about the APEC hearing in a public
place. The taxpayers are funding spin doctors, lawyers and the
solicitor general to cover for the Prime Minister while the
students have no legal defence.
In light of this incestuous Liberal conflict of interest, will
the Prime Minister remove the cloak of political interference,
fire the solicitor general and bring in a new and objective
minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is no.
We want the commission to look into the matter as quickly as
possible, listen to all the witnesses and make a report that will
be made public to everybody, not only to the solicitor general or
me but to the whole system, the press and all members of
parliament. Everybody will be in a position to judge the
activities of the police and the quality of the report of the
commission.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government's aboriginal head start program is helping to
ensure a healthy start to life for all off reserve children.
The 1997 throne speech and the 1998 budget committed to an
expansion of this project on to the reserves. Could the Minister
of Health tell parliament when on reserve children could
participate in this very worthwhile project?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question is a very timely one. In 1995 the government began
the aboriginal head start program. Since then it has helped tens
of thousands of children in aboriginal communities, but it has
only been available in urban centres.
I am pleased that after question period today in Centre Block I
will be able to announce that we will commence immediately to
receive applications to fund aboriginal head start programs on
reserves to help thousands more aboriginal children to get a good
healthy start in life.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has a $14 million shortfall in the RCMP budget,
$8.5 million of which is in British Columbia.
The RCMP has been told to stop using its boats and planes. It
has been told to ban overtime and to cancel all training, among
other things. The results have been disastrous.
The Liberals squander hundreds of millions of dollars weekly
that could have easily funded this, so it is a political decision
and not a financial one.
Why is it that Royal Canadian Mounted Police operations are
considered a royal pain in the butt to the Liberal government?
The Speaker: Maybe we could focus on another part of the
anatomy the next time.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, given this is the 125th anniversary of the RCMP, we have
all had occasion this year to speak of our pride in that
institution.
Like all government agencies, the RCMP is going through a period
of restraint. How it exercises restraint is an operational
issue. I have every confidence in the management of the RCMP to
do that in a way that is in the interest of the safety of
Canadians.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade.
France withdrew from the OECD negotiations on the MIA, for the
same reasons as were used by the Bloc Quebecois during the
debate on this matter in Canada: that it is being negotiated in
the wrong forum; that it does not respond to the legitimate
concerns raised in relation to social, labour and environmental
standards; and that it does not have any provision for cultural
exemptions.
Does the government intend to withdraw immediately from MAI
negotiations and to propose that they be resumed under the WTO?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggested six months ago—and I am
happy the Bloc Quebecois shares in that—that the ultimate end
game of putting in place rules for investment in the way we have
rules for trade is that they need to take place at the World
Trade Organization. We said very clearly to the OECD that this
was just the beginning of the road.
We should attempt to go as far as we possibly can and then we
should pass on the baton to the World Trade Organization. That
is where the rules of trade are and that is where the family of
nations is. I am happy to have the Bloc Quebecois support the
government's position.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development kept telling those who were
criticizing the employment insurance reform to wait for the
report.
Well, the minister can no longer hide behind the report because
58% of unemployed Canadians are not eligible for benefits.
Entire families are suffering today because of the Liberals'
reform.
With a $20 billion surplus in the EI fund, what is the minister
waiting for to make employment insurance more accessible?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not want to make
unemployment more accessible to Canadian workers; on the
contrary, we want to make the job market more accessible to
Canadians.
What the study that was made public this morning showed very
clearly is that 78% of workers who have some sort of connection
to the labour force and who have not left their jobs without
just cause are covered by the employment insurance system.
As for those who are not covered, it is because they have not
worked long enough, or maybe because they have never worked and
have never paid EI premiums.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, payroll
taxes are a barrier to jobs. They raise the cost of labour and
create a disincentive for firms to create jobs. These are the
past words of the finance minister who knew that due to the law
of supply and demand high payroll taxes killed jobs.
Despite this the minister is now prepared to change the EI law
to maintain artificially high payroll taxes. Will the minister
also be repealing the law of supply and demand or will the
Canadian jobless have to wait?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that increasing payroll taxes would cost jobs.
That is exactly what the previous Conservative government did,
which is why when we took office instead of allowing them to go
to $3.30 as the Conservatives wanted we froze them. Then every
year after we took office we brought those premiums down.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
In October 1997 the Prime Minister expressed an interest in
extending our free trade arrangements to include the four
countries that belonged to the European Free Trade Association.
Would the minister please advise the House of the status of
those negotiations?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It
is true that after the Prime Minister announced it last year
Canada began official negotiations with the European Free Trade
Association last Wednesday. This is a group of four European
countries that has two-way trade of almost $6 billion with
Canada.
After obtaining the thumbs up from consultations over the summer
months with Canadians, this may be the first free trade agreement
across the Atlantic. It is something we look forward to and that
we embrace with full enthusiasm.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past week I had the opportunity to meet with
dozens of police officers in my riding.
Despite assurances from their superiors to the contrary, these
front line police officers inform me that there will be an
increased safety risk to British Columbians and to themselves
caused by the budget cutbacks. These cuts are much more than
fiscal restraint as the solicitor general indicated.
1500
Will the solicitor general commit immediately that his
government will provide the RCMP with the necessary funds to get
the planes back in the air, get the boats patrolling offshore and
get the police back on the streets?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I advised the House, there are no fewer RCMP officers
on the streets as there have been before. The reality is I have
been advised by the commissioner of the RCMP that there is no
risk to public safety. We are talking about a period of
restraint as many departments are going through. I have every
confidence in the RCMP's capacity to give Canada the same police
protection they have for 125 years.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have received notice of a
question of privilege.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
CANADIAN MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today on a question of privilege in regard to an issue
which I thought was before you in a previous question of
privilege raised by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill on February
26, 1998. I contributed to that question of privilege and I have
been awaiting a response. I have been informed that you will not
rule because the issue of the question of privilege of February
26, 1998 was about the appointment of Mr. Landry to the Canadian
Millennium Scholarship Foundation.
While the member for Calgary—Nose Hill did bring up the matter
of the appointment of Mr. Landry, her second point during her
presentation was, and I quote from Hansard of February 26,
1998 “There is no legislation before the House setting up this
foundation. Nor has the budget announcement allocating $2.5
billion in revenue to the foundation been allocated”.
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that this second point would be enough
for you to rule on, even though the first point was no longer an
issue.
However it appears that I need to bring up the second issue as a
separate point which I am doing today. I would also like to
address new evidence regarding this issue, which I will be
putting on record and which will be tabled today.
1505
In the recent auditor general's report to parliament, he
confirmed that the government accounted for the $2.5 billion
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation in the 1997-98 year even
though there was no legislation establishing that scholarship nor
any recipients of funds. Doug Fisher's article in the Ottawa
Sun of October 18 states:
The AG noted how the government, in defiance of normal accounting
practices, charged the costs for harmonizing the GST and PST in
the maritimes ($961 million), for the Canada Foundation for
Innovation ($800 million), and for the Millennium Scholarship
Foundation ($2.5 billion), to current years, when the actual
spending would not take place until later. (In doing so, the
government showed contempt for parliament, which had not yet
voted for all the initiatives for which moneys were being set
aside.)
The auditor general, the media and the public are all engaged in
a discussion of this issue and are judging it as contempt. I am
getting a little more than frustrated as this discussion
continues without this House resolving the question of contempt.
We cannot make a further mockery of this place by having this
debated and judged by the public and the media as contempt. The
place for that debate is in this House and nowhere else.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary—Nose Hill recounted all the
sins of the government in her presentation on February 26, 1998
which I will only touch on very briefly here this afternoon
because you have those facts before you. They are important
because they establish a dangerous pattern that must be addressed
by this House.
The member argued that the government and its departments are
making a habit of mocking the parliamentary system. She pointed
to a recent incident raised by the member for Prince
George—Peace River regarding the Canadian Wheat Board. That
member pointed out that the Speaker was asked to rule on a
similar complaint on March 9, 1990 regarding a pamphlet put out
by the government concerning the GST.
Again on March 25, 1991 another complaint was launched on a
similar issue. The member for Fraser Valley made a progressively
stronger case on October 28, 1997. This led to the Speaker's
ruling which contained a strong statement and a very strong
warning.
The Speaker of this House, you Mr. Speaker, said on November 6,
1997 “the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential
importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a
role which should not be trivialized. It is from this
perspective that”—and it continues—“this dismissive view of
the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery
of our parliamentary conventions and practices”.
The member also pointed out that an earlier warning of the
Speaker had been ignored since the ruling of November 6, 1997
additionally stated “I trust that today's decision at this early
stage of the 36th parliament will not be forgotten by the
minister and his officials and that the department and agencies
will be guided by it”.
On February 26, 1998 the member for Calgary—Nose Hill asked you
“How many times must we put up with this sort of mockery of our
parliamentary system and disrespect for the Speaker before we
take action?” Mr. Speaker, I am asking you again, how many times
must we put up with this sort of mockery of our parliamentary
system and disrespect for the Speaker before we take action?
As you said on November 6, the dismissive view of the
legislative process repeated often enough makes a mockery of our
parliamentary conventions and practices. The government by its
actions has demonstrated its contempt for parliament. The
auditor general has acknowledged these actions and the media has
passed judgment on these actions.
It is time this House decided on the issue or it will arise time
and time again I am sure. Mr. Speaker if you rule this to be a
prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the
appropriate motion.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without speaking on this too
long, the Chair will recognize what was said some months ago on
this very issue.
1510
It will be remembered that at the time the government had made
an announcement in the media to obtain input and participation
from Canadians in what was hoped to be then at the legislative
level, the millennium scholarship fund as an organization. Of
course, no one was asked to actually function until the
legislation was put in place and therefore no infringement
occurred. I remember that the hon. member raised a similar
question in regard to the Canada pension plan fund in that the
government had prepared in advance for a structure to be created,
which is only normal.
Finally, there is the whole question being asked by the hon.
member about whether or not it is appropriate for the government
to set aside funds for future expenditures. In business that
principle is called encumbrance of funds. In other words there
must be an assurance that an expenditure is not undertaken until
it is ascertained that it can actually be funded.
Obviously, the disbursements pursuant to that fund have not been
made yet. We have not arrived at the millennium scholarship fund
period, but we have of course earmarked the funds to ensure that
the moneys are available so that funding is not spent without our
having the money. It is a prudent way to manage. We have a
history of prudent management in this government. We have a
history of doing things in the way that does not strangle the
taxpayers or increase the burden upon the taxpayers. We are
prudent managers.
I thought the hon. member should at least point out that the
government is attempting to be wise in its handling of taxpayers'
money and not to spend money it does not have. Were we to do the
opposite, the member and others would be the first to remind us
that we did not have money set aside for a planned future
expenditure. Of course, we are planning and putting moneys
aside. We are not spending first and then worrying later about
how we will pay for it.
The Speaker: First, let me set the stage. There was a
point brought up by the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill in
February. A specific date was mentioned.
1515
I took the two points as being part of one. That particular
point, because of obvious reasons, because Mr. Landry has passed
away, I consider to be a moot point.
Today the hon. member brings forth what I will consider to be a
separate question of privilege that he wants me to look at. I have
had advice from at least one member. Perhaps there are
others who will want to give me advice on this specific question of
privilege. I would be willing to entertain them for a little
while. After that I will make a decision as to how I am going to
handle it.
The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill on the specific question of
privilege brought up by the House leader of the opposition.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it was my intention and understanding that I raised that
point as the most important element of the question of privilege
I raised; that is, this government is moving ahead on the
expectation that the House will make certain decisions which have
in fact yet to be placed before the House. The point I was
making is that that is a violation of the rights and privileges
of members of the House and also, and perhaps even more
importantly, a violation of the democratic process which we are
all here to uphold.
I have heard nothing in response to the issue I raised, which I
have just laid out, which the opposition House leader has just
laid out and which you have identified as well. I think as
Speaker you have let the House know how seriously you take this
situation that government must not disrespect the process of this
House and the democratic process in the way it operates.
Mr. Speaker, we look to you to make a ruling and to help
government keep its decision making and its announcements in
proper order in light of the process and the role of this House.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to add two points to the points
made by the House leader for the official opposition. First, it
is important that we always maintain the supremacy of parliament
in terms of initiatives taken by the government. We have seen in
the past when government enthusiasm has surpassed the
parliamentary process from time to time and I think we have to
acknowledge that.
The second point is to differentiate between the budget process
and the points raised by my hon. friend, the House leader for the
official opposition. Often when budget initiatives are presented
legislation and policy are announced, effective at that
particular point, knowing full well that the appropriate
legislation and bills will follow. This is not a similar
situation and I think we have to distinguish between these two
types of announcements.
The Speaker: I thank you for your advice.
As I put it in place in the first section, that was a moot
point. I consider this to be a different point that the hon.
House leader for the opposition has brought forth. I take the
information and I take the advice in the spirit in which it was
given to help me to make a decision which is good for the House.
I am going to take this under advisement. I want to refresh my
memory about everything that was said in this particular case and
then I want to revisit this particular question of privilege and
come back to the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1520
[English]
REFORM PARTY'S ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-442, an act to prohibit profiteering during
emergencies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to once
again rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to introduce
my private member's bill, an act initiated by the Reform Party to
prohibit profiteering during emergencies.
The purpose of the bill is to prohibit persons from engaging in
profiteering in respect of essential goods, services and
resources during emergencies that seriously endanger the lives,
health, safety and property of persons in Canada.
In British Columbia we know that the lower mainland is prone to
earthquakes. Our nation may be facing a year 2000 computer
breakdown crisis. We have seen tremendous floods in Manitoba.
Ontario, Quebec and some parts of Atlantic Canada have most
recently experienced a crippling ice storm.
During the ice storm we heard reports of increased prices for
gasoline, diesel fuel, batteries, water, generators and so on.
I hope all members of this House will take note of what will be
accomplished by this bill and find it in their hearts to abandon
their political stripes and support my bill.
On behalf of my constituents I present this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC) moved that Bill S-11, an Act
to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social
condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, be read the
first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion for which I seek
the unanimous endorsement of the House. I move:
That this House call on the government to provide financial
assistance for legal costs incurred by the protesters involved in
the RCMP complaints commission hearings into the APEC affair.
I table that motion and seek unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House leader of
the official opposition has requested unanimous consent of
the House to introduce the motion.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Could he read the motion again, Mr.
Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There has been a
request to read the motion again. It reads as follows:
That this House call on the government to provide financial
assistance for legal costs incurred by the protesters involved in
the RCMP complaints commission hearings into the APEC affair.
1525
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, first I want to
congratulate my hon. friend for bringing this motion forward at
this rather appropriate and special moment.
I want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we
support this initiative and would give our unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I made a big
mistake. We should have had the consent of the House to accept
the motion before there was any debate on the motion. Therefore,
we are going to take a step back now and ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to accept the motion as presented. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
because it seems to me that the motion had been accepted and
should be debated in this House. First, you—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, the
motion was not accepted. It would have had to have been accepted
unanimously.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
INDONESIA'S CHINESE COMMUNITY
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition signed by thousands of Canadians
who want to draw attention to the major problems faced by
Indonesia's Chinese community, a minority which is subjected to
various forms of abuse and whose physical safety and economic
security suffer as a result.
[English]
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. The first petition has to
do with the family.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners also agree with the National Forum on Health
that the Income Tax Act does not take into account the true cost
of child care expenses for those who provide care in the home for
preschool children.
The petitioners therefore call on parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children.
ALCOHOL
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is on the subject matter of alcohol.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems and that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol
related birth defects are 100% preventable by avoiding alcohol
consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore call on parliament to mandate the
labelling of alcohol products to warn expectant women and other
persons of the dangers associated with alcohol consumption.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased today to submit two petitions signed by
individuals in my constituency, as well as by people from across
Canada.
The first petition calls on parliament to significantly amend
the Young Offenders Act. There are hundreds of petitioners
calling for this.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition requests that it be enshrined in the
Marriage Act and spelled out very clearly that marriage is a
voluntary union of a single, unmarried male and a single,
unmarried female.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to present a petition signed by 32 residents of St. John's
East.
The petitioners are requesting that parliament initiate and
conclude by the turn of the century an international convention
which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all
nuclear weapons.
The petitioners wish to state that the continuing existence of
nuclear weapons is a terrible threat to the health and survival
of the human civilization and the global environment and that the
surest way to eliminate the threat is to do away with nuclear
weapons.
The petitioners are requesting parliament to initiate and
conclude by the year 2000 an international convention that will
set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons.
1530
[Translation]
BILL C-68
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
through petitions, many residents of Saint-Méthode, notably
Fernand Lachance, say they oppose Bill C-68.
They suggest that the federal Liberal government spend the
hundreds of millions of dollars put aside for firearms
registration on more efficient measures to reduce violent crime
and enhance public safety, for example by increasing the number
of police officers.
[English]
BILL C-225
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 70 of my
constituents regarding Bill C-225.
JUSTICE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with thousands of
names with regard to the release of violent criminal offenders.
Petitioners are asking for changes to the Bail Reform Act to
make this a safer country. They basically request parliament to
amend legislation to impose harsher penalties for crimes of
violence and that release not be quite so quick.
BILL C-225
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a second petition with regard to Bill C-225, an
act to amend the Marriage and Prohibited Degrees Act and the
Interpretation Act.
The petitioners want to maintain that a marriage is a voluntary
union between a man and a woman.
ABORTION
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last petition is with regard to the convention on the
rights of the child, a United National convention. The
petition is with regard to abortion.
The petitioners request that parliament support a binding
national referendum at the time of the next election and that the
decision as to whether this should be state funded be put to
voters.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a few thousand
people from right across Canada who are in opposition to the
multilateral agreement on investment.
That the government is back at the table today in Paris and not
taking the lead of France and walking away would, I am sure,
upset these folks. They point out 101 reasons the government
should be walking away from these MAI negotiations.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition individuals from
Quebec are concerned that although there are a lot of grave
offences caused against animals, there has been no record of any
court ever taking them seriously.
The petitioners are calling for serious penalties for people who
cause pain and harm to animals and they suggest an educational
program to help judges understand the seriousness of this
offence.
[Translation]
BILL C-68
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed
by 50 constituents from my riding. The petitioners ask that
Parliament repeal Bill C-68 and redirect the hundreds of millions
of tax dollars being wasted on licensing responsible gun owners
and registering legally owned guns.
They ask that the money be applied instead to such measures as
more police, more crime prevention programs, more suicide
prevention centres, more women's crisis centres, more
anti-smuggling campaigns and increased resources for fighting
organized crime and street gangs.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 118 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Philip Mayfield:
With respect to pressure-treated lumber: (a) what chemicals
are approved for use in treating pressured lumber/wood; (b)
what are the accepted levels for each of these chemicals used to
treat this lumber; (c) what testing procedures has the federal
government established to ensure companies use satisfactory
levels; and (d) what has the government done to ensure there
are ample health safeguards from these materials both before and
after installation?
The Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Chemicals
considered to be pesticides are used in the pressure treatment of
wood products, such as telephone poles, railway ties and consumer
lumber products. Scientific information is reviewed to determine
whether risks for a wood treatment chemical are acceptable or
unacceptable. If risks are acceptable, the wood treatment
product is registered, with an approved label, under the Pest
Control Products Act.
In addition, Health Canada also has the authority to undertake
the periodic reassessment of all registered products and to
conduct an up to date safety assessment. The result of this
assessment is to decide if continued use is acceptable. Wood
treatment products used for pressure treatment are presently
undergoing such a safety reassessment in a joint project with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This reassessment is
targeted for completion in 1999.
(a) At present, there is a variety of chemicals used for wood
preservatives or treatments which are registered and, therefore,
approved for pressure treating lumber. They include
pentachlorophenol, creosote, copper chromated arsenicals, borax
based products, and products based on the common household
disinfectant active ingredients called quaternary ammoniums with
copper. These chemicals vary in how effective they are in
protecting wood and are selected for use according to the
intended use of the wood product.
(b) Acceptable levels of use are determined as part of the
assessment of risk and performance conducted by the Pest
Management Regulatory Agency in Health Canada before a product is
approved for use. As part of the performance assessment process,
Health Canada determines the lowest amount of chemical that can
be used to effectively protect the wood. The selection and
verification of the lowest needed amount helps to ensure that
risk of exposure is, in turn, the lowest possible. In
considering the appropriate level of use, Health Canada also
relies, in part, on Canadian Standard Association standard 080,
which outlines the amount of chemicals used in order to maintain
the structural integrity of certain wood products, for example,
telephone poles. The Pest Management Review Agency reviews
product performance data against this standard as part of the
assessment process. Specific values for use are contained on the
product label and in the Canadian Standard Association standard
080.
(c) 1. Provincial regulatory programs have the authority and
regular opportunity to monitor activities related to wood
treatment.
2. Environment Canada and Health Canada have worked
co-operatively in the development of technical recommendation
documetns, TRDs, that would foster a best practice approach to
the use of wood treatment chemicals.
3. Federal regulatory activities are largely based on
complaints and incidents requiring investigation.
(d) Before a wood treatment chemical can be used in Canada it
must be registered, or approved for use, under the Pest Control
Products Act. In order for it to be registered, the chemicals
undergoes a safety assessment that includes considerations of
possible effects and exposure to the chemical. These effects are
considered for those involved in the treatment process as well as
those using the treated wood. Furthermore, health risks are
considered for all new products as well as those that are
currently being reassessed.
Labels on registered products include information regarding
personal protection, to be observed in the handling of treated
wood at the time of treatment as well as the time of post
treatment. Additional labelling information includes
prohibitions specific to the handling, use and disposal of
treated wood. For example, it is not permitted to burn treated
wood due to the possibility of releases of toxic materials during
burning.
Health Canada is responsible for protecting the health of
Canadians who use wood treatment chemicals and the resulting
treated wood. These chemicals undergo an extensive safety
assessment process prior to being made available to the wood
treatment industry. As part of the safety assessment process,
the safety of those involved in the treatment industry, as well
as users, both industrial and consumer of treated wood products
is considered. Health Canada is currently engaged in a
reassessment of these products with its U.S. colleagues which
will address health safety considerations associated with these
products.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 126 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. Reed Elley:
With respect to cancer
and cancer research in Canada, what has the government determined
to be: (a) the incidence and fatality rates for breast cancer
within the female population expressed as a percentage of all
Canadian women; (b) the incident and fatality rates for prostate
cancer within the male population expressed as a percentage of
all Canadian men; (c) the total amount of federal tax dollars put
towards breast cancer research in the last five recorded fiscal
years; and (d) the total amount of federal tax dollars put
towards prostate cancer research in the last five recorded fiscal
years?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1535
[English]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, an
act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting
personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in
certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic
means to communicate of record information or transactions and by
amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act
and the Statute Revision Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken
to some very key issues regarding e-commerce. Now I turn my
attention to the specific provisions of Bill C-54.
In many ways this bill is a starting point. As such we have
only chance to get it right the first time. Many of the bill's
components as they deal with the compilation, storage and release
of personal information are merely an attempt to give legislative
teeth to what was previously a voluntary code.
Privacy is a sacred trust that we often take for granted in this
country. That is a good thing. The seamless implementation of
privacy regulations should really come about unnoticed by
Canadians. If this is the case then the confidence which exists
before the legislation comes into effect has been preserved for
the future. I do not want to be misunderstood. It is not my
desire to hide any portion of the legislative process. However,
I am sure I echo the sentiments of many when I suggest that none
of us wants a repeat of the negative option billing fiasco we
witnessed in the cable industry not that long ago.
Representation has been made to many of us from stakeholders in
this process. As I said, we need to ensure that a balance is
struck between the legitimate marketing efforts of business and
the right of privacy that we all enjoy. If there is an error to
be made one way or another let it be resolved that we err on the
side of personal privacy.
The other components of Bill C-54 are general housekeeping
sections that will move us along the road to becoming a model
user of the Internet as a country.
I look forward to working with the other members of the industry
committee as we begin reviewing this important first step in
e-commerce.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Markham
for his words on this bill. I know that in his previous life he
was very much involved in computers and in the computer industry.
As we move forward on this bill some people have said that it is
not enough. Some people have said it should do more as far as
making rules and restrictions. Caution also has to come forward
on Internet, rules and privacy. We do not want to stop innovation
but we want to move in a certain direction.
The member mentioned there will be a lot of debate in the
industry committee and by all colleagues in this House to make
sure the bill has a balanced program and moves forward.
I would appreciate if the member for Markham could say a few
words on moving forward and looking at future innovation. This is
a global and we have to proceed with caution.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
This is an area that is changing rapidly because of advancements
in technology. Technology almost on a monthly basis is becoming
more powerful. It is also becoming a lot more functional in
capabilities. At the same time there is a tremendous reduction
in costs.
One of the things I hear from the industry is that we have to
watch that this is not just another tax grab as we move forward
in regulating the Internet e-commerce area. What the industry
wants to see is business taxes as usual.
If we as a country think we are an island we are wrong. We are
going to see that this is probably one of the biggest paradigm
shifts in this century. If Canada does the right things and
truly can be one of the leading countries on Internet, we are
going to position ourselves well for the 21st century.
1540
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
member for Markham is very knowledgeable on information
technologies issues, judging from the comments he just made.
I would also like to mention that I started to work in this
field in 1972. I worked in education and I have been a
consultant for many years in Quebec, in Canada and
internationally.
As a matter of fact, before being elected to this place, I was
working on an MBA with a major in information technology. I was
also the president of the Association de sécurité informatique
du Québec.
Accordingly, I am very familiar with security of information
issues and I am especially interested in a bill like the one we
are now debating.
I am especially interested in this debate since I had the
privilege, in 1992, to present a brief, on behalf of the
Association de sécurité en informatique du Québec, to the
National Assembly, which was examining a bill to protect
personal information in the private sector. That bill has now
been enacted. It was passed four years ago, but it goes much
further than what the government is now proposing.
Unfortunately, the government has only gone halfway and
protected only in part personal information held by the private
sector, i.e. information that is given in a commercial context.
This is not the only type of information transmitted by
computer. Thanks to the Internet, it is now much easier to
provide information to recipients scattered around the globe.
I would like my colleague from Markham to tell us whether he
believes that this bill should be much broader in scope, that it
should in fact go as far as what has been done in Quebec instead
of stopping halfway, because it has to be closely scrutinized.
What does my colleague from Markham think about the fact that,
if Bill C-54 is adopted without amendment, Quebeckers will lose
rights that they have gained through the legislative process
over the last four years?
It would be very difficult for Quebeckers to go back to the way
things were four years ago before the Quebec government passed
legislation in the leading-edge area of electronic commerce.
Would my colleague from Markam agree to see to it that the
industry committee amends the bill so it goes as far as the
four-year-old Quebec legislation? I await his answer.
[English]
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
from the Bloc for his question.
He raises some good points but the bill specifically addresses
e-commerce and how it relates to e-commerce. Also, from an
e-commerce and Internet standpoint it relates to the
jurisdictions of the federal government.
I do not know the Quebec privacy bill put forward but I would
hope that over time this legislation on privacy and the
regulation of the Internet, et cetera, will be a seamless
integration between the federal government and the provinces.
That is what will make the Internet and e-commerce grow.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take the floor to
expand on the question asked by the member for Portneuf.
Yes, for four years now, Quebec has had specific legislation on
the whole question of protecting personal information.
The question I would like to ask to the member is about
electronic commerce and protecting personal information. We
think that this bill does not strike the necessary balance
between these two topics. We are evolving in a new area of law,
a new field that is expanding very fast. We must ensure that we
develop good practices that will guarantee adequate protection
of personal information.
The minister himself, in a press release, pointed out that there
was such a law in Quebec and that there could be delegation.
Unfortunately, there is no such guarantee in the bill.
1545
Does the member not think that it is important to have this
spelled out clearly, for Quebec or any other province wishing to
enact an appropriate law, especially when that legislation is
similar to the one in Quebec? Also, does he not agree that it is
necessary to have a way to amend the law—that without this
amendment, among other things, this bill is not good enough to
pass as it now stands?
[English]
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member of
the Bloc Party for his question.
As I said earlier, I am not familiar with the privacy bill in
the province of Quebec. For electronic commerce to grow, for the
Internet to grow and for people to have confidence in doing
business on the Internet since all transactions will be seamless,
over the long haul we have to make sure there is a seamless
integration of laws in this area in both the federal jurisdiction
and the provincial jurisdiction.
Perhaps Bloc members would give me a copy of the Quebec privacy
act. I would like to take a look at it. When we going through
committee stage I am quite sure we will be open minded in this
area.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to share my time with the member for
Waterloo—Wellington. I am pleased to debate Bill C-54, the
personal information protection and electronic documents act.
That is quite a mouthful for those of us in the House and for
those listening today.
Paper transactions are time consuming, and in business and
commerce time is money. This also applies to individuals. As
people are able to use the Internet facilities more quickly, it
will allow them more time to conduct other affairs in their
lives.
Canada is in the unique position of being at the forefront of
the evolution of e-commerce. It is much like the invention of
the assembly line. It is a new process with which we can compete
and win because of our history in embracing communications
technology.
It is no secret that Canada is a vast country, the second
largest country in the world. We are also the ones who fostered
and promoted the invention of the telephone. Canada has the
highest standing in post-secondary education enrolment in the
world. We are ranked number one in knowledge workers by World
Economic Forum. No longer is geographic size a liability.
Indeed from B.C. to Newfoundland we are but microseconds away.
What is the advantage of e-commerce? What are we talking about?
How does it relate to people in their communities today? Here
are some very interesting statistics.
A recent OECD report noted that airline tickets had a cost of
$12 when processed by conventional means via a travel agent. Over
the Internet this cost is reduced to $1.50, which is an 87%
savings. Electronic banking reduces those costs by 89%. Simply
paying bills over the Internet reduces the cost by 70%. Some may
wonder why our banking fees are not even lower than they are
today because of the significant savings the banking industry has
been able to glean. It might also tell us something about its
profitability over the last few years.
This rapid change is not without its liabilities. Travel agents
will obviously have to adapt to this new economy. Maybe even the
banks. Many people have suggested that some of the people
providing bank services in the future may not be banks today.
Amazon.com is the third largest book retailer in the United
States with sales of $5.5 billion. It conducts business over the
Internet where there is no waiting in line, no time consuming
wait for that elusive book.
This will have a tremendous impact on book retailers. I noted in
today's papers that Chapters, the Globe and Mail and others
plan to do the same.
1550
Canada has currently a 5% share of transactions over the
Internet. When we say 5% it does not sound like very much, but
we have to realize that in the context of our per capita
population it is the second largest per capita concentration in
the world, second only to the United States.
Canadians have been quick to embrace the Internet. As many
members have also mentioned, we are not just talking about
Internet. We are also talking about intranets within corporate
enterprises and other forms of electronic commerce such as bank
cards. However I am talking almost exclusively of the evolution
on the Internet.
There is a liability to using the Internet. In a recent Nielsen
survey of CommerceNet it would appear that 16% of those who use
the Internet today are willing to use it for commercial
transactions. In other words, there is a large group of people
using the Internet for their own personal benefit or to find out
corporate information.
Indeed our government is big on promoting the Strategis site
which helps small and medium size businesses make contacts with
each other and find out about government services. Less than 16%
of these people will actually use the Internet to conduct
commerce. There is a general fear concerning privacy issues.
How many of us have been asked for our Visa card number over the
Internet and how many of us have refused? There is a problem.
People ask what will happen to their number when it us injected
into the electronic system. Who is taking it? Who is using it?
What other uses can they make of it?
We can all think of abuses. Many people worry about their own
privacy and information. If Canadian businesses and consumers
can take the lead in this area, it will clearly give our business
community a competitive advantage in the world. Let us think of
what a great advantage it would be to our business community if
people throughout the world could say they can trust Canadian
businesses because they have a system of rules and rules
enforcement that respect Internet transactions.
Many people have stated that governments should keep their hands
off the Internet. There is a great feeling among Internet users
that it should be a laissez-faire sort of evolution. It is very
much akin to at least the stories, if not the reality, of the
opening up of the west. We opened up the west before we actually
brought in law and order. Of course it was a rough and tumble
place. I believe that is exactly where the Internet is today. It
is a rough and tumble place without enforceable laws. It is
necessary to have a framework to which we can all relate and
appreciate to utilize the vast power of the Internet.
There is one issue which goes outside the e-commerce point for a
minute. I know some other members have interjected their
concerns about other forms of privacy over the Internet. There
is a major concern, more so in the United States than in Canada,
about medical records.
There is a form of Alzheimer's that can be predicted at a very
early stage. In other words at a very early stage it can be
predicted that a person will actually get that type of
Alzheimer's later in life. There is a major concern that if
insurance providers and employers could get access to that kind
of information they may well make decisions based on it.
Something as absurd as 18 year olds applying for a job and being
predicted as getting a form of Alzheimer's when 70 years of age
may result in them not being employed or not being insurable.
We must couple that with the fact that the province of British
Columbia has computerized all the medical records. Suddenly we
start to see where the problems of using information technology
can lead.
I know the bill does not specifically address that issue, but it
does enforce and balkanize the use of the privacy commissioner to
ensure, at least as it relates to e-commerce, that there is
protection for the common consumer.
1555
The whole issue requires a significant amount of leadership.
Part of the bill ensures that the procurement mechanism of the
federal government will be open to e-commerce.
I will be addressing a business group in my riding tomorrow
morning. They have already asked me some questions but I am sure
they will ask how small and medium size businesses can get in on
the procurement mechanisms of government. This is the very
fundamental way they can do it. They do not have to be big to
get access to the procurement mechanisms of government. Indeed
most of the legislation deals with interprovincial trade.
Hopefully the provinces and the territorial governments will all
work together to ensure that this can be advanced.
We mentioned very quickly the encryption technology. This is a
very big concern for a lot of people in Canada. There is an
agreement to which Canada has been a signatory called the
Wassenaar agreement. Part of the process of the agreement was in
recognition that encryption could also work the other way around.
Some members have talked about the fact that we can use
encryption technology to conduct criminal activity. It was this
agreement that put restrictions on the actual sale, export and
purchasing of encryption technology. It is clear that we will
have to modify our orientation to that agreement if we are to
flourish in using encryption for the positive side of that
equation.
In conclusion, I was very proud to take part in the OECD meeting
on e-commerce which took place a couple of weeks ago in Ottawa.
It is amazing that all the members I talked to, whether they were
from Norway, Sweden or Japan, had the same problems. That is why
we have an inside track at the starting gate. I think Bill C-54
will very much keep us ahead of the pack.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-54
obviously deals with electronic commerce. Its primary purpose is
not the protection of privacy, but electronic commerce and in
that context, the bill supports electronic commerce while
protecting privacy.
As I said a few minutes ago during the speech of one of my
colleagues, this bill is incomplete and this fact was stressed
by the government member a few moments ago. He mentioned, for
instance, medical information, to which I would add legal as
well as tax information.
The Internet involves much more than the communication of mere
business information.
It contains information of all kinds which can and do indeed
travel 24 hours a day and concern individual citizens of Canada
and Quebec. This information which is not of a commercial nature
is not covered by this bill, and there is the rub.
Does the government member not recognize that the bill is
incomplete and what changes does he suggest so that it provides
the same protection Quebeckers already enjoy?
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond
to the question, but I do not know if the comment about the bill
being incomplete is appropriate. I think there are places for
that.
The bill, which is a lengthy one, addresses many areas of
evidential law and affects a number of basically commercial
trading arrangements within Canada. Whether we want to bootleg
that kind of issue on top of this one is a question of whether it
is appropriate.
I have listened to members of the Bloc talk back and forth about
their concerns of how this will apply. As I understand the bill
it does not apply to Quebec because Quebec has an existing
privacy law which is exempted from the bill in the first place.
Therefore, I do not really understand why there is such a big
concern. Earlier I heard one member say that they were going to
give up four years of jurisprudence and privacy when in fact, the
way the bill is drafted it allows for the province of Quebec to
be exempted because it has similar legislation.
1600
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-54, which we are debating this afternoon, and which the hon.
member for Durham has so eloquently praised, still raises some
doubts. The title, which is very long, reads in part: An Act to
support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal
information that is collected.
I wonder how the Liberal member will position himself since, in
the early 70s, the Trudeau government, of which the present
Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister were members, directly
ordered the RCMP to steal the voters' lists of a well-known
political party.
Does he think that the government of the day respected the
integrity, the spirit and the letter of collective personal
information? Even worse, instead of being fired, the RCMP
officers who were found guilty of breaking and entering were
promoted.
How can the member reconcile those actions with his party's
stated intentions in introducing this bill?
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, first of all what we are
trying to do here is to create a framework of rules and
regulations that people will understand and appreciate. It is
very important. Canada is becoming a smaller and smaller
country. A banking employee told me the other day that we are
only 30 million people but the fact is that we are right around
the corner from each other. That includes the province of
Quebec. The province of Quebec is not a separate entity, but is
very much part of this country.
E-commerce is the very thing in that there are no borders within
Canada within that legal framework. We are going to continue to
build strong ties between all the people of Canada to make this a
better country, to make it competitive. All the people of Canada
will be able to compete successfully in that marketplace.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this very
important issue. I do so on behalf of the residents of
Waterloo—Wellington.
It is difficult to underestimate the growing importance of the
global communications network to economic activity. To a very
large degree Canada's success in the 21st century will depend on
the ability of Canadians to participate and succeed in the global
knowledge based economy. Clearly this is the way of the world.
A knowledge based economy is driving global growth. This trend
can only intensify. Canada's future prosperity will reflect our
success in this economy. The Government of Canada has been
extremely active in helping Canadians gain access to the
opportunities of the global information culture. We have made
Canada's participation in the knowledge based economy a top
priority and rightfully so.
We have set the goal of making Canada the most connected nation
in the world by the year 2000. This is truly a visionary move and
one which will pay huge dividends in the future. Initiatives like
the community access program and SchoolNet are ensuring that all
Canadians no matter where they live have access to the electronic
highway and the information economy.
Through the community access program alone by the year 2000-01
we will have connected every rural Canadian community with a
population of more than 400 people, as many as 5,000 communities.
SchoolNet is a broad based private and public sector partnership
working to ensure that all of Canada's 20,000 public schools and
libraries are connected to the Internet by the end of this year.
As a former teacher and as chairman of the Waterloo regional
library I know firsthand about the importance of SchoolNet and
what it represents for Canadians.
Our government is committed to helping Canadians access the
information and knowledge that will enable them, their
communities, their businesses and institutions find new
opportunities for learning, interacting, transacting business and
developing their economic and social potential.
1605
Electronic commerce is at the heart of the new information
economy. Building an environment where electronic commerce can
flourish is a key part of our commitment. By the year 2000 we
want Canada's legal, commercial and technological environment for
electronic commerce to rank among the world's best. We want
Canadian industry to be a leader in the development and use of
electronic commerce.
Electronic commerce will benefit consumers and businesses alike
first, by lowering transaction and distribution costs; second, by
increasing market access and consumer choice; third, by improving
product support and information; and finally, by generating new
products, services and business opportunities.
Every day $1 trillion U.S. in currency and a quarter of a
trillion U.S. dollars in securities are traded electronically
around the world, yet only a small portion of these transactions
are done over the Internet. But this will change and soon.
Electronic commerce conducted over the Internet is currently
estimated at about $45 billion Canadian. However, exponential
growth is forecast with e-com revenues expected to reach $600
billion by the year 2002. The potential impact of e-com is
enormous. Any nation which desires its citizens to prosper must
move forward to capture these opportunities.
If the world economy is soon to rely on e-com, we must first
build trust in it. We have to assure privacy, and that is
absolutely important. The rules for the digital marketplace must
be set both domestically and among global trading partners. A
large part of creating this trust and confidence has to do with
assuring privacy and protecting personal information.
If electronic commerce, e-com, is to flourish in Canada, a
clear, predictable and secure environment is an absolute
requisite. Consumers, business and government, all of us need to
feel confident about how our personal information is gathered,
stored and used. We need to have control over our personal
information and feel assured that it will be protected whether we
use the Internet to shop or bank, plan a vacation, seek out
medical information, browse on the web, use a debit card to make
a purchase, or correspond with family and friends via e-mail.
Canada's privacy commissioner has described our present privacy
protection as a patchwork of laws, regulations and codes. His
colleagues in the provinces agree. They have been calling for
privacy safeguards that would protect consumers from coast to
coast.
The federal government and most provinces have laws governing
the public sector's collection, use and disclosure of personal
information. The federal Privacy Act applies to all federal
government departments, most federal agencies and some federal
crown corporations. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada oversees
this act.
Protection in the private sector is sporadic and uneven. Only
Quebec's law respecting the protection of personal information in
the private sector provides a detailed framework for the
collection, use and disclosure of personal information.
Clearly the present situation with regard to the protection of
personal information in cyberspace is unacceptable. To build
trust in the digital environment and put Canada at the forefront
of electronic commerce, the government has tabled legislation to
protect personal information in the private sector and to improve
the way it conducts its own business via electronic media.
That is the purpose of Bill C-54, the personal information
protection and electronic documents act. It makes the
legislative adjustments that are necessary if electronic commerce
is to flourish.
In January 1998 the government released a public discussion
paper entitled “The Protection of Personal Information: Building
Canada's Information Economy and Society”. This paper outlined
the various issues which must be addressed in developing
legislation and sought input from all Canadians.
Canadians have told us that they want legislation that is light,
flexible and effective and that provides meaningful recourse for
consumers. They support building on an existing instrument, such
as the model code for the protection of personal information of
the Canadian Standards Association. They want oversight to
ensure compliance and investigate complaints.
1610
Bill C-54 provides all of these things. It establishes a right
to the protection of personal information and clear rules for how
the information shall be collected, used and disclosed in the
course of commercial activities interprovincially or
internationally, or indeed in connection with the operation of a
federal work, undertaking or business. The Privacy Commissioner
of Canada will oversee compliance and investigate complaints.
This legislation will provide other benefits as well. It will
enable the federal government to be a leader in the use of
electronic media as it conducts its business with Canadian
citizens. It will do this by updating and adjusting our laws so
that electronic communications and electronic service delivery
can be practical and secure options for doing business with
government.
One aspect of the bill in particular has significant
implications for e-com. Provisions in the new legislation
introduce the concept of secure electronic signatures for use in
electronic transmissions. Such signatures would be unique, would
identify and be under the sole control of their users, and would
be securely linked to the documents used in a given transaction.
Bill C-54 will help pave the way for the federal government's
use of electronic technology as it delivers its programs and
services in a timely, cost effective and secure manner. It will
help ensure continuing federal leadership as the Canadian economy
increasingly adopts e-com as the normal way of doing business.
In conclusion I want to note that by passing Bill C-54, the
House of Commons will place Canada at the very forefront of that
electronic commerce. It will help ensure that Canadians will be
able to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them by
the new information economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated
the comments made by the member across the way. I must say his
concerns are well-founded. He considered the protection of
personal information to be important. Of course, he said that
none of us would want our medical records read or seen by just
anyone, or our personal correspondence intercepted.
This bill does not ensure the protection of non-commercial
information; in other words, medical data, income tax
information or information included in personal correspondence
are not protected by this bill.
As the hon. member mentioned, the situation is different in
Quebec. Quebeckers are protected by provincial legislation that
prohibits the use and disclosure of personal information.
The member also added and I quote “This bill will put Canada at
the forefront”. Right? Wrong. Quebec is at the forefront. This
bill will not put Canada at the forefront; it will bring up the
rear, behind countries which already have more effective
legislation.
We have to wonder why the minister did not go to Quebec to study
the legislation that has already in force there for four years.
It is working well and could no doubt be improved. This would
have been an excellent opportunity to improve on it. But no.
They ignored it and brought forward a second class bill. That is
what we have before us, a second class bill, which aims to
promote electronic commerce, not to protect personal
information.
However, by protecting personal information in general, we would
not only be promoting electronic commerce, we would also be
making full use of the tools that the information highway puts
at our disposal. I have a question for the member opposite.
Earlier, he said that the federal legislation would not apply to
Quebec because Quebec already has its own legislation.
Clause 27 provides that:
(d) if satisfied that legislation of a province that is
substantially similar to this Part applies to an organization, a
class of organizations, an activity or a class of activities,
exempt the organization, activity or class from the application
of this Part in respect of the collection, use or disclosure of
personal information—
1615
Does the member opposite think that a political decision instead
of a legal decision can be enough to exempt Quebec from the
application of this legislation? As for me, it does not make any
sense.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. However, he fails to recognize the importance of the
legislation in Bill C-54 that will put us in the forefront in
terms of what we are doing as a government for the protection of
all Canadians. The bill will provide the kind of trust,
confidence and reliability that Canadians not only deserve but
need in this new age.
I listened with some interest to the member opposite talk about
Quebec and what has happened in terms of its privacy laws. I
point out to him that we as a government have taken a look at the
kinds of things Quebec has in place. We have used to the
required and necessary extent the kinds of processes in place in
that great province. I point out for all Canadians that he is in
error in his premise.
The bottom line for us as a government is that in terms of our
moving into the 21st century, we are doing it with the kind of
confidence and vision required and which all Canadians want. We
will do so in keeping with the values and the institutions that
define us as a nation.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the title of the bill
under consideration:
An act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting
personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in
certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic
means to communicate or record information or transactions and
by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments
Act and the Statute Revision Act.
Therefore, the purpose of the bill is to regulate a new sector
of activity called electronic commerce. What is electronic
commerce?
Broadly speaking, this covers all the transactions one can do
using electronic means. Most of us are familiar with ATMs, and
use them on a regular basis. But there are also transactions
between businesses.
To put this bill into perspective, let us say that we are
roughly in the same situation we would be in if we did not have
a supply network and we were deciding to pass consumer
protection legislation. We would try to make sure that the
consumer is adequately protected and that the information
gathered is secure. We have to make sure that we strike a good
balance between trade, freedom of trade, ease of trade, and
providing adequate information protection for the people using
these tools. This is the challenge facing the government.
In the information package we received from the government on
this subject, there is an acknowledgement.
Legislation has been in place for four years already; it was not
passed by the Parti Quebecois, but by the Quebec Liberal Party.
It was introduced by a federalist minister, and its
constitutionality was never challenged. It has been in place
for four years and even the Minister of Industry in his press
release acknowledged that it is an interesting measure.
The main point of this legislation is the protection of personal
information held by the private sector, which is really at the
forefront of what should be done. This is what is expected of
the federal government. Let us review how this bill came about.
In 1982—a long time ago—Francis Fox, then Minister of
Communications, said that the next step in privacy legislation
was to extend the principles governing protection of personal
information to the private sector under federal jurisdiction.
That was in 1982.
Very significantly, in 1996-97, the Minister of Justice said that
before year 2000, there would be an enforceable act giving real
protection to privacy in the private sector; the minister added
that this would be a major development.
1620
The problem is that between the opinion of the Minister of
Justice—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. members
opposite to take the time to listen to our arguments on this
bill and stop behaving like clowns.
In 1996, the Minister of Justice at the time said that
legislation was needed to protect personal information. Two
years later the Minister of Industry introduces a bill. The
pendulum has swung the other way.
The Minister of Justice said that legislation was needed to
protect personal information. Today, we are debating a bill that
is aimed more at facilitating electronic commerce than
protecting privacy.
Nobody denies the fact that electronic commerce will grow in
value and importance in the future. Last week, we read in Le
Devoir that the OECD, which is a major international
organization, sees a bright future for electronic commerce. It
is clear that there must be a major growth in that sector. It is
obvious that we must adopt legislation concerning electronic
commerce.
What is less obvious, however, is the process followed by the
federal government. We are debating a bill which, in the final
analysis, will not meet the personal information protection
requirements that we could expect. I will give the House an
example.
Giving information in the course of electronic commerce is not
like giving personal information over the phone to someone who
can then either keep it or spread it around; the information is
registered in computer systems, and that has significant
multiplying effects.
We need to break new legal ground, to draft legislation that
will provide a framework for years to come. We do not need
legislation that will work only tomorrow morning, but
legislation that will define how protection of information and
electronic commerce will work in Canada for several years to
come.
The bill does not seem to offer adequate balance between the
requirements of quality electronic commerce and the protection
of personal information. This bill is not carefully crafted.
It is not clear or accurate.
Again, the minister's press release states that good legislation
already exists in Quebec and that the government will let it be
enforced, instead of the federal legislation, if it works well.
Except this is not spelled out clearly in the bill. It will
depend on the goodwill of the governments in place.
We know how successive federal governments have tended to work;
as with all governments, they go with the trends. From time to
time, the government tends to support the market, but we should
not sacrifice on that altar what is important in the protection
of personal information.
The bill does not spell this out clearly.
This is a very important first amendment that should be made to
the bill, so that the Bloc Quebecois can consider it an
acceptable bill. The bill should clearly state that if a
province has equivalent legislation, that legislation will
apply. In this way, Quebec will be able to maintain the lead it
took four years ago.
Today, on this planet, if we look at all the countries that have
good legislation, I believe Quebec's legislation could used as
an model and be studied by different countries to see how it
works. It is based on the principle that the protection of
personal information is fundamental.
It is not something that happened by chance. It happened because
of all the work we have accomplished as years went by with, for
example, the Office de protection du consommateur, and on the
issue of the right to information in the public sector.
We have a pretty good history in this matter. We took the lead
in the protection of personal information.
Today, we have nothing against the rest of Canada passing its
own legislation—I believe that it should do so—but we want to
ensure that the legislation now in force in Quebec can apply,
and that this will not cause further complications.
One can
pass judgment on how the Canadian federation has worked in the
past. One can condemn duplication. On can say that things should
have been done differently. One can suggest ways to do things
differently from the way they were done in the past. But, one
thing is clear, we do not have the right to pass legislation
that leads to more duplication.
1625
If there is a sector where the industry does not want dual
legislation and does not want to be embroiled in constitutional
problems and problems with interpreting the law, it is surely
electronic commerce, which will in any case be considerably
affected by the need of international agreements.
It is difficult to see how information will be protected in
North America. If information is transmitted from someone in
Canada to someone else in the United States, how is it protected
if other companies in Canada want it? Many things need to be
spelled out and the bill is vague on this.
Some finishing work has not been done. The bill should be sent
back to the drawing table to ensure it is properly amended.
This bill opens the door to several interpretations and gives
discretionary power to the governor in council. The governor in
council is the cabinet. It is the government that, through
clause 27(d), may decide to change the application of this bill
without having to reintroduce it before Parliament.
This is a principle that we do not often find in legislation and
that we try to avoid as much as possible in our legislation and
in the British tradition, to ensure there is no usurping of
authority, especially in very contentious areas, such as
personal information protection, where the government itself
could be involved and would at the same time have the
flexibility to change the legislation if it were not to its
advantage to enforce the legislation as passed by the House.
On this point, there is work to be done. The bill, as it stands,
needs more work and needs to be made clearer.
We can also ask whether the bill responds to the expectations of
consumers and of Quebec and Canada privacy commissioners. The
respective titles of the two bills, that is the Quebec
legislation and the Canadian legislation, are very explicit.
Quebec's act is entitled an Act respecting the protection of
personal information in the private sector whereas the federal
act is entitled an Act to support and promote electronic
commerce by protecting personal information that is collected,
used or disclosed in certain circumstances.
Whereas the Quebec legislation is aimed at protecting privacy
and applies to every organization, the federal legislation only
applies to transactions with a commercial purpose. The
difference in ideology is obvious.
At the federal level, electronic commerce is the main object of
the bill. Personal information also means businesses' trade
information. The federal act should not hamper the very same
trade activities it seeks to promote.
One can reasonably state that the Quebec bill is stricter and
more encompassing both in its form—it truly is a bill—and its
definitions, its clear wording and the power to issue orders it
gives the commissioner, something that is lacking in the federal
bill.
This bill has many other flaws. The framework of the bill is its
schedule. This is rather odd. It is as if they were trying to
hoodwink us. And that is unacceptable.
The schedule is a model code for the protection of personal
information developed by the private sector and consumers as a
framework for the protection of personal information in the
private sector on a voluntary basis, I repeat, on a voluntary
basis. This is noteworthy.
What this means is that the minister chose to stick to this code
because he had the support of the private sector and was eager
to develop e-commerce in Canada. In other words, they did not
delve into this issue to see if the protection of personal
information was adequate, real and complete. They said “This is
the consensus the industry has agreed to. We will include it in
the legislation as is”. But is it enough?
The minister did not follow through on the recommendations made
by consumers and the privacy commissioners, who stated that the
code provides a good basis, but needs to be reviewed and amended
if it is to be included in the legislation. They are very clear
on that issue. So, during consideration of this bill, we would
need to review the code.
As long as it remains unchanged, we have yet another reason to
believe that this is an incomplete piece of legislation that
needs some major amendments.
1630
As I said, the bill is rather unclear. The roles are not clearly
defined and there is still a lot of work to be done in this
area. The bill is open to various interpretations.
For instance, it stipulates that organizations shall make a
reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of
the purposes for which the information will be used. What is
meant by “a reasonable effort”?
Will there be all kinds of legal challenges because a company
has disclosed credit card information or any other type of
information, claiming that it had mentioned the information
could be used for all kinds of other purposes and that, by
giving authorization, the person who provided the information
had also authorized all possible uses?
The person who provides information because he or she wants to
acquire a product may not have understood this clearly, and
there is a list of possible uses, but those uses are not
mentioned in the legislation.
I want to get back to one important element. I am sure the
minister responsible for regional development in Quebec is well
aware that a law has been in place in that province for four
years. Since it was adopted by the Liberal government at that
time, nobody can say that it has a separatist or sovereignist
bias.
It is a law that Quebeckers put in place because they thought it
was relevant and because we were slightly ahead in that area.
The federal government must change the bill so it is very clear
that Quebec, or any other province that adopts similar
legislation, can enforce its own legislation rather than the
provisions contained in this bill.
There are other aspects of this bill that I would like to draw
to the attention of the House. What about the exchange of
information outside commercial activities, for example, between
non profit organizations? The status of this type of exchange is
not clear.
We know a lot of non profit organizations, such as foundations
and all volunteer organizations, that must exchange information.
Information is collected on volunteers.
There is nothing in the bill with regard to this type of
exchange.
Federal institutions are subject to much more restrictive
legislation than the private sector will be with Bill C-54. There
is a double standard. The federal government is asked to be
efficient in its operations, but the requirements will not be
the same for the private sector.
The consequences of these various aspects makes members of the
Bloc Quebecois wonder.
If, with a privacy law in the public sector, the privacy
commissioner is obliged to take Human Resources Canada and
Canada Customs to court under section 8 of the charter of rights
and freedoms for contravening the Privacy Act, how can the
government expect private enterprise to go one better with a law
that is less restrictive and more open to interpretation?
We have just gone through this with employment insurance. The
Government of Canada decided to relate information provided to
Canada Customs by out of country travellers and by people
receiving employment insurance. The privacy commissioner had to
go to court to get Human Resources Canada to comply with the
law, and we are still awaiting the decision on this.
The government is proceeding against itself, when the
requirements are indicated in the law.
How can we ask businesses to behave any better when the law
contains no specific provision?
In short, the issues are fairly clear. The Minister of Industry
has to make sure that Canada is an active participant in the
world economy, more specifically, in the upcoming explosion of
electronic commerce.
We think this will become very important. I think it will be
vital to do so. In terms of traditional imports, Quebec is
currently experiencing a pretty fantastic boom. The same is
true in the case of electronic commerce. We are ready to get on
the bandwagon and grab our share of the market.
I think it is in the interest of everyone globally for this to
happen.
1635
However, a balance must be struck between the rights of
consumers, the citizens' right to privacy and the right to
trade. It is therefore very important that the federal
government go back to the drawing board.
To conclude, it seems to us, in the Bloc Quebecois, that this is
a jumbled bill, full of ifs and whens, whose central feature is
a schedule that can be changed by the governor in council
without debate. All of this is unacceptable to us.
This legislation will make federal-provincial linkage extremely
complex and will result in further interference. It emphasises
electronic commerce at the expense of the fundamental concept of
privacy.
This bill, as it stands, does not give commissioners any real
power, making the legislation meaningless, and it does not draw
upon Quebec's unique experience with protecting personal
information, or privacy, in the private sector.
For these reasons, unless amended, this bill should be defeated
in Parliament or sent back to the drawing board so that the
final product can measure up to the expectations of the people
in Quebec and Canada with respect to both electronic commerce
and privacy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is
as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Asbestos.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I greatly
enjoyed the speech given by my colleague and friend, the member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He is
perfectly right; the bill before us is not just about e-mail and
the associated personal information.
I would like to give an example so that all those in the House
and listeners at home will understand what we are really talking
about. You go into a department store. We have all been in
these stores which, in addition to selling things, offer credit
cards, which record our name, address, telephone number and
postal code when we buy something there.
The store collects all this information and then, with the help
of its computer, is able to produce a list of people who bought
a sports item, for example, and then turn this list over to the
publisher of a sports magazine, say. These lists command quite
a price, apparently going for a dollar and up per name.
This is how it is that members of the public receive junk mail.
For anyone wondering where on earth they got our address, and
how they knew we were interested in whatever it was, if in fact
we even were, because sometimes we were just buying a present
for somebody else, this is how.
I mentioned department stores; I could mention many other
organizations, not always commercial, and various associations.
In Quebec, such a practice is not allowed. It is an indictable
offence. But in the rest of Canada, it is allowed and
legal—unless a business follows its own code of ethics.
The bill before us would not necessarily make this practice
illegal, and this is the purpose of my question to the hon.
member. Clause 4.3.7 of the schedule deals with the consent
principle and provides the following:
1640
So, we go to a store, buy something and get a receipt. The clerk
says “Look at the receipt. There is a small box”. We think
“fine”, but the act has just been circumvented.
This is what will happen with this bill, which provides just the
opposite of what we have in Quebec, where a person must check
off the box to allow the transfer of information to third
parties. Here, it is exactly the opposite. In Quebec, there is
no consent unless otherwise specified, whereas in the
legislation before us, consent is implicit, unless otherwise
stated.
I wonder if the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques could comment on
this.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Portneuf for
the example he gave at the end of his speech, which so clearly
explains the whole situation. Quebec has a law which operates
on the principle that privacy should have priority. The federal
government has taken the opposite approach and given priority to
business. The Liberal government will make it the exception
rather than the rule that people can block the release of
information.
We would like to right this state of affairs, which we find
unacceptable because Quebec is already much further ahead in
this regard. I have an even greater reason to be concerned
because, in this very House in April 1997, I proposed a motion,
which was unanimously passed, requiring the Privacy Act to apply
to all crown corporations.
This motion received unanimous approval in the House of Commons
one and a half years ago and the government has done nothing.
Right now, there are still many crown corporations not subject
to the Privacy Act, even though the motion received unanimous
approval.
I can understand that things take time. What I am getting at is
that, if the bill is not right from the start, we will find
ourselves in a similar situation, where a motion passed
unanimously by the House of Commons is not acted on by the
government.
We are in a new area of law. We are in a new sector, where
those who are better informed will be better protected. Poverty
and the ability to use the tools available will still determine
the outcome.
Let us level the playing field. Let us give everyone a fair
chance with E-mail and see that their rights are protected,
rather than the opposite. We have an opportunity to make these
amendments, and the government took the time to table the bill.
The Minister of Industry won out over those members of this
government who wanted a bill that protected personal
information.
There is still time for the government to right the balance and,
among other things, make it possible for the Privacy Act to be
the legislation that really applies in Quebec and to confirm
this in the legislation, not just in the minister's press
releases.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
the context of questions and comments on Bill C-54, I found my
distinguished colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques' reference to the
Henry VIII clause particularly relevant. I prefer the Louis XIV
clause. When we were in high school, Louis XIV said, in the
books of course, “L'État c'est moi”.
Clause 27(d) provides that the governor in council may amend the
law without parliamentary debate or democratic consultation. A
bit like this afternoon, when the Solicitor General, in response
to a Reform Party colleague, said “I personally decided to not
pay lawyers to defend the students”. That came from private
interests.
Pepper was thrown in the noses and eyes of 19- and 20-year-old
students for no reason other than to please a foreign dictator,
a bit like what is happening with the Chilean dictator, where
years later wrongs are being recognized and he is being arrested
abroad.
In order to accommodate a foreign dictator, our Prime Minister
infringed the rights of these students and has used his position
to decide not to pay.
1645
I would ask my colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques whether, with
clause 27(b), there is not a risk of the same sort of personal
danger we have just mentioned.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the
member is not on topic. I think the Chair should pull him to
order. We are not dealing with that point.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We thank the hon.
member for drawing the House's attention to the topic at hand.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite would
like to participate in the debate, he is welcome. If he would
not, perhaps he would allow those who want to to do so.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That was not a point
of order either.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from
my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic, I do indeed think his
words were very aptly chosen. This Henry VIII-style clause more
or less says “We are going to give the government the
opportunity to amend the legislation without having to go back to
the House”. This could have a significant economic impact.
We have already seen battles between the Minister of Heritage
and the Minister of Industry on matters impacting on the
cultural future of Quebec and Canada and we have seen that, with
this federal government, culture was not always the aspect that
won out and also, particularly, that the negotiations were
always held in secret.
This clause could easily put us back into the same situation in
future: international agreements could be changed and bring
about changes in Canadian legislation without necessarily having
been re-approved by Parliament.
The less this happens the better.
The government over there, which is already bureaucracy-driven,
has already given us plenty of proof that it would give itself
additional powers over the heads of the elected representatives.
This, I believe, would be extremely harmful to democracy in
Canada.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I can see that
few members are interested in addressing this issue, and I can
understand that, since this is a rather complex issue.
We are dealing with electronic commerce, with EDP, with modern
technology, and we tend to be in awe of this wonderful
technology which, presumably, will solve all our problems.
But we know full well that such is not the case. This technology
is only one of many tools that can help us achieve the best, and
also the worst. I realize that Bill C-54 before us seeks to
ensure that, in the area of electronic commerce, we will achieve
the best, and not the worst.
Let us take a look at the title of Bill C-54, An Act to support
and promote electronic commerce. The purpose of this legislation
is to support and promote electronic commerce.
How will this bill support and promote electronic commerce? It
is stated right after, again in the title: by protecting
personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in
certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic
means to communicate or record information or transactions and
by amending certain acts.
Bill C-54 seeks to promote electronic commerce, while protecting
personal information, so that consumers can engage in electronic
commerce with confidence.
For the benefit of this House and of those who are watching us
on television, let me first explain in general, easy to
understand terms what this legislation is all about.
1650
When we talk about electronic commerce, what exactly are we
talking about? We are talking about making purchases or
transactions—bank transactions, transactions with suppliers,
with manufacturers, with clients—electronically.
These types of transactions have been in existence for quite
some time. Telecommunications have been with us for thirty years
or so. They have been relatively well structured in terms of
standards for 25 years. As for electronic data interchange, it
has been governed by international standards for more than 10
years.
In fact, electronic data interchange, or EDI, is used
relatively often by many businesses. For the past ten years or
so, large businesses have been using it in their dealings with
suppliers. That means that a supplier does not send a written
bill to his client, but rather an electronic bill that is
received on the client's computer, who will then authorize
payment after verifying that the goods or services have actually
been delivered.
What is happening today is an acceleration—and I was going to
say a democratization—of this process. Electronic data
interchange is not longer restricted to large corporations and
government. It is now accessible to the average person through,
among other means, the Internet.
One just has to sit in front of a computer screen to have access
to a supplier of goods or services. Then it is as easy as
filling out a form shown on the screen, pressing a key or
clicking on a button, and the information is sent, through the
telephone line or the coaxial cable, to the supplier, who then
fills the order and, of course, bills the client.
So far so good. However, if I give my credit card number when I
make such a transaction, I want to be sure that this number will
not be used for other purposes than those for which I wrote it
on the electronic form. I want to be sure that somebody will not
use my credit card number to travel around the world. Of course,
I would only find out about it when receiving my statement at
the end of the month. It would be terrible.
True, particularly well equipped hackers might be able to get at
that information. But we have the tools to make it very
difficult for them.
One should not generalize and panic. We have to recognize that
in everyday life, you and I and a lot of other people are using
their credit cards in a lot of establishments, restaurants,
clothing stores, to subscribe to a magazine and God knows what
else. Our credit card number is handled by strangers.
When I go to a restaurant and give my card to the waiter or
waitress, who takes an imprint of it or puts it through the
magnetic tape reader to forward my bill to my credit card
supplier, for a moment that person has my credit card number at
hand and could very easily take it down and misuse it later.
However 99.99% of people are honest and such misdeeds simply do
not occur. Credit card frauds do happen though, and it is wise
to always check one's statement to make sure that it does not
contain transactions which are not ours. It is a bit the same
on-line. In the vast majority of cases, there is no risk.
1655
But if a hacker wanted to get at some credit card numbers, it is
not unlikely he would succeed, unless safeguards are put in
place. This is when the notion of facilitating electronic
commerce comes into play.
If I feel that my purchasing something on the Internet might
reveal things I do not want to be known, such as what I am
buying, how much I paid for it, what my credit card number is or
other confidential information I might give, if I am not
convinced it will all remain confidential and will be used for
the intended purpose only, I will be very reluctant to engage in
any electronic transaction.
I would not do it.
Of course, if the legislation were to require businesses to take
the appropriate steps to ensure that all electronic transactions
are secure, confidential and protected, then the average citizen
would feel much more at ease and e-commerce would blossom.
What are the two problems that can arise in terms of protection
of personal information? First, there is the illegal access to
the information by someone who is not entitled to see the data.
Of course, none of us would like information about us to fall
into the hands of people who should not have access to it. That
is the first problem.
Then, there is also the misuse or illegal use of the
information. Someone who should not even have had access to your
information is using it to harm you or for some other illegal
purposes.
So, it is important to ensure that the information can only be
accessed by the people who are entitled to see it, by the final
recipient, and used for the purposes for which the information
was made available.
In this area, Quebec has been fully protected for four years now
through its Act respecting the protection of personal information
in the private sector. The bill before us today, Bill C-54, only
deals with businesses. It does not extend to any other activity
and has some serious deficiencies. I have already mentioned one,
the fact that if an individual does not clearly prohibit it, then
the information can be used for other purposes than the ones
stated originally. Silence gives consent. We make a stupid and
foolish decision, because we are not aware of the consequences,
and everything is done behind our backs.
This is extremely important because, whether we like it or not,
electronic commerce is bound to expand. It is here to stay. I am
somewhat surprised and disappointed that such a crucial issue
for a nation like Canada is not receiving all the attention it
should, and indeed did in Quebec—mind you the Liberals were in
power in Quebec at the time, with Minister Lawrence Cannon
sponsoring the legislation; so this is not peculiar to the
sovereignists, just a good habit Quebeckers have of looking
after matters that concern them and doing it well. This issue
was widely debated in Quebec. I know, I was there.
I was one of the players, as a computer specialist by
profession.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Sounds like the hon. member opposite would
like to speak, Mr. Speaker.
I hope you will take note of his wish and give him the floor
next. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if he could be
quiet and give me chance to carry on.
The debate held in Quebec was a thorough, major, serious debate.
It was a societal debate that resulted in one of the best pieces
of legislation in the world.
1700
I am amazed that my colleagues from the other parties, from the
rest of Canada, do not seem a bit concerned. They bow down in
front of the computer god. They say “If it is electronic, it
must be good and if commercial data must be protected, we will
do that, no problem. Are there other things that need
protection?”
Commercial data are only the tip of the iceberg. There are also
medical, legal or judiciary, tax, school, family data, plus many
other types of information. In fact, all the information that an
individual sends directly on the Internet to an organization or
an other individual should be confidential.
But Bill C-54 is completely silent on all the other types of
personal data when, in Quebec, they are already covered.
As I said a minute ago when I read the long title of the bill we
are debating today, one must understand that it does not aim at
the protection of personal data but rather at the promotion and
facilitation of electronic commerce.
That is where the problem lies. In Quebec, the legislation on
privacy protection in the private sector does not specify if the
information is to be processed electronically, manually,
verbally or otherwise. The information is protected, no matter
what vehicle is used to transmit it. Since electronic commerce
and all the rest are included, that legislation is a very
powerful tool in Quebec, while Ottawa is making very timid
efforts by talking only about electronic commerce. The federal
government is kow-towing in front of electronic commerce.
It says “Commerce is important. If it is electronic, it must be
even more important and we will ensure that personal information
is protected if the person demands so”.
That is what it says. If the person does not check off the
box—and I read it earlier, it is written explicitly in the
bill—the legislation does not operate. The legislation lets
companies and organizations, those that have their commercial
information in hand, do whatever they please.
Legislation such as this does not deserve to be passed.
Legislation such as this, in order to be passed, should have all
the necessary working parts, and be complete. It should be as
good as the one that Quebec has had for four years. It should
build on it. It should also build on improvements that could be
made to it. No. We are presented with legislation that is, for
all intents and purposes, only half-baked.
It will be very important for this House to ensure the real
debate takes place.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left and will there be
other speakers after me?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has four
minutes left.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Will there be other people speaking after
me? I feel like continuing. If there are no other speakers, I
feel like asking the unanimous consent of the House to continue.
Anyway, we have until 6.30 p.m. You will understand that my
throat will be tired well before that, but I feel like
continuing the analysis of this bill in more detail, if the
House gives its unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are four other
members who would like to take part in this debate.
[English]
The House may give unanimous consent for the hon. member for
Portneuf to speak indefinitely or put a time limit on it.
However there are four minutes left in this session. Is the hon.
member for Portneuf requesting an extension of time in debate?
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for
unanimous consent for an extension of time in debate to no longer
than 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the request of the member for Portneuf. Is there unanimous
consent of the House?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is no
unanimous consent. The hon. member for Portneuf has four minutes
remaining.
1705
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, the issue here is whether
this bill meets the needs of Canadians and Quebeckers.
Let me say, on behalf of Canadians, that this legislation is
certainly better than nothing at all. However, the bill is far
from what, in my opinion, Canadians deserve. They deserve
something at least as good as what Quebeckers have. Canadians
are not well served by this legislation.
Worse still, because of this bill Quebeckers could lose since
the federal cabinet could make the political decision to allow
Quebec to implement its own legislation instead of the bill that
is before us and that is inferior to the Quebec act.
Obviously, should the federal cabinet feel that the Quebec
legislation is not adequate, it could—without leaving any
recourse to the province, since this is a political and not a
judicial process—make Quebeckers lose important rights
regarding the protection of personal information.
One can reasonably assume that some businesses regulated by a
federal charter might be tempted to avoid—for very questionable
reasons—being subjected to the Quebec legislation and prefer to
be governed by the more lenient federal act that is being
proposed.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Toothless.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Indeed, toothless. I see that the Liberal
member knows exactly what I mean.
In any case, the Bloc Quebecois can absolutely not support this
bill, because it does not deserve to go any further. In fact,
the government should go back to the drawing board, review its
objectives, which should be to allow or ensure the protection of
personal information so as to promote, among other things,
electronic commerce, instead of promoting electronic commerce
by, among other measures, protecting personal information more
or less adequately.
The Bloc's position is clear: take the bill back to the drawing
board, let the minister do his homework and then come up with a
bill that will meet the expectations of Canadians and that will
serve them as well as Quebeckers have been served for the past
four years.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a few comments to make. I presume that after the
member opposite took considerable time that the Bloc Quebecois
and the member opposite will perhaps enjoy my comments.
I support Bill C-54 in principle. It should go to committee for
further study and hopefully we will get good legislation in the
end, although I send up a flag indicating I have found some
problems with the bill in my initial examination.
One of the first problems was a translation problem and the
definition for work being done by federal agencies. In the
French version we see the word radiodiffusion which was
translated into English as radio broadcasting. This is one of
the areas of federal influence that the bill is to apply to
initially. I believe the intention is for the CBC to come under
the act, but because of a misunderstanding of the French word
radiodiffusion which in the Larousse translates only as radio
broadcasting—and I understand that in Quebec it means
broadcasting in general—it would appear that the English side of
the equation is in error.
In any event the bill is easily understood as comprising a front
section that deals in general with how the law will apply. The
key in looking at the legislation is schedule 1 in the back of
the bill. It pertains to the principles set out in the national
standard of Canada entitled the “Model Code for the Protection
of Personal Information”.
1710
This was a code of conduct in the handling of personal
information that was obtained by elaborate consensus. All kinds
of stakeholders contributed to it. The government was very
proactive in seeking this input. It became a general code of
standards for protecting personal information and it is the
corner piece of the bill.
Unfortunately when legislation is created by consensus there
sometimes are difficulties. My concern about the legislation is
that I do not feel, much as I support it in principle, that it
adequately addresses the problem of charity lists or special
lists that are comprised from the consumer, put in databanks and
held by either private for profit corporations or by non-profit
corporations.
The standard in schedule I waffles on the issue elaborately. In
the first place it says the organizations that have these lists
may indeed have reasons not to ask for the consent of individuals
whose names are appearing on the lists. These could be lists of
charities or donations. They could be lists of such things as
buying a computer at Radio Shack. They could be any kind of list
like that. If an organization possesses these lists, the
proposed legislation indicates that it does not have to be
responsible for the personal information contained in it.
It goes on in schedule I to observes that while consent is
required, the whole principle of being able to get consent—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. John Bryden: My friends on the opposite side should
be enjoying this.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: We are, we are.
Mr. John Bryden: I knew you would.
In another section it says that organizations are obligated to
get consent for personal information if it is deemed to be
sensitive. Then the code sets out to try to explore what
sensitive means.
We do know that sensitive presumably means the religion one
happens to have or medical records or financial information. It
leaves it to the organization to decide what is to be considered
sensitive. It makes an example. It says, for example, that if a
subscription to a magazine is taken out and one's name goes on a
list elsewhere it would not necessarily be considered sensitive
information. However the legislation says that the names and
addresses of subscribers to some special interest magazines might
be considered sensitive.
If that is the case I would suspect that they are thinking about
prurient magazines, sex magazines. They are willing to protect
sex magazines but they are not willing to protect subscribers to
Scientific American, Homemakers Magazine or religious
magazines. That makes us wonder.
If the opposition will ask me a really interesting question I
will continue with my comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of
my Liberal colleague very much.
He is right. The problem with this bill is Schedule 1, which
says certain things but does not say others. This schedule is
based on the so-called CSA code, which is ultimately set up by
private business and based on goodwill.
In other terms, we are put in the awkward position of having a
group of businesses deciding what is good or bad for consumers.
We are putting the cart before the horse. It is a bit like
having the fox in charge of the chicken coop. Chickens do not
get a whole lot of protection that way.
But consumers should not be compared to chickens. Consumers have
rights, they are human beings and citizens, and they deserve a
better approach than the one in Schedule 1.
1715
There is another problem with Schedule 1, and it will be the
subject of my question to my colleague who kindly asked me to
put a question to him.
Section 5.2 says that the word “should”, when used in Schedule
1, indicates a recommendation and does not impose an obligation.
That word is all over the place in schedule 1.
As if it were not bad enough to have the fox in charge of the
chicken coop, the fox does not even have to abide by the
building code. It could do it, but only if it feels like it.
Would my colleague care to comment?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I will say to my colleague
opposite that I noted the same problem, that the bill allows too
much latitude for interpretation. Were I to have had the
opportunity to elaborate on the comments that I began, I would
demonstrate to the member opposite that the amount of latitude
leads us into the situation where we have to wonder whether the
bill, as currently written, is going to have the effect that we
desire. I have a suspicion that it will not.
I believe this bill is something that has to go before the
committee to be studied in great depth.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I both agree and disagree
with my colleague.
First, I agree with his comments. He is right. This bill is so
badly put together that the only winners will be lawyers. The
losers will be the consumers. Businesses will be faced with
legal bills because they will have to defend themselves against
the lawsuits of disgruntled consumers who, having read the
legislation, will assume that they have rights to assert.
The bill being what it is, imprecise and badly put together, the
courts will have to arbitrate conflicts between consumers and
businesses. Lawyers are going to make money to a degree you
won't believe with legislation such as this.
Where I disagree with my colleague is when he says that the bill
should go back to the drawing board if you will, that it should
be fixed up in committee. In my opinion it is beyond fixing.
It has to go back to the drawing board, yes, but we have to
start “from scratch”.
We have to base the legislation on the Quebec example, we have
to use the Quebec experience, to give Canadians the legislation
they deserve, a legislation on par with the one Quebeckers
already enjoy.
There might be more questions, maybe from my colleague again,
therefore, I am asking for unanimous consent to carry on with
the questions and comments period for a short while.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Portneuf has requested that the time for questions and comments
be extended. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to follow my colleague's speech, although
I hope to be a bit more brief.
I agree with some of the comments made by members opposite which
find fault with schedule I of this bill. So much of the bill
depends on this schedule which is, in essence, a code of conduct
that has been established not just by industry, but by general
a consensus of the various stakeholders, including non-profit
organizations, which is an area of specialty for me.
Earlier in the questions and comments it was observed that there
were shortcomings in the bill insofar as it relies heavily on the
interpretation of what is sensitive information and what needs to
be protected. If it is sensitive, then the organization
collecting the information is required to do certain things with
it, including protecting and handling it in a responsible
fashion. The difficulty is that unless you define what sensitive
is in legislation there are going to be problems and I believe
that situation exists with this legislation.
1720
However, there is another aspect that I would like to draw
attention to which is again in schedule I. It raises the issue
of lists. When we buy or donate to a charity or anything like
that we go on a list. Sometimes these lists are held within
Canada and sometimes they are held outside Canada. At any rate,
there is a great industry in collecting, selling or renting these
lists to various organizations.
According to the schedule's standard, the observation is made
that an organization may not always be able to seek consent from
individuals and sometimes individuals are unable to request
information from an organization concerning themselves, but a
charity or a direct marketing firm that wishes to acquire a
mailing list from another organization can keep that information.
In my mind there is a bit of a hole there. I would like to know
that any organization that is using my name is responsible for
that personal information. However, it would appear that
schedule I allows direct marketing firms to not be held
responsible in the trading and marketing of these lists.
When we know that our name is on a list and we want to get that
information from a charity or a for profit fundraiser that has
our name on a list, what the schedule states is that certain
information cannot be disclosed for legal, security or commercial
proprietary reasons, or that information cannot be disclosed
which is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
What schedule I states is that if there is a commercial
proprietary reason for which an organization does not want to
divulge our personal information to us, it does not have to do
so. That creates an enormous problem. What if I want to know how
my name is being used by one of these fundraisers? Is it being
distributed, for example, to other organizations that do not have
my interests at heart? Is it being distributed to organizations
that will take advantage of the knowledge that I give to one
organization, one charity or another?
According to schedule I, as it now exists, if I donate $10 to a
charity and another person donates $100 to a charity, that is not
considered sensitive information, or it could be considered
proprietary information that I cannot get.
I happen to have something for the House to contemplate. This is
a list of all the non-profit organizations that have placed their
donor lists with a U.S. direct marketing agency. According to the
schedule as it now exists, that agency can deny me the
information as to who has access to my name on that list.
Therefore, if I had contributed, for example, $1,000 to the
lifetime members of a TV ministry, another organization can get
that information and find out that I actually donated to an
evangelical TV ministry. Talk about religion being sensitive. By
merely paying money, this organization can supply me with a list
of all the people who contributed to B'nai Brith. It is the
total list of all Canadian Jewish donors. Anyone who wants to
know who is Jewish can simply find out by contacting this direct
marketing firm.
I ask members where the protection is of my private information
concerning my religion if organizations, even in the United
States, can get that information and distribute it as widely as
they like.
It is even worse than that. We would agree that those in
Canadian society who are particularly wealthy or affluent would
probably like to keep that information secret.
If they make generous donations to a charity, they will turn up
on this list as “Hotline Canada wealthy donors, 502,000 names”.
Those are 502,000 names that anyone can access. If that is not
personal information, I do not know what personal information is.
If that is not information that can be used unwisely and
improperly, I do not know what such information is.
1725
I fear that the schedule as presently drafted does not provide
adequate protection for the distribution of donor lists or
commercial lists of any kind. We are now in an age when we can
go into Radio Shack, buy a speaker or a piece of electronic
equipment and that firm will record our name and address in a
data bank. We are in an age when because of these lists and the
electronic control of these lists we can build up a complete data
profile of any individual in Canadian or American society. I
would submit that is very dangerous.
While I support this legislation in principle, I hope that when
it goes to committee we look very carefully at it because I do
not think it addresses the problem of the selling and buying of
information on donor lists or commercial lists, and that is
something the legislation has to address.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, the member
for Wentworth—Burlington is not making this up. What he told us
really goes on. It actually does happen. I would like to point
out to the House, however, that when a member of the public
provides personal information in Quebec, even to a charitable
organization, that organization is not permitted by law to pass
it on or use it for other purposes. Quebeckers are well
protected in this regard.
What the member for Wentworth—Burlington told us about is not
going on in Quebec. The legislation is four years old.
Quebeckers are well protected. But it can happen in Canada.
Bill C-54 now before us will not prevent what the member opposite
just described from happening.
That is why I mentioned earlier that the bill has a serious
shortcoming. It is not worthy of Canadians, who deserve the
same protection as Quebeckers.
Quebec's legislation goes much further. In Quebec, a business
that has information and must deal with a business in another
country, not just in Canada or in the United States, and must,
in the course of the transaction, provide personal information
it obtained in Quebec, must have signed an agreement with the
individual outside the country to whom the information is being
transmitted that that information will continue to be protected
to the same extent that it was in Quebec.
Is that not extraordinary? Is it not extraordinary that the
people of Quebec have this type of protection of their personal
information? Why is the House letting a bill like this one
remain so incomplete as to not deal with the real risks faced by
Canadians and as described by the member for
Wentworth—Burlington?
Sending the bill to committee for re-examination will not change
it. I would like to explain to my colleague that it cannot
change the nature of the legislation before the House. The
point raised by my colleague is in fact intended to change the
nature of the bill to make it more encompassing. The bill,
obviously, is intended to facilitate and promote electronic
commerce.
What my colleague has referred to aims at protecting personal
information in electronic commerce or elsewhere.
1730
This is why, even in committee, this bill cannot be amended as
substantially as necessary, as my colleague mentioned.
So, my question is: does he not agree that this bill should be
returned to the drawing board and that a real bill should be
returned to the House to address the serious concerns he raised
and I share?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, that is why we have
standing committees, to handle difficult problems with
legislation. I would expect that the competency of the industry
committee looking at this will show and we will get good
legislation in the end.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, in
Quebec, information is protected beyond Quebec's borders by
requiring those contracted to gather it to provide this
protection.
I would like to address another aspect of international trade
and share my concerns with the member for Wentworth—Burlington.
When I engage in a transaction on the Internet, I do not always
know where my query will take me. Will it be somewhere in the
United States, Asia, Africa or Australia? I cannot really tell.
It does not matter anyway. When a query is made it travels
through phone lines and satellites to a place that may be
totally different from the one indicated on the screen.
What recourse do I have if I am not satisfied with the
transaction I just completed? In Quebec, we have the Consumer
Protection Act.
In Canada, representations can be made before a civil court in
one province or another. In the United States, remedies can
probably be sought through some bilateral agreement.
But the countries with which we have not signed agreements in
this area outnumber those with which we have. The net result is
that any real development in electronic commerce can only take
place if there are multilateral agreements between participating
countries—and we hope there will be a great many—ensuring a
degree of consumer protection similar to the one enjoyed here,
at home, regarding the quality of the service or product and the
protection of personal information.
For example, I conduct a transaction, and my name, address,
telephone number, credit card number, social insurance number
and heaven only knows what else ends up in Timbuktu. From there
it goes to Ankara, and Ankara sends it on to Moscow. In the
twinkling of an eye, there is information on me all over the
world, which does nothing to make my eyes twinkle, because from
then on anyone in the world can use my name and other
information in ways I would not necessarily want them to.
In my opinion, Bill C-54 does not provide Canadians with
sufficient protection as far as international commerce and
exchanges with other countries are concerned. There ought to be
some guidelines for Canadian businesses on how to proceed in
order to ensure service quality and protect information while
doing business electronically.
The bill is extremely narrow, in fact. It should be far
broader, if there is any real desire to promote electronic
commerce as it deserves, while providing consumers with proper
protection of their rights as consumers and as citizens entitled
to privacy. What are the thoughts of my colleague from
Wentworth—Burlington on this?
1735
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I do not doubt that the
first obligation to the protection of information is at home. I
cited a list of an American direct marketer deliberately to
illustrate to the House the dimensions of the problem. It is not
just a domestic problem. It is not confined to Quebec. It is
not confined to Alberta or to Canada. It is a worldwide problem.
We are at a particular disadvantage because we sit next to one
of the most aggressive countries in the world in terms of trying
to gather information for commercial uses. We do not have to go
anywhere but to the United States to discover people who know
very well the value of personal information and who will
willingly use it to make dollars for themselves.
We need a very strong piece of legislation at home that puts the
obligation on the people who are collecting information in this
country to be answerable for how that information is eventually
used. But also we have to be cognizant that we can only do so
much. We do live in an information age and we cannot expect to
create miracles. Information is everywhere available and it is
very difficult to control it in an absolute fashion.
One of the things that concerns me in this debate is that we
have probably lost sight to a certain degree on just what is the
kind of information we need to protect. Is it really a matter of
having to protect what religion we are or is it, as I said in my
earlier remarks, a matter of protecting information that relates
to our financial ability? That is the information that I think
can be used very dangerously.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, it
is with great interest that I speak this afternoon on Bill C-54.
You will allow me a few seconds to read into the record the
title of this bill. I do want to read it because it is a rather
long title of about ten lines. The titles reads as follows:
An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting
personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in
certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic
means to communicate or record information or transactions and
by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments
Act and the Statute Revision Act.
It is a rather complex bill. A few moments ago, my colleague
from Champlain asked what was the most important thing in Bill
C-54.
Is it promoting the sale of electronic material like computers
or the protection of personal information? The hon. member for
Champlain told me—and I fully agree with him on this—that he
could hardly trust a government led by the present Prime
Minister, who purports to respect personal information but does
not even respect human beings.
The member for Champlain reminded me of the time when the Prime
Minister, wearing his big sunglasses, grabbed an activist by the
throat, threw him to the ground and then let his bodyguards
break a few of his teeth. If my son did such a thing, he would
be charged in court for assault and would surely be found
guilty. In the case of the Prime Minister, however, the matter
was settled by shelling out $700 or $800 to pay the dental bills
of Bill Clennett.
I am sure you remember this.
The hon. member for Champlain has doubts, which I believe are
justified, about the good faith of the government and of the
head of that government, the Prime Minister and member for
Shawinigan.
He gave us more evidence of this when he welcomed Indonesian
dictator Suharto. He forced RCMP officers to clean up the place
by 4 p.m.
1740
The place had to be cleared so that Mr. Suharto could leave with
a good impression of his visit to Vancouver. The RCMP officers
listened and came not with a small pepper shaker so he could
sprinkle some pepper over his food, as the Prime Minister said
so well, but with big gas cylinders that can reach much further.
Excessive force was used against students who had the legitimate
right to demonstrate in Canada against Mr. Suharto's lack of
respect for civil rights and freedoms.
The Prime Minister did not even respect these students that are
our future leaders.
This afternoon, during Oral Question Period, in response to a
question from a Reform member, the Solicitor General said that
he had personally decided against paying the students' legal
fees so that they could be properly represented before the
commission investigating the conduct of the RCMP.
That is what the Henry VIII clause, which I call the Louis XIV
clause, is all about: L'état, c'est moi.
The member for Drummond said the same thing a little while ago.
The bill contains a Henry VIII clause, which essentially
provides that the governor in council can change the law without
parliamentary debate or democratic consultation.
We remember what happened in Quebec in the early 70s in response
to the FLQ's activities. The RCMP—and the Prime Minister was
then a member of the Trudeau cabinet—was ordered to set fire to
barns, to steal dynamite and to blame the FLQ for all this. They
even broke into the offices of the Parti Quebecois, a democratic
political party.
RCMP officers were asked to break and enter some places. There
were leaks inside the RCMP. There was the Keable Commission.
RCMP officers were prosecuted. The same government did not fire
the RCMP officers. Instead, they were promoted with a pay
increase.
Members can see how important this Henry VIII clause is. We
cannot give so much power to people who sometimes lose control
and act irresponsibly. We saw what happened when Trudeau threw
500 people in jail, including the late Pauline Julien. Nowadays,
everybody is sorry about it, of course.
They lost their head. There were a dozen of FLQ members and they
threw 500 people in jail. The War Measures Act abolished freedom
in Quebec. The way several Quebeckers were treated is awful,
they were treated the same way and sometimes worse than the
students.
A student said that he had to spend 12 hours in jail without any
charges being laid and that a RCMP officer had him sign a
promise not to protest during the APEC summit. That is how
dangerous the Henry VIII clause is.
The Government of Quebec passed two bills for the public
corporations, the government, and the private corporations, and
that legislation is similar but more complete. That was not done
by the Parti Quebecois. It was done during the last months of
the Robert Bourassa government and under the following
government led by Daniel Johnson Jr., that passed a much more
complete piece of legislation than Bill C-54 before us.
1745
Bill C-54 is full of assumptions, of words like maybe, we shall
see, it could be. Let us take, for example, section 11(2): “If
the Commissioner is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
to investigate a matter under this Part, the Commissioner may
initiate a complaint—”. Consequently it is always subjective. The
Commissioner is given a power that he does not have as well as
leeway that he should not have.
This bill is full of holes. It undermines Quebec's legislation.
This bill will fail miserably, both in the spirit and the letter
of its application.
In conclusion, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this bill, of course, and that it
regrets many things. For instance, we believe that the right to
privacy, which is recognized explicitly in the 1983 personal
information charter and should be applied to all public and
private organisations, could be ignored by this bill.
I wish to thank you for your attention, and if there are any
questions and comments, I will try to respond to them, of course.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
from Frontenac—Mégantic spoke eloquently of the flaws we see in
this bill.
We mentioned on several occasions that Quebec has its own act,
which works well, it is efficient and truly protects consumers.
For the benefit of the House and in keeping with my colleague's
comments, I would like to read a few sections from the current
Quebec act. This might inspire the House to make the necessary
improvements to Bill C-54.
This is part IV, section 27 of the Quebec Act respecting the
protection of personal information in the private sector.
Section 27 states: “Any business manager who has a file on
someone must, when requested by the person concerned, confirm
its existence and release to said individual any personal
information it contains”.
You and I, every member of the House and the public at large
know that we have a file in many organizations.
It may happen that the information on file is wrong, which might
have an impact on our capacity to enjoy life; for instance a
credit file might contain errors which might result in a person
being denied or looked at in a funny way when applying for a
credit card or a loan, without having a clue as to why or how to
rectify the situation.
This cannot happen in Quebec. In Quebec an individual can ask
for confirmation of the file and ask the bank manager: “Where
did you get the information that my credit is bad?” “I got it in
such or such a place”, he will answer.
I quote section 28: “Besides the rights provided for in
paragraph 40(1)of the Quebec Civil Code, the individual
concerned may have any personal information concerning him or
her erased if its gathering was not authorized by law”.
So, I go where the records are kept and realize some data have
been included without my knowledge. I never authorized any
company or body to disclose such data to the agency and I can
ask that it be withdrawn without prejudice to other legal action
that I might take to ensure that those who broke the law are
adequately punished.
Under section 29, anyone who operates a business and keeps
personal records on other individuals must take proper measures
to ensure that they can exercise their rights under Quebec's
Civil Code as well as under this act. Moreover, the person must
inform the public where it may consult these records and how to
do so.
1750
Quebeckers are protected by strong legislation, the main purpose
of which is to protect the public. This is obviously not the
purpose of Bill C-54.
I would like my colleague, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, to
tell me what he thinks about the wide discrepancy between the
meagre protection proposed for Canadians and the concrete, solid
and honest protection provided for Quebeckers.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that Bill
C-54 is a timid bill. This is a very lukewarm bill that, I
believe, only deals with the promotion and commerce of
electronic products, and not with the privacy protection of our
fellow citizens.
The member for Portneuf has been interested in electronics for
several years, since it was somewhat his previous profession in
the private sector. We fully realize that this could hit us in
the face. The government is stretching the elastic. It is
already quite tight and could snap at any time and hit us in the
face.
I would like to remind the House that in London, capital city of
Great Britain, it was said the each citizen is filmed 51 times a
week on average. With the technical means that we have today,
this may be very useful.
We can find robbers, prisoners on the lam, but just imagine
being spied on as you go about your business 51 times a day, Mr.
Speaker.
Here in the House of Commons, we see cameras installed almost
everywhere on the roofs of buildings. I think they are useful
against terrorist acts. Our Prime Minister must be protected.
Heaven forbid Canadian citizens should treat him the same way he
treats his own people or individuals like Bill Clennett.
Imagine how these laws are misused. With the Henry VIII clause
that was described earlier as extremely negative, the minister
responsible is given increased powers, terrible powers, a bit
like the solicitor general who was telling us again, during oral
question period: “I have decided—”. Who does he think he is?
This afternoon, around 2.30 p.m., I heard him say that he
decided that the students' fees for legal counsel would not be
paid.
The Henry VIII clause grants similar powers to a minister and if
he loses his mind, he can have searches carried out, or things
covered up. I remind the House that when the federal police, the
RCMP, torches barns, steals dynamite, blows up trucks and steals
member lists of a political party that is democratically
recognised in this country, it means we have sunk very low. This
reminds us of the way things worked under Hitler. This reminds
us of the way things worked under the Communists when the motto
was “All for one and one for all”. There was no respect for the
individual.
This is a real threat to us all and I can assure the House that
the Bloc Quebecois members will always rise in this House to
condemn this. With the means available to us, and if the
government is really determined to have Bill C-54 passed, we will
try to propose the amendments required so that it is more like
Quebec's legislation, which is much more comprehensive and
complete and which primarily respects the individual.
1755
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would appear that in this day and age the RCMP does
not have to use unusual methods to obtain any political
membership list. I am sure it can be purchased now anyway. It
is available somewhere for a certain price.
An hon. member: Comme au Québec.
Mr. John Bryden: Maybe in Quebec. I hope the member is
right on that.
I appreciated the remarks. Does my colleague opposite see some
opportunity in the legislation to address an entirely different
dimension, that is being able to buy time on satellites which can
peer down into our backyards?
This is a problem that extends across borders. Various spy
satellites run by Americans and other powers are now offering
satellite time to peer into backyards anywhere in the world. Does
the member have a comment with respect to that?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the question that my
distinguished colleague from the government party is asking
reflects exactly what my hon. friend and colleague from Portneuf
was pointing out to me earlier this afternoon when he asked
whether Bill C-54 was aimed more at promoting modern high
technology to advance sales of electronic goods or at protecting
personal information about every citizen of this country.
When that question is asked to me, I realize that, for the
government party, the protection of personal information is not
a priority in Bill C-54, and that, on a scale of ten, this
concern would rate at one whereas the promotion and development
of high technology would rate at nine.
[English]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to rise today to join the debate on Bill
C-54. The bill before us aims to support and promote electronic
commerce by increasing Canadian confidence in online
transactions, providing protection for personal information that
is collected, adjusting the legal framework of the electronic
environment, and providing an alternative means for the federal
government to provide services.
Bill C-54 is part of a larger overall strategy to make Canada an
international leader in the growing realm of electronic commerce.
I will talk about some of the contents of the bill and outline
the reservations New Democrats have with Bill C-54.
I will discuss the phenomenon of electronic commerce in the
information age. A variety of commentators from all sorts of
disciplines have commented upon the increasingly important role
that electronic commerce is playing in the lives of everyday
people.
The chairman and CEO of Bell Canada, Mr. Jean Monty, told
delegates at the Ottawa OECD conference last week that we are
witnessing the birth of a new economy, a new economic order based
on networks and chips. The electronic transfer of information
has changed the very way in which humans interact with each
other. For this reason it is a subject of great importance and
we would be wise to consider carefully any decision we take.
First it may be helpful to discuss the definition of electronic
commerce. If we are to adopt a broad understanding of the
concept of electronic commerce, we will see that it includes two
very different types of transactions. One type which has proven
quite successful involves the exchange of information through
closed networks. This would include systems such as those used
by debit cards and credit cards.
Other types of transfers are those conducted through open
networks such as the Internet.
This type lags far behind its closed network counterpart for
numerous reasons which I will now examine.
1800
When one thinks about the on-line world, a certain minister
comes to mind. Just as the solicitor general has had some
difficulty lately maintaining the security of his department's
private information, so too does the Internet in ensuring the
confidentiality of important matters. Canadians have demonstrated
a lack of faith in the minister. This is similar to the
reservations they have about entrusting their own personal
information in cyberspace. It is our job to address these
concerns.
The Internet remains for many an intimidating world in which
trade relationships are poorly developed and people cannot be
certain of the ways in which confidential information is being
handled. Businesses as well as consumers are often unsure as to
exactly whom they are dealing with, whether payment measures are
secure and what the legal frameworks for such transactions are.
The Internet for most Canadians remains a sort of wild west
where law and order is poorly represented and people enter at
their own risk. Many parents are reluctant to establish Internet
access because of well-founded fears that the on-line environment
has become a haven for those who traffic in child pornography.
[Translation]
At home, we used to be connected up with the Internet, but I
gave it up one day because I found some pictures on the screen,
and I was very happy that my 10-year old son had not seen them.
If my mother had seen them, I would have had trouble talking to
her about them.
It is obvious that pornography on the Internet is a serious
problem.
[English]
Businesses as well as consumers have been clamouring for
confidence building measures on electronic commerce for quite
some time. Canadians do not want cyberspace to be lawless.
One part of the bill which attempts to tackle people's
reservations about trade on the information highway is the
section on privacy rights. The bill adopts a set of guidelines
developed by the Canadian Standards Association for gathering,
using and disclosing the personal information of Canadians.
At the present time, the federal Privacy Act deals strictly with
information that is collected by the public service. Bill C-54
goes farther than this. After a period of three years the
guidelines for the handling of personal information will apply to
all commercial transactions.
For example, the bill would force companies to obtain the
consent of Canadians in order to collect personal information.
It would force them to only use the information for the purpose
for which it is collected.
Under the bill, people would be granted access to the
information held about them and they would also have the right to
make changes to it when there are inaccuracies. Bill C-54
strengthens significantly the office of the privacy commissioner
and allows Canadians a means of recourse against those who abuse
confidential personal data.
New Democrats support these provisions in principle and feel
that they are long overdue. With the rapid manner in which
information can be transferred in today's world it would be
reassuring to know that individuals do have some control.
In order that Canadians can feel confident enough to engage in
electronic commerce, common guidelines for the handling of
personal information are essential. They would benefit business
as well as give peace of mind to consumers.
The other prominent section of the bill that attempts to assuage
the fears of Canadians is the discussion of security features
such as secure electronic signatures which would be recognized by
law.
More noticeable however is the absence of any discussion of
encryption technology. At first glance this appears to be an
adequate solution for addressing security concerns. However, the
way in which the government is going about this raises some
serious concerns for the future.
Cryptography technology allows users to encode information and
then pass it along the Internet. This can be used to encode all
sorts of information such as credit card numbers, medical records
and private correspondence. In itself this is very good thing.
1805
Unfortunately, the government has adopted a completely hands off
approach in the area of licensing encryption software. The
government has not demanded any sort of access mechanism that
would allow it to intercept and decode such messages.
I fear that the government has forfeited any means whatsoever of
policing the Internet. For example, the privacy commissioner
would have little power to actually see whether or not personal
information is being mishandled and transferred illegally. The
privacy provisions in the bill seem then to be weakened by a
hands off approach to cryptology.
Also, law enforcement agencies might see their ability to thwart
child pornography traffickers severely curtailed. Similarly,
without any sort of access mechanism, cryptology technology will
possibly play into the hands of organized crime and perpetrators
of corporate sabotage.
The fact that government will allow virtually any type of
cryptology technology will serve only to increase the security
fears of Canadians. The thought that the RCMP and other police
forces will be basically powerless to investigate Internet abuses
is of great concern. This is a violation of the peace and good
government principle upon which this nation was formed. It will
do little to make Canadians feel secure.
[Translation]
I must add that we are nevertheless in a country where people
often find it difficult to feel secure. We saw what happened in
recent weeks, not only in Vancouver with the students who were
attacked, probably under orders from the Prime Minister, but
also the events in New Brunswick. We saw what happened to the
parents and the young students of the Saint-Sauveur school when
they tried to keep their school open. Premier Frank McKenna had
decided he was going to close schools.
They sent in the RCMP. They sent in the pepper spray. They
attacked not only the adults, but small children, students.
There are also the events in Kent County in the past two weeks,
where a man named Jackie Vautour went fishing for a pail of
clams, although fishing season is closed. He ended up with
broken bones. I do not understand how that can happen to
someone just for going for a pail of clams. This is a 65 year
old man.
He and his wife had been in court before for fishing
clams in a national park out of season. The charges were thrown
out because, as you may or may not know, it is not clear whether
Kouchibouguac national park is really a national park.
Each time Mr. Vautour is caught the government drops the
charges. That is what they did the first time Mr. Vautour was
caught fishing for a little pail of clams.
They began proceedings, took him to court and were obliged to
drop the charges, because they could not prove where the park
boundaries lay. The gentleman went for another pail of clams.
This time he had his shoulder and his arm broken. In this case
too, a complaint must be lodged with the RCMP commission so the
matter will be investigated.
These sorts of things are always the responsibility of someone
higher up. When the Saint-Sauveur families were attacked, it was
clear who had set the gang on the students. I have no doubt the
same thing happened when Jackie Vautour was attacked by the
RCMP.
It is outrageous to think that they are capable of breaking limbs.
Mr. Vautour did not have a gun or a knife, but he ended up with
broken limbs. He and his wife, aged 65 and 64 respectively,
ended up in jail because they took a bucket of clams, after park
employees had told them they could continue to catch shells.
The same thing happened to a man in 1969 because he did not want
to leave his house when Kouchibouguac national park was
established. They bulldozed his house. That is what they did to
him. He stayed in the park. Had it not been for him, we would
have ended up with nothing. In 1971, we left the park with
$6,600. This was the money we had to move, to settle elsewhere.
People in Kouchibouguac park did not get rich.
1810
Mr. Vautour was smart. He said “I am not leaving. They put us in
boats back in 1755, but I am not going in boats again”. This is
what happened to Mr. Vautour. My father was told the same thing:
“If you do not move, we will be close to your house and you will
not get anything”. This is what they did, and Jackie had a large
family. He stayed anyway and he kept fighting.
I am not saying that what he did was always right, but I do know
that this is how the hate started. It started the day they hired
someone with a bulldozer to destroy his house. We were not
pagans in Kouchibouguac park. We were poor people living in the
middle of nowhere, but we were not people who did not know what
they were doing. We were not trash.
There was no crime in Clairefontaine, Fontaine, Cap-Saint-Louis
and the Kelly region. We were not bad people.
In those days, the current Prime Minister was the minister
responsible for expropriation. It is funny how the people who
were expropriated from the park re-elected him and made him the
Prime Minister of the country. It is incredible how forgiving we
Acadians can be. But he better not try his luck again.
I was 11 when we moved away. In our region, people did not have
much formal education. But my father had work year round. We had
a television and a telephone as well as an Eaton's catalogue we
would order from once in a while. We were good folks and still
are. The story does not end here. Mr. Vautour went to court to
know why his shoulder and arm were busted and why he was thrown
in jail.
The judge did not even want to let him out for three months
pending trial. Mr. Vautour was 65 and his wife, 64.
Is there any justice, any democracy in this country? The APEC
Summit does not have the monopoly on lack of justice. It is the
same all over the country.
It is ironic for me to have become a member of Parliament. I am
sure there are ministers across the way wondering if I will ever
stop pressing the Kouchibouguac national park issue. The fact is
that we will keep asking questions and raising the matter until
our questions on what happened have been answered. In 1969, 239
families were treated unfairly and no commission of inquiry was
established. The government does not want to look into what went
wrong.
As long as the issue remains unsettled, families will continue
to live under extreme conditions within the Kouchibouguac park
boundaries. We will carry on and we will not let them down.
Coming back to Bill C-54.
[English]
Bill C-54 attempts also to establish the federal government as a
responsible and model user of the Internet as a tool for
delivering services. With this in mind, many federal statutes
were examined to see whether or not their references to means of
collecting information were limited to paper. The result was
that nearly half seemed to indicate paper transactions as the
only legal means of sharing information. Bill C-54 attempts to
adjust or apply current laws so that there is an electronic
alternative for transmitting information.
[Translation]
It would be interesting if Jackie Vautour could put the history
of Kouchibouguac park on the Internet.
[English]
In principle this is a good proposition. It would offer
Canadians access to a new and faster means of communicating with
government bodies.
The government believes that by acting as a role model, it can
stimulate a substantial increase in the use of this technology in
all realms. A quick glance at the current electronic commerce
situation though reveals that Canadians are far from embracing
the Internet. In many cases this is because they simply cannot
afford to. Even if we assumed that about 30% of Canadians have
some sort of access to the Internet, and this may just be because
they have a connected computer at their school, we must
acknowledge that the other three-quarters of the country are in
the dark.
1815
[Translation]
I think it is important to mention that we have a lot of
schools. My son is in grade 7 and I am sure he does not have
access to the program. A lot of young people and families today
may not be extremely poor, but they certainly cannot afford to
have a computer at home. We must be careful.
A few moments ago, a government member seemed proud to say that
he could change plane tickets and that it would cost only a few
dollars. But how many jobs will be lost? Is anybody trying to
maintain some kind of balance in all that? It is all well to say
that we are going to save money.
Hurrah! the Internet is here and we will save money, but what is
the real cost in terms of lost jobs?
In closing, I will say that not everybody is connected and we
have to recognize that as a fact. It is a problem for those
people, and it is not just a matter of not having a computer.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity after the member's remarks to
pose a question to her. It arises out of my earlier remarks in
which I observed that the bill is deficient insofar as it does
not clearly and explicitly explain what the parameters are in
sensitive personal information when it comes to fundraising for
donor lists for non-profit organizations.
Moreover, in another aspect it also is very deficient in that if
a person knows that their name is held as a result of donating to
some charity or another and they go to that direct marketing firm
that has their name on that list and ask that direct marketing
firm how many other lists their name has been distributed to, how
many organizations it is out to, according to the legislation as
I see it, because of commercial proprietary reasons that direct
marketing firm can withhold that personal information about how a
person's name is being used and who it has been given to.
I have a list from an organization in the United States that has
this kind of information. It gets the names of these individuals
because these individual organizations approach the organization
to do direct mail fundraising in Canada for them. It has the
list and once it has done direct mail fundraising for a
particular organization, it offers that list of names to other
organizations for hire or for rent.
For example, the Canadian Abortion Rights League is a group of
7,500 women. We can get their names, as well as the International
Planned Parenthood Federation. So someone who is perhaps very
virulently anti-abortion can get the information of all those
individuals who directly support abortion with their money. I
submit that is a very dangerous thing.
I mentioned also that this list contains 73,000 Canadian Jewish
donors. I submit to the member that this is a highly dangerous
thing because organizations that may be engaged in anti-Semitic
activities can therefore access this information one way or
another, yet the legislation does not prevent this information
from being given out.
When I as an MP have tried in the past to get information from
my own government about the funding of women's programs or
anti-poverty programs, the names of the individuals involved have
often been withheld in this information. I have not even been
able to get them under access to information on the grounds that
those who seek government grants, either poverty groups, women's
groups or other minority groups, need the protection of the
government that has their personal information sought as grants.
It is very hard to get this information.
Yet on this list to this direct marketer in the United States,
this for profit fundraiser, we find the National Action Committee
on the Status of Women. There are 5,000 names there. Immediately
underneath it is the National Anti-Poverty Organization. There
are 17,000 names there. The National Association of Women and
the Law, 1,300 names. Under that we have the National Gay and
Lesbian Rights Supporters. These are all actually in
alphabetical order.
1820
I submit to the member opposite that there is something
dreadfully wrong when an MP cannot get the basic information of
who these people are who support these organizations. I am not
saying that we should but we as MPs cannot get that information
from the government even though the government is funding these
organizations. Yet for mere money we can go to the United States
and get the names of every one of these people.
Is this something that is acceptable to the hon. member? Does
she not think that these organizations should not be giving their
donor name lists to an American organization and should we
strengthen Bill C-54 in such a way as to make this type of thing
not occur?
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my
Liberal colleague for once. It does not often happen.
The member has mentioned incidents that are very alarming and
not only in those cases, but there is so much information on the
Internet. It is pretty well out of control and nobody has really
admitted it. We cannot turn on the Internet without seeing
three or four people in positions that I still cannot figure out
today.
This is a computer. We have children. It is supposed to be
friendly to everybody. I have my limits on friendliness. It
goes on and on. There is a need to get control of what is
happening on the Internet.
I know we do not want to censor everything where we are all
boxed in and we do not know what is happening on the outside.
That is not what I am talking about. Most of us in this country
have common sense. Sometimes it is unfortunate that common sense
does not always win. There are so many other factors that common
sense is put off. We say this is what we have to do although we
know it is not right.
I have to agree with my colleague. There is a need to
strengthen it.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had a speech
prepared for today on Bill C-43, but strong defender of the right
to privacy that I am, I could not help but dive into this
debate, particularly since there are only a few minutes left and
I would not have had the time to finish my speech on Bill C-43.
I have listened to what all my colleagues have said. It is true
that I am a defender of the right to privacy. It is not an easy
job. In my union days, I have seen police officers entering
union premises. It is a bit like having someone break into your
home. For me, the right to privacy is absolutely essential.
I have also looked at the difference between the provincial and
the federal legislation. I will read the title of the two acts,
because this strikes me as important in this debate. What does
the provincial legislation say? Its title is an Act respecting
the protection of personal information in the private sector,
whereas the title of the federal legislation is an Act to
support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal
information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain
circumstances.
The emphasis of the federal bill can be seen. The economy comes
first, before the protection of privacy, rather than the
opposite as in Quebec. This is the main reason I believe the
federal bill we have before us at this time needs to take its
inspiration from the provincial legislation.
Knowing how the Liberal Party operates, what is more important:
protecting privacy or protecting the economy, protecting human
rights or protecting the economy?
So far, I find the Liberal newsletter is very weak on the
protecting of protecting human rights before the economy.
In a bill like the one we have here, why would the federal
government now be protecting privacy rights over economic
rights?
1825
The bill has some serious weaknesses, in my opinion. Some of
them have been pointed out. There is the whole issue of the
schedule. The schedule contains most of the substance. It
strikes me as odd that it is necessary to refer to the schedule
rather than the bill proper for questions of interpretation.
Lawyers will have a field day with it, and not just because of
this business of the schedule. The bill itself is full of
conditions. Imagine someone who wants to defend his right to
privacy as opposed to an economic right, and who tells the court
that he thinks his privacy has been violated.
Everything is in the conditional, leaving the citizen no choice
but to hire a lawyer, while we know what the federal government
will do if it wants to defend its legislation. It has the best
lawyers. It has a justice department chock full of lawyers, and
never-ending coffers to dip into.
In addition, a lot of questions are now being asked about the
need to drag these issues through the courts, and this is yet
another example. The public is being told that all it has to
do, if it does not agree with the interpretation of the
legislation, is take the government to court. This is typical
of this government. I think that the average citizen is at a
disadvantage, because he faces economic limitations that the
government does not have to think about.
I would also like to mention the famous Henry VIII clause. We
know that Henry VIII proceeded by decree when calling for the
death of his opponents.
It was as simple as that. Fortunately, the Henry VIII clause no
longer exists and the Prime Minister cannot avail himself of it.
Otherwise, there might be 45 victims on this side of the House.
I have a feeling that we would be hit with a royal order in no
time.
This bill gives the governor in council full discretion to amend
the regulations. But who can amend regulations? On whose
recommendation, under whose pressure will the governor in
council amend a bill?
In dealing with this bill, we have to consider the big lobbying
firms. Who can afford to hire big lobbying firms today besides
major Canadian corporations, big banks? They have a lot of
money.
What will outweigh everything else when the time comes to decide
whether regulations should be amended for the governor in
council, in other words cabinet? What will prevail?
Will it be the opinion of consumers? Will it be the opinion of
the organizations that defend the right to privacy, or rather
will it be those with economic clout? Which is the biggest
backer of political parties?
We have no problems with this. Our funding comes from the grass
roots. But who funds the Liberal government? The major
corporations: Bombardier, Bell Canada, the Royal and
Toronto-Dominion banks, and the like. Those are the ones with
the big money. They are the ones backing the Liberals.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Pierre Corbeil knows who it is.
Mr. Claude Bachand: The hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic says
that Pierre Corbeil knows who is behind the Liberal Party
funding. It is not citizens' organizations, and not the
consumer protection organizations, for they have no money.
Their strength lies in collective effort and consolidation
against a government which accepts financing from all these big
corporations.
To whom do you think the governor in council will listen? Who
do you think the cabinet will listen to? Not the organizations.
Not the defenders of the right to privacy. The Governor in
Council will listen to those who are behind the funding. They
will say to each other: “We will change the regulations because
the people funding us don't like the way things are at present,
either the little details or the major points. So we will
change all that”.
In my opinion, this bill is not right, and I join with my
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois in saying that I will be
pleased to vote against it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saint-Jean will have 13 minutes the next time we debate this
bill.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ASBESTOS
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
too long now, the Minister for International Trade has been
pathetically slow to defend asbestos internationally. He seems
to have nodded off completely on this issue.
The proof is that his government waited 30 months before finally
deciding to turn to the WTO to challenge France's unjustified
ban on asbestos.
The minister clearly has a double standard when it comes to
defending Canadian companies on the world market.
How can he explain the speed with which he rushed to the defence
of the Toronto-based Sherritt company, when the United States
passed the Helms-Burton legislation? Why, at the same time, was
he so timid and slow in defending the interests of asbestos
workers?
I hold the Minister for International Trade, the Prime Minister
and Canada's ambassador to France, Jacques Roy, responsible for
the negative impact of France's ban on chrysotile asbestos and
the resultant domino effect.
Asbestos sales have been dropping for several months, leading to
the closing of the BC mine and increasingly frequent sporadic
closings in two other mines, Lac d'Amiante and Bell, in Thetford
Mines. In the meantime, the minister just throws up his hands.
Why is this government not taking the necessary action to
promote chrysotile asbestos, a product unique in the world,
effectively? Why is it not ordering an exhaustive study of the
environmental risks of the products replacing asbestos? Why is
it not also ordering a study of the poor performance of these
replacement products?
Yes, the minister took vigorous and speedy action in the
Sherritt case, in the case of durum and in the case of Pacific
salmon, but when it comes to asbestos, the response has been
limited to telephone conferences organized by Ambassador Roy or
small evening receptions where a personal friend of Canada's
Prime Minister has presented his French counterpart with a piece
of asbestos.
What the asbestos region needs is a government that defends its
interests actively on the international scene. This government
does not even come close.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member opposite
to be a little more cautious when making allegations which may
seem good to get media coverage, but which are not based on
reality and concrete facts.
The Government of Canada, in co-operation with the Quebec
government, the industry, unions and local communities is
striving to maintain access to foreign markets for chrysotile
products. While some may claim nothing has been done, we should
take a look at the facts.
In September 1997, the Government of Canada organized, in
co-operation with the Quebec government, an international
conference on the safe and responsible use of chrysotile fibers.
Some 300 delegates from 45 countries attended the event.
In March, April and May 1998, the Government of Canada organized
visits for Belgian, British and Moroccan journalists, who toured
Canada's asbestos industries.
We have never missed an opportunity to make representations at
the highest levels, whether in the United Kingdom, France, the
European Union, or elsewhere in the world. The Government of
Canada has always indicated that it was fully prepared to take
the issue to the WTO, at the appropriate time. We would have
preferred to settle this dispute on a bilateral basis.
Since this was not possible, we took the next step, which is to
ask for the setting up of a WTO panel.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, and as my colleague can also see,
this is simply a matter of good faith. The Government of Canada
and its partners are working together in a co-ordinated fashion
on all fronts, and they intend to continue to do so.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.)