EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 146
CONTENTS
Friday, October 30, 1998
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-54. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1010
1015
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1020
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1045
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RYAN HURELJACK
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRA INCORPORATED
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1100
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCO-ONTARIAN COMMUNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE REFORM PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GLOBE AND MAIL
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1105
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNICEF
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEDICAL RESEARCH IN CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORTHERN COMMUNITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1110
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANSELME LAPOINTE
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC SCHOOL SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRCRAFT
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ivan Grose |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1115
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1120
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GENERIC DRUGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1125
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEDIA CONCENTRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1130
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE BREAKING IN PORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1135
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHEEP PRODUCTION IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1140
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AID
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1145
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 2000 PROBLEM
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK MERGERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1150
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAGAZINE INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1155
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STEEL INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1200
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of Document
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
1205
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-452. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Food Labelling
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-54. Second reading
|
1210
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1215
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1250
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-54. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1305
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1330
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1335
1340
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1400
1405
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1410
1415
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1420
1425
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1430
![V](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 146
![](/web/20061116192728im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 30, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed from October 27 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 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.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-54, the personal
information protection and electronic documents act.
In addition to modernizing federal legislation for the digital
age and building the environment for electronic commerce to
flourish, this act also addresses one very particular need in the
information society in which we now live: the right of
individuals to have some control over their personal information.
The rapid development of information and communications
technology such as the Internet has brought about new
opportunities for individuals, businesses, communities and
governments. But to realize those opportunities there are some
challenges that must be resolved. One of the most significant of
these is the issue of privacy and the protection of personal
information. New technologies provide new capabilities to
collect and manage personal data. Canadians want to be confident
that any information concerning themselves is accurate, up to
date and, most importantly, secure.
Bill C-54 provides that assurance and much more. It will make
private sector organizations responsible for the security and
accuracy of the personal information they collect. For federal
statutes it will introduce a degree of equivalency between
electronic and paper formats and improve the ability of the
federal government to conduct its business electronically. An
opting out process would allow government bodies sufficient time
to prepare for the impact of updating and re-engineering their
business functions for the age of the Internet. It will assist
the courts in evaluating the reliability of electronic records
presented as evidence and it will give official status to
electronic statutes and regulations.
Specifically regarding security, the legislation proposes ways
to remove legal roadblocks to using electronic technology as a
secure option for doing business with the federal government. It
contains provisions for the development of secure electronic
signatures for people doing business with the federal government.
These will provide a model for electronic commerce in general. It
will make federally regulated private sector organizations
responsible for the security and accuracy of the personal
information they collect.
The provisions of the act for privacy protection are based on
the model code for the protection of personal information which
was developed by the Canadian Standards Association.
However, as exemplary as this code is, it has been voluntary.
Now we are enshrining its principles in law and we are making
significant improvements.
To be successful any legislation regime which safeguards
personal information must provide effective oversight and
enforcement, and foster awareness.
As other hon. members have noted in previous debates, Bill C-54
is the result of a great deal of broadly based consultations. In
those consultations Canadians made their point over and over
again that individuals must have the right to launch complaints
and to challenge an organization when they think its compliance
with protection requirements has been inadequate.
The legislation before us gives individuals the right to
complain and to challenge compliance with any part of the law.
Thus it affords Canadians a key role in monitoring the
organizations which hold personal information about them.
The private sector also has an extremely important role to play.
There was strong agreement in the consultations that businesses
should take an active role in monitoring their own practices and
should co-operate with consumers in resolving problems. The
first step in a normal complaint process should involve an
individual complaining to the organization.
1010
The organization should then look into the complaint and attempt
to resolve it.
Accordingly, Bill C-54 makes organizations accountable for the
information they collect, use or disclose. Furthermore, it
requires that organizations put in place procedures to receive
and respond to complaints or inquiries about their information
policies and practices.
However, an individual might not always be able to obtain
satisfaction through the organization. In such cases there must
be a second avenue for redress. This legislation provides that
avenue. Throughout the government's consultations Canadians
expressed broad support for giving the Privacy Commissioner of
Canada the authority to investigate complaints, issue
recommendations, mediate disputes and conduct research on issues
related to the implementation of the law.
Under Bill C-54 individuals will be able to complain to the
commissioner regarding any aspect of an organization's compliance
with the legislation, including improper collection and use or
disclosure of personal information. The commissioner may also
initiate complaints if there are reasonable grounds to do so.
The commissioner will have the power necessary to investigate
complaints, including the ability to enter the premises of any
organization, examine any records, administer oaths and interview
an organization's staff.
Furthermore, as part of the complaint resolution process the
commissioner may suggest mediation or other forms of dispute
resolution. When an investigation has been completed the
commissioner will provide a report outlining the findings of the
investigation together with any recommendations the commissioner
deems appropriate to both the individual and the organization.
The commissioner may follow up to ensure that the organization
deals with the identified issues.
In our consultations consumers indicated that it was important
that the legislation provide a watchdog who can ensure that the
law is being respected. When the commissioner has reasonable
grounds to believe that an organization is not complying with the
law the legislation gives the privacy commissioner the power to
conduct audits.
Consumers and businesses have also made clear their view that
legislation to protect privacy in the private sector will be most
effective if it includes measures to address emerging privacy
issues proactively through consumer education. The government
agrees that consumer education is absolutely key to ensuring that
citizens are well informed about their privacy rights and are
vigilant in protecting them. Therefore, the legislation gives
the privacy commissioner an explicit mandate to educate the
public. It also gives the commissioner powers to research and
comment on any issues that affect the privacy of Canadians.
These various powers of the privacy commissioner are designed to
ensure compliance with the law and to give consumers somewhere to
turn when there is a problem. The commissioner will also serve
as an important source of expertise and advice for organizations
that are trying to comply with the law.
Canadian citizens and consumers are rightly asking that personal
information be adequately protected in the new digital economy.
Experience has shown that industry self-regulation has not been
up to the task. As a result, international data laws have to be
developed that might restrict the flow of information to
countries with inadequate privacy protection standards. With
this legislation the government has done so, with privacy
protection that will be simple yet effective, consumer friendly
and not overly burdensome for the industry, especially for small
and medium size firms.
It is made in Canada legislation that strikes the right balance
for our conditions and it will help ensure that technological
innovations will be able to serve our economic needs while not
infringing on our fundamental rights.
1015
It is the system that Canadians need to safeguard information
privacy in the private sector. Therefore, I move:
The Deputy Speaker: On debate, the hon. member for
Edmonton—Strathcona.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House as the industry critic
to address Bill C-54.
For the benefit of those who have just joined the debate, Bill
C-54 is 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 bill
is referred to as the personal information protection and
electronic documents act.
The bill is part of Industry Canada's broad and ambitious plan
to create a legal, regulatory and tax regime in which electronic
commerce will flourish. It is fair to say that under the
direction of the Minister of Industry, Canada has become a world
leader in electronic commerce, at least as far as public policy
is concerned.
This is not the case of big brother in Industry Canada going
high tech. The specific purpose of Bill C-54 is to create a
legal and regulatory framework for electronic commerce by
introducing measures to protect personal information in the
private sector by creating an electronic alternative for doing
business with the federal government and by clarifying how the
courts assess the reliability of electronic records used as
evidence.
The Reform Party supports in principle the government's efforts
to create a legal and regulatory framework to allow legitimate
electronic commerce to flourish which is why we are supporting
the bill.
However, it should be understood by all members of this House
and by the public that Bill C-54 goes beyond the scope of
electronic commerce in that it creates a legal and regulatory
framework that will be applied broadly to the commercial use of
sensitive and private information in all areas of business. When
this bill is examined more closely in committee, it must be
examined with this in mind.
Bill C-54 will also work to replace electronic documents on the
same legal footing as paper documents. As part of this endeavour
to bring legal legitimacy to the electronic business world, the
government has empowered itself to regulate the concept of secure
electronic signatures through the use of encryption. This is a
necessary part of the bill but I would caution the government to
work with the private sector as it deals with the issue of
encryption every day when providing security of data to its
clients.
We must whenever possible borrow from the work being done in the
private sector and whenever possible allow these industries to
regulate themselves. Private sector co-operation and
self-regulation should guide us as we examine the issue of
electronic commerce.
The bill was created in co-operation with the private sector
which speaks to the quality of the legislation and which is why
my concerns are limited. However, when this bill is discussed in
committee, there are issues we must be aware of.
The Canadian Direct Marketing Association supports Bill C-54,
while warning that any amendments that would change the rules
governing positive consent should be examined carefully as they
have the potential of creating a business environment that is
unduly restrictive for direct marketers. In essence, the CDMA
argues that there is often implied consent for the use of
personal information.
The provision in the bill allowing for implied consent ensures
that once private information is lawfully acquired it can be used
repeatedly by the same company unless the consumers instruct
otherwise.
1020
If direct positive consent were required before information
lawfully collected is used, it would be cumbersome and would hurt
the direct marketing industry. Furthermore, the direct marketing
industry would prefer that a greater reliance be placed on
negative consent. That is, customers would be given an
opportunity to remove sensitive personal information from lists
before those lists were used or sold. However, if they chose not
to take this action, the direct marketer with impunity could then
use the information.
There is also some debate regarding the use of information
collected by the government but then made part of the public
record. If only the government can use this information in a
commercial manner, namely by selling it to private sector
businesses, it amounts to unfair government competition for
information trading, which is a large part of what many direct
marketers do.
The government has very recently created legislation that
brought positive changes to the direct marketing operations,
changes that were supported by the CDMA. We should be cautious
to ensure that this work is not undermined by a subsequent piece
of legislation that may hurt this industry if we do not act
judiciously.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the
concerns put forward by the Canadian Medical Association.
Physicians are very concerned about their ability to protect the
confidential information of patients who confide in them. In
response to this, the CMA has created the Health Information
Privacy Code which it hopes will become a standard for the
medical profession. This is an example of industry
self-regulation.
It also brings forward a very serious concern regarding the
patient-doctor relationship. We do not want to create legislation
that will create blanket policies for electronic privacy
protection when there are clearly different needs in different
sectors of the economy calling for different policy solutions.
The Reform Party supports limited government and free
enterprise, but recognizes the important role of government in
creating an economic climate in Canada with fair and transparent
rules that protect both consumers and business.
It is well within the proper function of government to create a
legal and regulatory framework to allow electronic commerce to
flourish in Canada. For this reason Bill C-54 should be
supported. However, care must be taken at the committee stage to
ensure that concerns put forward by the Canadian Medical
Association, the Canadian Direct Marketing Association and others
are addressed.
I will close by encouraging the government to continue to make
electronic commerce a priority and to work to create a regulatory
environment that stabilizes trade but that does not become a
barrier to it.
I would also encourage the government to pursue taxation policy
that encourages businesses to take their operations into the
electronic business world. If this happens, I am confident
Canada will become a leader in electronic commerce.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise this morning to speak on Bill C-54 as
one who had close ties with the communications industry during
15 years. I was involved in broadcast media at the time.
Throughout this period, I had an opportunity to witness changes
as they occurred: the arrival of fax machines, satellite dishes,
computers and, finally, the Internet. All these changes have
always served the public at large, the general public, well.
However, a closer look at electronic commerce and this
technology that is increasingly becoming a part of our daily
lives raises concerns.
As the millennium approaches, in this era of communications,
with communications occupying an ever-increasing place in our
lives, the federal government has deemed it appropriate to
legislate in this very complex area.
I would like to give a little background on Bill C-54, an act to
support and promote electronic commerce. The purpose of this
legislation is to support and promote electronic commerce. How?
The title goes on to say: 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.
Once again, Quebec is at the cutting edge, since it has had
legislation protecting personal information in the private
sector for four years now. Bill C-54 introduced by the federal
government deals only with commerce.
It does not extend to any other activity and has some serious
deficiencies.
1025
In its 1997-98 annual report, the Quebec access to information
commission is unequivocal on the issue of privacy on the
information highway.
The commission examined the consequences of introducing
Canada-wide standards and legal principles regarding privacy on
the information highway.
Under the terms of a proposal submitted to the ministers
responsible for setting up this highway, this protection will be
based on the voluntary code of practice developed by the
Canadian Standards Association, and adopted in 1990.
It is the commission's contention that, if implemented, this
proposal would represent a setback for the privacy issue in
Quebec. This contention is based on a comprehensive review of
the CSA code. There is good reason to be pleased with the
Canadian industry adopting such a code. This marks quite a
breakthrough, stemming from an interesting analysis of the OECD
guidelines on protection of personal information.
However, the CSA code does not meet the objectives of the
personal information protection systems established under the
two Quebec laws, namely to guarantee all citizens an impartial
and fair solution to any problem or dispute that may arise with
regard to the protection of this increasingly important aspect
of one's privacy.
Therefore, the Commission suggested to the Quebec Minister of
Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts that
Quebec has such a statutory system in place. According to the
Commission, the Quebec system is the only response to the
challenges of the information highway that respects the rights
of citizens.
Discussions of e-commerce become a little complicated. First of
all, for the benefit of this House I am going to use general,
easy to understand terms.
We are talking about making purchases or conducting transactions
with banks, with suppliers, with manufacturers, or with clients
electronically.
These types of transactions have been in existence for quite
some time. Telecommunications have been with us for 30 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 is used relatively often by
many businesses.
For the past 10 years or so, large businesses have been using it
in their dealings with suppliers. This means that a supplier
does not send a written bill to his client, but rather an
electronic bill that is received on the computer of the client,
who will then authorize payment after verifying that the goods
or services have actually been delivered.
But what is happening in this era of communications is an
acceleration of this process. Electronic data interchange is no
longer restricted to large corporations or governments. It is
now accessible to the average person through the Internet, among
other means. The Internet is becoming increasingly popular at
home.
I want to discuss into greater detail how this government is
once again getting involved in issues that are under Quebec's
jurisdiction.
The bill introduced by the Minister of Industry to protect
personal information was of course anxiously awaited. It is, as
the federal privacy commissioner pointed out, the most
significant step taken to protect personal information since
1983.
However, instead of introducing a real bill to protect privacy
in the private sector, in a technological world that challenges
this fundamental right, the government, through its Minister of
Industry, is proposing this weak legislation, whose fundamental
part is found in a schedule to the bill, and in which the
commissioner does not have real powers.
The wording lends itself to a broad interpretation.
1030
As we know, when this government wants to get involved in areas
of provincial jurisdiction, it always goes for a broad
interpretation, so that it can justify its actions to the
people.
In this context, there is a risk that Bill C-54 may infringe on
the privacy rights of Quebeckers. This bill may not meet the
expectations of Canadian and Quebec consumers.
Moreover, the Minister of Industry is introducing a bill which,
on the face of it, seems to provide less protection than in the
federal public sector.
Whereas, at the moment, harmonization of legislation on the
subject across the country seems to be an important criterion in
ensuring constant protection of personal information, it might
be reasonable to expect the government to draw on the
experiences of Quebec in protecting personal information. It
has had a law for four years. Not so.
The Bloc Quebecois regrets that the government has chosen not to
give the privacy commission power to issue orders. This lack of
power, which currently prevents him from fulfilling his
responsibilities in the public sector, should have been remedied
in proper form in the bill before us. This shortcoming will
affect the bill's credibility.
The Bloc Quebecois fears that these weaknesses in the bill will
make the Prime Minister's objective of promoting consumer
confidence in order to develop electronic trade unattainable.
This is no surprise. The Bloc Quebecois is sure the government
will not give the privacy commissioner the resources he needs to
do the additional work given him in the bill. The copyright
board, a body making quasi-judicial decisions, had no increase in
its resources following the passage of Bill C-32, which doubled
its workload. Today, the Minister of Industry is obliging it to
examine the cost recovery formula.
This is another method frequently used by our friends opposite.
The government hands out responsibilities, but not the resources
or the money to fulfil them.
Furthermore, this means, very clearly, that the Bloc Quebecois
does not support Bill C-54 as drafted. The minister should go
back to the drawing board and look much more carefully at the
importance of personal information.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to join with my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois to
strongly condemn Bill C-54, the Personal Information Protection
and Electronic Documents Act.
This bill does not accomplish what it set out to do, which is to
protect citizens. Instead of a bill to really protect privacy in
the private sector, in a technological environment that puts
this fundamental right at risk, let us examine what the minister
is proposing in this piece of legislation.
This is a flimsy and confused piece of legislation whose central
feature is a schedule containing the Canadian Standards
Association code without changes.
This legislation grants huge discretionary powers to the
governor in council, but none whatsoever to the privacy
commissioner; it focuses on e-commerce and places the fundamental
notion of privacy on the back burner; it ignores the unique
experience of Quebec in the area of protecting privacy in the
private sector; finally, it could undermine the legislation in
effect in the province of Quebec.
1035
Before dealing directly with the shortcomings of the bill before
us today, I would like to talk about the central concept of this
bill, which is privacy, and to examine it in the Canadian and
Quebec legislative context.
The right to privacy is a human right just like the right to
equality and justice.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year and to which
Canada is a signatory, specifies that “Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and security of person” and that “No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
reputation”.
In Canada, this protection is implied in sections 7 and 8 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, the Canadian
government implemented in 1983 a Privacy Act that applies to
more than 100 government organizations under its jurisdiction.
The federal government has since promised a framework
legislation to ensure the private sector complies with the
obligation of protecting privacy. Bill C-54 is the unfortunate
result of that promise.
In Quebec, the right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the
Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms and in the Quebec
civil code. More importantly, the Quebec government is the only
government in North America to have developed legislation
governing personal information protection in the public sector
in 1982 and in the private sector in 1994. Some experts even
agree that the Quebec legislation applying to the private sector
is reportedly one of the best in the world, which is remarkable.
I will point out some of the weaknesses in Bill C-54. This is a
weak bill whose centrepiece is its schedule. Most provisions
that will govern personal information protection are in the
schedule to the bill.
Moreover, this schedule is not the model code on personal
information protection that was developed by the private sector
and by consumers to serve as a framework for the protection of
personal information on a voluntary basis.
By limiting himself to this text, the minister ignored the
recommendations made by consumers and by privacy commissioners
who recognized that the model code of the Canadian Standards
Association was a good basis for reflection, but that it had to
be reviewed before being incorporated into the legislation. The
minister did not do so.
This undoubtedly shows that the minister has put economic values
before social values, when this fundamental right is so fragile
in the development of electronic commerce.
It is said also that this legislation gives tremendous
discretion to the governor in council.
Paragraph 27(2)(b) gives the federal government the right to
amend the act by order in council, without having to come back
to parliament. Therefore, the act could easily be amended in
accordance with the wishes of lobbyists representing large
companies that contribute to the election funds of Canada's
traditional political parties.
Another criticism we have is that this bill does not give any
powers to the privacy commissioner. Despite the fact that the
other Canadian provinces have followed Quebec's model by giving
the commissioner the power to issue orders, the federal bill
does the exact opposite.
The commissioner will not have the power to issue orders, which
means that this act will not be easily accessible to consumers
and will have no effect on businesses.
We say that this bill ignores Quebec's unique experience;
therefore we cannot support it.
It also ignores Quebec's unique experience with regard to the
protection of personal information in the private sector.
I would like to give you a few examples: the objectives are
better set out in the Quebec act, since it deals with the
protection of privacy, irrespective of any commercial
considerations. The Quebec act clearly covers all profit and non
profit organizations, whereas the federal bill provides for the
protection of personal information only in the context of
commercial transactions.
1040
The Quebec act provides that a group of persons may designate a
representative in a common cause, but there is no equivalent
provision in the federal bill.
On top of all these shortcomings, there is an even greater
concern. The only guarantee Quebec has that it will exempted
from this legislation is a timid statement by the Minister of
Industry.
This mistrust is largely motivated by certain formal commitments
to Quebec that the federal government has too often ignored or
reneged on. For example, may I remind the government of the
promises the Prime Minister made a few days before the 1995
referendum at the Verdun auditorium.
The issues are clear. For the Minister of Industry, the
important thing is that Canada participate fully in the
lightning fast progress of electronic commerce. Concerns
expressed by Canadians with regard to their right to privacy are
a minor consideration.
The Minister of Industry does not hesitate to take a
centralizing position that, in many respects, goes against
something that was very well done in Quebec and in the other
provinces, something that he could have used as a model,
particularly the Quebec model.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is calling for the
immediate withdrawal of Bill C-54.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to enter into the debate on electronic commerce. As
most people know, the rapid change in communications in just a
little over a decade has been dramatic. There is no doubt that
we will see further growth of gigantic proportions in this area.
I have a number of concerns with Bill C-54. I am not sure that
I will be nearly as kind on the government as my colleague who
spoke earlier. My concerns have to do with identification and
security of information.
I could, if I so chose, create a web site and identify myself as
a deputy speaker of the House of Commons, as some other member of
the House, or even as a senator if I wanted. I could put on the
site anything I want and people accessing that web site would
have no way of knowing it is not a legitimate site unless there
is good publicity. I think there would be if I did that. I have
no intentions of doing that, but it is an electronic possibility.
It used to be that people recognized voices on the phone.
Certainly in talking with people face to face there is the
recognition factor with respect to the physical appearance of the
person. For many decades a hand signature on documents of either
the individual or the person authorized to sign on behalf of a
company or organization was an identifiable marker.
We do not yet have an adequate means of defining the source of
electronic information. Part of the legislation includes
development of electronic signatures. One could argue that an
electronic signature is more than just a duplication of a hand
signature. However it is one thing that could be done.
In a computer data file a scan of the actual signature could be
stored, but anyone else who would pick up the document could then
paste it into any other document. It would be a perfect forgery,
bit for bit as we say in the computer world. A physical
signature is inadequate to identify a document.
Another way of doing it is as is done now in electronic commerce
with banks. We are all familiar with automatic teller machines,
ATMs, where people put in a card to identify themselves and to
prove it is not a stolen card they enter in a four digit ID
number or PIN number.
How can we do that if we are sending something to an
organization? The only way it would work is if the other
organization knows what our PIN is so that when they receive it
they know it is a legitimate individual sending the information.
1045
With the banks this works perfectly fine. Most of us have PINs
on our bank card or on our MasterCard. When I put my card into
the machine and enter my PIN, that number goes down the
electronic pipeline to the financial institution handling that
transaction and it matches it at the other end with a PIN it has
on file electronically. If it does not match, it says “wrong
pin number, try again”. If someone enters the wrong PIN two or
three times, it says “you're the wrong guy, we are keeping your
card”.
How do we do that electronically? If I am going to put
something to another organization, I would have to by some means
send it what my electronic signature is so that it can identify
me. If I send it in the same document, it is useless because if
someone else gets it, they immediately can use it. So I need
some method of saving with the recipient of that information my
personal signature, my PIN, my electronic signature.
This is a digression. This has nothing to do with the bill but I
think we are permitted to do that in the House from time to time.
Many members here know that I spent a fair amount of time in my
previous life teaching and working with mathematics and
computers. One of the fun things I do, while other people who
are real boring go out and play golf, is solve mathematical
problems as a mental exercise and as a recreation.
An hon. member: Scintillating.
Mr. Ken Epp: Exactly. It is a very interesting process.
I developed an encryption algorithm which unfortunately got
sidelined because I got into this wonderful world politics. I
never got around to marketing it. But I really thought the
method I developed was very good because of the encryption method
which I used being very unique, and no two successive encryptions
of the same document ever came out the same. One of the inputs I
used was the computer's clock in changing the way it encrypted.
Besides that there is an upfront ID number which a person can
use. But it is very important in this case that the person
receiving the message at the other end knows what that encryption
password is. The way I did it, it was nowhere included in the
document but in fact formed part of the formula for the
decryption of the message. Without even transmitting it, it was
an integral part of actually encrypting the message
This is one of the things that has to be dealt with very
severely, identification. I am thinking of someone making a bid
on a government contract by electronic means. It would be real
dastardly but it could happen that an impostor could submit a
bid, pretending their so and so company was applying for this bid
with the government when in fact it is one of the competitors
which is simply throwing in a phony bid to try to throw people
off track. We need to be very careful that identification of
individuals is securely handled and this is one of the things I
would really urge the committee to look at when examining this
bill.
There are other considerations which I think are also very
important. Not the least of these is we need to gear up to
having a very good climate for this type of commerce to occur in
Canada. We hear over and over again that in this country we are
taxed to death. We hear it from businesses. We hear it from
individuals. We have a brain drain problem where people can move
to among other places the United States.
1050
They earn more money. They pay less tax. Their take home pay
is much superior to what it is in Canada. That includes all the
necessities of life, including health care. When we factor it
all together it is still a disadvantage to stay in Canada. That
has to change.
I am distressed with this government. It talks about reducing
unemployment, improving the economy and changing spending and
borrowing patterns. It has had some success. It has resisted
the temptation to spend what nominal surpluses there are. But it
will not move off its position of keeping the money that has been
taken from only one sector of our economy, employers and
employees. If we took that away we would not have a balanced
budget. The government has done that on the backs of those
people.
With respect to electronic commerce, the government needs to
make sure that the taxation will not drive Canadians out of the
country. Otherwise we will have them out of the economic loop.
With computers and virtual store fronts now, a person can live in
this country but virtually move out of the country without
physically moving out. There is no way of identifying the source
of files once they are on the Internet. They can be sent
anywhere around the world.
We need to make sure the tax system is such that people in this
country can engage in electronic commerce without a tax penalty.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
after the failure of the Meech Lake accord in 1990, the
federalist premier of Quebec said, and I quote from memory: “No
matter what, Quebec is and always will be a distinct society”.
Bill C-54 gives the opportunity to reaffirm this loud and clear.
When it comes to protecting personal information, Quebec's laws
is unique in North America.
Quebec has had a law protecting privacy in the public sector
since 1982.
The federal government and every province enacted similar
legislation. In 1994, the Quebec law extended the protection of
personal information to the private sector.
And to conclude my preliminary remarks, Quebec is the only
government in North America to have a law protecting personal
information in the private sector. It has had it for over four
years.
It is quite acceptable for the federal government to once again
copy things we get right and do well in Quebec. We have no
objection to that. What we do object to is the wording of this
bill.
Our party's position is very clear, namely this half-baked piece
of legislation is basically poorly drafted. I will get back to
our position in my conclusion.
We know the goal of Bill C-54 is to promote electronic commerce;
the right to privacy in the private sector is a minor
consideration.
Had the minister wanted to show leadership, as he
claims, 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 diminshed.
1055
We think this bill does not provide adequate protection for
Canadians. A number of its provisions 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 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. It is worse than that.
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 association in consultation
with the telemarketing board and another body, 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
conditionals. This is what I was saying earlier when I spoke of
the wording of the bill. A could or a should essentially
means perhaps instead of shall.
My lawyer colleagues in this House will recall that, in law,
there is a significant difference between may and shall, and
I consider this essential.
In the bill—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but as it is nearly 11 a.m., we must now proceed to
Statements by Members.
He will have another five minutes following Oral Question Period
to finish his remarks.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
RYAN HURELJACK
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is very humbling for me to rise today and pay tribute a
constituent of mine, Mr. Ryan Hureljack.
Last January Ryan became aware of how desperate many third
world countries were for clean drinking water. Ryan used money
from working odd jobs to pool an initial $70 for the cause. After
meeting with officials from WaterCan, as well as the ambassador
from Uganda, Ryan redoubled his fundraising efforts and at
present has raised over $5,000 that when matched with CIDA funds
now represents over $15,000 for water projects in Uganda.
Since the beginning of Ryan's quest he has received a real
education on the needs of third world countries, specifically
Uganda, saving money and the importance of determination and hard
work. Ryan's school has now taken on the fundraising challenge
in support of what they call Ryan's Well.
On November 20, national child day, Ryan will visit Parliament
Hill to receive a You Made a Difference award for 1998 from the
Our Kids Foundation.
I should mention that when Ryan began this project less than a
year ago he was six years old. I think our country is in good
hands because people like Ryan will be helping to shape our
future.
Today I salute Ryan for his kind and caring contributions to his
family, his school, his community, our country and for countries
that are less fortunate than ours.
* * *
AGRA INCORPORATED
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
counterfeiting of money is a worldwide problem that leads to
billions of dollars of losses each year.
A company in my riding of Oakville is working with the banking
industry, including the Bank of Canada, to create a more durable
and more secure currency.
AGRA Incorporated, headquartered in Oakville, is the
international engineering and technology company responsible for
this technological advance.
It is the genius behind the reflective security patches for the
$20, $50, $100 and $1000 bills. It is now working on a more
durable plastic based bank note, one that would offer enormous
cost saving potential to government and would act as a strong
barrier to counterfeiting.
AGRA's success is a shining example of how Canadian companies
are successfully competing in today's global economy.
* * *
1100
[Translation]
FRANCO-ONTARIAN COMMUNITY
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to acknowledge the support recently provided by the
federal government to the development of the
franco-Ontarian community.
The federal government is giving the following: $12.9 million
for artistic and cultural development;
$1.5 million to the Théâtre du Nouvel Ontario, in Sudbury;
$100,000 to the Festival franco-ontarien;
$2.5 million annually to TV Ontario and TFO;
$1.5 million to open school and community centres in Kingston,
London and Mississauga.
The government is also providing support to help create
community radio stations in Hearst, Kapuskasing,
Penetanguishene, Nipissing and Prescott-Russell.
These concrete measures confirm the federal government's
commitment to the franco-Ontarian community.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
members of Canada's armed forces have paid with their lives and
health in service to our great country. How well we attend to
our veterans' concerns is a measure of our national conscience
and the expression of the will of our nation.
Some of Canada's veterans' concerns still sit as they have for
over 50 years. They are gathering dust as we approach
Remembrance Day. Hong Kong veterans' enslavement compensation by
Japan has not been resolved despite all-party support. Merchant
navy requests for full equality and recompense has not been given
in spite of recognition by other allied countries. Perley-Rideau
veterans' care level funding is plunging with the minister's
tacit approval.
Some issues have existed for over 50 years. Most veterans have
little time left to enjoy restitution. The veterans of Canada
want our government to listen now, not later. Our veterans'
concerns should not be a new millennium project.
* * *
THE REFORM PARTY
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party in its typical, politically expedient fashion is now
attempting to portray itself as a champion of human rights in the
course of the APEC debate, when in the not so distant past it was
a party with very little thought for human rights. That is not
likely to change in the very near future.
Time and time again Reform Party members' statements have
revealed their utter disregard for human rights. For example,
with reference to the charter, the member for Wild Rose said in
the Calgary Herald that if amendments cannot be made “we
should scrap the whole thing”.
In this very place the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca went
so far as to suggest that “the charter is actually
discriminatory” and that “unfortunately in 1982 the Liberal
government of the day decided to bring in the charter of rights
and freedoms”.
I am certain that this political expediency will not curry
favour with Canadians, regardless of their political allegiances.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a serious income crisis on farms throughout western
Canada and this Liberal government is insulting prairie farmers
by denying that such a crisis exists. Farmers are being
abandoned by this Liberal government.
Why is the minister hiding behind the fiction that NISA will
save the day? Farmers and their families know that NISA is far
from adequate. NISA is supposed to stand for Net Income
Stabilization Account. Instead it has come to portray this
Liberal government's callous attitude. The letters in NISA now
mean “not interested in supporting agriculture”.
The European-United States subsidy war is wreaking havoc on
Canadian farmers, so we need to support prairie farmers through
modified safety net programs and we need to review ways to reduce
farm input costs. We cannot deny it.
In Canada we have a farm income crisis on our hands. Just how
bad does the on-farm situation have to get before serious
attention is given to this impending disaster?
* * *
GLOBE AND MAIL
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail has always
prided itself on providing context and insight in its reporting,
but lately this attempt at balance has been sadly lacking in its
coverage of the financial management of the First Nation
reserves.
In a letter to the editor printed in today's edition, Chief
Stanley Arcand, chairman of the chiefs' summit steering committee
on financial accountability, blasted the Globe and Mail for
its failure to provide balanced coverage of the complex issues
surrounding the financial management of the reserves. He noted
that the Globe and Mail argument was “devoid of any
meaningful examination of the real issues and causes behind the
problems facing first nations—it was an extreme example of
using the exception to prove the rule”.
The Globe and Mail would be well advised to take into
account first nations that have—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
* * *
1105
UNICEF
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the staff and volunteers of UNICEF.
On Halloween night this coming Saturday, over two million
children volunteers will be carrying the UNICEF box while
trick-or-treating. Instead of asking for candy they will be
collecting coins.
Empowered to help other children around the world, our kids are
taking action. The money they collect will help ensure that
children in poor countries are immunized, registered at birth,
will eat nutritious food and will learn to read.
Since 1980 the increase in basic immunization coverage has saved
the lives of more than 20 million children.
Programs supported by UNICEF and other partners have helped more
than 900 million people gain access to safe drinking water.
I am appealing to the traditional Canadian generosity. It does
not matter how small the amount. Every bit helps. On Halloween
night this coming Saturday, when people see a volunteer child of
UNICEF, drop a coin. It will help to save the life of a needy
child. We can make a difference.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the farm income crisis is taking its toll. Record
numbers of Saskatchewan farmers are calling the farm stress line
this year.
In September the stress line received 147 calls. The program
co-ordinator for the line says “There has been twice as many
calls in September compared to other months. The hope is going.
If you don't have hope you don't have much to look forward to.
You can only struggle for so long”.
The statement of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that
existing farm safety net programs are enough to deal with the
farm income crisis is simply not giving these farmers hope.
The Minister knows that NISA is totally inadequate to help
western producers fight unfair foreign subsidies by the United
States, unfair trade practices by the European Union and the
economic flu in Asia, all of which have resulted in loss of
markets for Canadian grain and brutally low commodity prices.
When are farmers going to see some action out of the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food instead of just more talk?
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the next election in Quebec is of paramount importance.
Quebeckers will have an opportunity to vote in favour of a
constantly improving federalism. Quebec can finally put an end
to the political uncertainty that has prevailed over the past
four years. The constant pussyfooting around the referendum
issue hurts all of Quebec.
Those who support a united Canada are well aware of the progress
made in recent years. Several federal-provincial issues were
settled, including manpower and linguistic school boards, and
the outcome was positive for Quebec.
In short, a Liberal vote is a vote for improving the quality of
life in Quebec. It is also a vote for a federalism that evolves
and in which Quebec has its rightful place. Let us not forget
that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was very clear yesterday
when he said that a vote for the PQ is a vote for a referendum—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Laval Centre.
* * *
MEDICAL RESEARCH IN CANADA
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this week, as part of health research awareness week, 65 medical
centres across Canada and Quebec have launched an information
and mobilization campaign on this important issue.
In Canada, public funding in this respect is very clearly
insufficient. Since 1985, investments have dropped by 10% in
Canada, while they increased by 80% south of the border.
The level of funding currently available to the Medical Research
Council of Canada represents only 0.3% of Health Canada's total
budget. What researchers are requesting, and rightfully so, from
the federal government is 1% of the health budget.
With its indecent budgetary surpluses, it is time the federal
government took its responsibilities and handed out more than
crumbs to health research—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rivière Churchill.
* * *
[English]
NORTHERN COMMUNITIES
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to highlight a major concern about this country's
northern regions.
In Cree we call it kêwêtinôhk and in Saskatchewan we further
define it as where the people of the bush and the rock live:
Sakâw-iniwâk asinêwaskiywiniwâk.
The federal government has been comfortable in accepting the
definition of the north as the region north of 60°, but the
northern half of all of our provinces is very unique.
There are huge tracts of land with extreme living costs. These
regions are sparsely populated, but the communities are among the
oldest in this country.
1110
The north has contributed to the economic wealth of our southern
communities and it is only by empowering and investing in our
communities that we can proudly develop our own needs.
Our growing populations need highways, housing, health and
education facilities that could be built by northerners. The
federal government, in partnership with the provinces, must
create northern specific initiatives such as the Northlands
agreements of the 1970s.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the election campaign gets in gear in Quebec, the issues are
becoming clearer.
And the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has been a great help in
clarifying that a vote for the Parti Quebecois is a vote for a
referendum. This probably explains why Parti Quebecois leader
Lucien Bouchard raised the sovereignty issue again before a
university audience yesterday.
But we think he should know that there are definite benefits to
Canadian unity, as compared to the scenarios or tricks to
achieve Quebec's independence.
We are also asking him to tell Quebeckers what they should
expect the day after Quebec separates from the rest of Canada.
We want him to speak the truth to the people of Quebec. The
leader of the Bloc Quebecois recently told us that a vote for
the Parti Quebecois is a vote for a referendum.
Either Lucien Bouchard repudiates the Bloc leader and sets the
record straight or he tells us the truth about what to expect if
Quebec ever separates from the rest of Canada.
Fortunately, Quebec can count on a dynamic Liberal team—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Shefford.
* * *
ANSELME LAPOINTE
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I wish to
pay special tribute to a brilliant designer, Anselme Lapointe.
At the recent culture days in Valcourt in my riding, I joined
the local committee and an impressive number of representatives
from political, academic and professional circles, as well as
Mr. Lapointe's family, in paying warm tribute to this talented
individual for the quality of his work and for his humanitarian
and social commitment to his region and to his province.
After graduating from the École des beaux-arts du Québec, Mr.
Lapointe joined Bombardier in the early 1960s.
Joseph-Armand Bombardier invented the snowmobile, but it was Mr.
Lapointe's designs that changed winters forever for the millions
of enthusiastic users of this sports and utility vehicle.
His vision, his courage, and his perseverance are an example to
us all. Through his work, he has helped gain recognition for
the importance of design and the related notions of economic and
social cost-effectiveness for industry and for all Canadians.
In conclusion—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Québec has the floor.
* * *
QUEBEC SCHOOL SYSTEM
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the results of
the third international mathematics and sciences survey,
conducted by the International Association for Educational
Assessment, show Quebec's primary and secondary school students
right up there with the best internationally in mathematics and
sciences.
On average, students from Quebec ranked considerably higher in
mathematics than students from the rest of Canada. What is
more, Quebec stood fifth among the 45 countries taking part.
This is proof indeed that the curriculums now being used in
Quebec are adapted to the modern academic world.
With results like these, we can only imagine what will be within
our reach when we have all the tools of a sovereign nation and
no longer have to beg the federal government to stop interfering
in provincial jurisdictions.
Let's hear it for the students and
their teachers, and above all for Quebec's public school system.
* * *
[English]
AIRCRAFT
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Labrador
search and rescue helicopters came into service between 1963 and
1967, and the Sea Kings between 1963 and 1969. Old aircraft to
be sure, but what the opposition does not seem to understand is
that this is not that unusual a situation in aviation.
For example, the venerable DC-3 which was built over 60 years
ago is still in passenger service around the world. As a member
of the Canadian Warplane Heritage, my colleagues and I routinely
flew in aircraft over twice the age of our helicopter fleet.
It is a sad fact of life that aircraft, whether new or old,
sometimes fall out of the sky. The age of the aircraft is seldom
a major contributing factor. It all comes down to maintenance.
Properly maintained aircraft can last virtually indefinitely.
These aircraft are becoming too expensive to maintain and must
be replaced. In the meantime, I am confident that they remain
safe because they are properly maintained by the best air
maintenance people on the planet, the members of the Canadian
Armed Forces.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a week
after it was reported that Canada tops the UN list for the
highest quality of life in the world the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development released a report that proves
how wide a gap there is between the average Canadian and our
aboriginal population.
1115
The minister for this portfolio said this study was needed to
measure the progress. What progress? The quality of life of
Canadians living on reserves is a national shame.
This government has legislated a system that condemns these
people to a life of poverty, sickness and squalor. The
government says it is trying to make things fair, equal and
anti-racist. Instead the Prime Minister has thrown hundreds of
millions of dollars at aboriginals as compensation while blindly
clinging to the hope that native poverty will simply resolve
itself.
The government believes that money can create the ideal
atmosphere for natives to succeed and become self-sufficient.
Mark my words. This will never happen as long as the money is
paid to band administrators. The process is plagued with
financial mismanagement. Until this is resolved, the quality of
life will never improve.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the employment insurance fund belongs to millions of
Canadians, but because of this Prime Minister, every worker is
paying $350 too much and every small business is paying $500 per
worker too much.
Rather than changing the law to take this overpayment from
workers and employers, will the government commit today to
ensuring that every worker will see a $350 reduction and every
small business a $500 per worker reduction in their EI premiums
for 1999? Not $100, not $200, but the full reduction guaranteed
by law. Yes or no?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since coming to office, the EI
premium has been reduced by this government by $5 billion or
more. Our payroll taxes are the lowest, lower than those in the
United States. We will continue.
What I really want to point out is the incredible fact that the
Reform Party changes its mind on what to do with the EI surplus
more than the Conservatives actually change leaders or have
leadership votes. First the Reform Party wants to apply it to the
deficit. Now the Reform Party wants to give it all back.
Watching the Reform Party is like getting policy whiplash.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact of
the matter is the law requires that the EI fund be kept focused
on providing for the needs of unemployed people.
The Prime Minister has promised us a public debate on employment
insurance. He has broken that promise. We have had no hearings.
There has been no vote in parliament. Yet this government is
acting as if the law has been changed. It has not. Will the
Prime Minister today commit to a full and open debate in this
House to change the law?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly
participating in the prebudget consultation debate. He was with
the committee when we were in parts of western Canada. The member
has been here in Ottawa participating in the debate. Who do we
hear from in that debate? We hear from Canadians who come forward
and talk about Canadian priorities. Canadians talk about the
employment insurance program, about investment in health care and
reduction in personal income taxes.
The debate is ongoing. I encourage the hon. member to continue
to participate.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess
the Prime Minister thinks he is above the law.
If there was an honest public debate on what to do with the
employment insurance overpayment, it would be in parliament. It
would be a formal debate and at the end of it there would be a
vote. Every MP would have to go on record saying who they
thought the money belonged to. The Prime Minister thinks it
belongs to him. Everyone else in the country knows the money is
theirs.
Why will the Prime Minister not allow for a vote on the EI
overpayment, or has he already made up his mind to steal it?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that
that remark is unparliamentary. The member should withdraw the
word steal and I would ask him to do so.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, the word is withdrawn but
the question still stands.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has
recently come to this place, in 1997 I believe.
I do want to inform the hon. member that unless the rules have
been changed, a House committee is an extension of parliament.
Another Reform member is attending the committee. Perhaps I
could encourage the member to attend. Instead of being the hired
heckler that he was in the United States, perhaps he could
contribute to the debate.
* * *
1120
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the House heard that the Canadian forces are expecting
a $1 billion shortfall next year. This is after a Liberal policy
of thousands of cuts on the duty roster, the troops, pay freezes
for years, dilapidated housing and old equipment. Now we hear
there is going to be another 76 military personnel cut from CFB
Comox. We need more troops, not fewer.
The government has a choice. When is the minister going to
choose between mothballing more equipment and cutting troops and
giving Canada—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of National
Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member's research is
faulty. He is basing his comments about a $1 billion deficit on
an article that is completely wrong. There is no deficit. There
is no overspending. There are no plans to reduce the number of
staff or to reduce in fact the equipment that is provided for
them.
* * *
GENERIC DRUGS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, seniors and low income Canadians rely on low cost
generic pharmaceuticals for their health. Yet the Minister of
Industry has created a regulatory environment for generic drug
manufacturers that is so cumbersome and unfair that the supreme
court called it a draconian regime.
When will the minister take his regulatory thumb off these drug
manufacturers and scratch these unfair rules?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is not here today, but I
will pass on the concern. I do know that the minister is
reviewing that and we will do what is right for Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the beginning of the week, everybody has noticed there is a
battle going on between the Prime Minister and Jean Charest.
Discontent is setting in among the federal Liberals.
The Minister of Immigration has even gone so far as to admit her
leader's blunders and said that he would not take the blame for
Jean Charest's defeat.
When she goes door to door, how will the minister justify the
blunders of her leader, the Prime Minister of Canada?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
conditions for Mr. Charest to win the next provincial election
is that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois continue to make
mistakes. He just has to continue telling Quebeckers the truth:
that the only important thing for the Bloc Quebecois is another
referendum and that their only goal is sovereignty.
Mr. Charest is the only one who promotes change and who promotes
what is good for Quebeckers, namely growth and employment.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
talked about a referendum which we would win. The President of
the Treasury Board should read the article instead of reading
only the headline or the cartoons.
Does the minister not realize that—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Would the Minister of Human Resources
Development kindly shut up, Mr. Speaker?
Does the minister not realize that, by making these remarks, she
is telling us that Jean Charest, the promised saviour, Ottawa's
messenger, has absolutely nothing to offer, that the message is
meaningless and that dissension is setting in among federalists?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear
that the troublemakers are the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti
Quebecois, who have created dissension among Quebeckers with all
their talk about a referendum. Quebeckers have already given a
clear answer to the question: the majority of them want to stay
within Canada.
When the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois campaign on a
referendum, they cause dissension among Quebeckers.
* * *
THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister keeps boasting about meeting Quebec's traditional
demands in the area of immigration, manpower training, education
and more.
How does he explain the fact that, when the Liberals were in
power in Quebec, he described these demands as mere whims but
that, now that Quebec has a sovereignist government, he claims
to have met them?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois do not have the interests of
Quebeckers at heart. Their only goal is to promote sovereignty.
1125
Their goal is to push through sovereignty and to hold a third
referendum, as the Bloc Quebecois leader reminded us. It is to
put a third referendum ahead of Quebeckers' interests.
Mr. Charest is the one promoting Quebeckers' real interests,
namely economic growth and employment.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebeckers in Sherbrooke know who is defending Quebec's
interests in Ottawa.
What we know for sure it that nothing was ever settled in Quebec
City under a federalist government. With all the bickering we
witnessed this week, is it not time the minister realized
federalists have absolutely nothing to offer Quebec but empty
statements they cannot even agree on?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every reform
in recent years, every change in the past five years, every
improvement in Quebec occurred while federalists were in power
in Ottawa. It is because of the Liberal government's work on
their behalf that Quebeckers have seen so much improvement.
* * *
[English]
MEDIA CONCENTRATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 17 years
ago with greater diversity, yesterday's Liberals were concerned
enough about media concentration to set up the Kent commission.
Today with two chains about to control 70% of Canada's
newspapers, Liberals just shrug.
Given the importance of editorial diversity in safeguarding
democracy, will the government commit to legislation protecting
editorial independence in the newsroom from ideological
interference from the boardroom?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal government that established the
rules dealing with media concentration under the Competition Act.
There is a process in place right now that will be followed.
The director of investigations will be looking at this takeover,
if it goes ahead, to ensure that all aspects of the deal reflect
the statute, that is whether there is undue concentration,
whether there is freedom of expression, whether there is too much
market penetration. All of these matters will be looked at and
are provided for under the existing statute.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
alarming that the minister does not show any recognition that the
competition policy provides no such terms of reference and no
such protection for diversity and democracy.
The fact is Canadians do not want government to control the
newsroom. They do not want the boardroom to control the
newsroom. They want reporters to cover the news free of pressure
and free of bullying.
Will this government back legislation to protect editorial
independence?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is putting forward a highly
subjective view of democracy in trying to say that parliament
should legislate editorial content.
The NDP is the party that supposedly speaks for individual
Canadians and is reflective of the popular will. Yet it is
asking us to impose, or to put a set of rules in place to impose
editorial content on newspapers.
The Competition Act is a valid act. It is there. It will be
used in this case as with other cases. I believe we will address
the issues.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada pension plan is being tainted by Liberal political
interference.
Bernard Dussault the former chief watchdog of the plan was fired
because he refused to be muzzled by the finance minister's
information police, the case review committee which screens all
requests for their political sensitivity.
Dussault was asked twice to fudge the numbers to make the
minister look better. Dussault objected. He was fired. Why the
cover-up? Will the government tell the truth to Canadians about
why it fired the man who knew too much?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked the
question in the House before and he has got the answer.
The firing of Dussault is between Mr. Palmer and Mr. Dussault.
It has nothing to do with the government. It has nothing to do
with the Minister of Finance.
Perhaps this will be his supplementary question. There are
normal procedures in place to deal with indemnification for civil
servants engaged in legal disputes. A civil servant can make an
application. If an application is made, it will be approved or
disapproved according to Treasury Board rules.
1130
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary mentioned John Palmer. Last night it was
demonstrated that John Palmer, the former boss of Bernard
Dussault, is being muzzled by the government.
Last night when I asked Mr. Palmer about the soundness of the
Canada pension plan, about the case review committee and about
Bernard Dussault's firing, Mr. Palmer asked the chairman of
finance committee whether he could answer the question and the
answer was no. He was muzzled and I was cut off from asking a
legitimate question.
Why is there a conspiracy to muzzle? Why is the Canadian
government hiding the truth about the Canada pension plan?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whether or not the hon. member
was ruled out of order by a chairman of a committee surely is not
a subject for question period in the House of Commons. One would
think there are real questions to ask around here.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
April 28, 1998, according to access to information, the Tsuu
T'ina reserve was granted $50,000 by the government to provide
crisis counselling to members of the Jacobs family and other
crises that took place on this reserve.
I talked to the Jacobs family last week. According to them they
have not received one minute of counselling, not one minute.
What was the $50,000 used for? Where did it go? What was it
granted for? What is its whole purpose?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister and the department are concerned that the family and
those affected by this tragedy receive the services including
counselling that they require. I can assure the member and the
House that the department and the minister are taking steps to
ensure that is done.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not only did
this family receive absolutely no benefits from the grief
counselling money that was forwarded to the reserve, but an
access to information request has shown that $22,000 was given to
the same reserve for media expenses following this tragedy.
Can the minister tell us what the $22,000 was used for and how
it helped the family of Connie and Ty Jacobs?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I said, the department and the minister are committed to
seeing that those affected by this tragedy receive the services
they require. They will do everything in their power to see that
is done.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE BREAKING IN PORTS
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the day before yesterday, the fisheries minister tried to blame
a committee of experts for his decision to have users of Quebec
ports pay for 80% of ice breaking costs. Yet, the minister's
words have nothing to do with the facts.
How can the minister claim that his decision is based on a
committee that never recommended to have those who only use 50%
of the service pay for 80% of ice breaking costs?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue has been
in the forefront for several years. In fact there has been
intense consultation over the last four years.
If the member would only look at the supplementary estimates he
would see that there were extra moneys for ice breaking as a
result of those extensive consultations. The fact is that
Canadian taxpayers are paying 82% of the cost of that ice
breaking.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister keeps telling us that he only charges the industry
17% of ice breaking costs.
Is he aware that, according to the industry, this is not 17%,
but actually 28%? The parliamentary secretary is not aware of
the issue, but is the minister aware of it?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very well
aware of the file because ice breaking fees are not only a
problem for the province of Quebec. They are a problem for the
eastern provinces in Atlantic Canada as well.
We have consulted extensively with the industry. The facts are
that it is greater than 82% of the costs being covered by
Canadian taxpayers.
Maybe the member should have a little lesson in geography
because the facts are that when a commercial vessel goes to
Quebec in the St. Lawrence it has to go around Newfoundland and
that ice has to be broken as well.
* * *
1135
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the past week the government has
pointed to minor administrative changes as an example of its
willingness to work with the provinces. However, when the
provinces ask for substantive changes like social union, Senate
reform or control over the west coast fishery they are ignored.
If the Prime Minister is not prepared to make changes to lead
the country into the 21st century, will he step aside?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the changes that have been done in the past few years are not
minor changes.
When we gave Quebec back the right of veto it had lost because
of René Levesque a number of years ago, clearly it was a major
change. By the way, in the same act British Columbia also got a
regional veto.
If the member from the Reform Party believes that such a
concession to British Columbia is minor, she should consult her
voters once again.
* * *
PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Labour will know that 520 support staff at Pearson
International Airport have been on strike since October 2 and
negotiations are at a standstill. While management and the union
negotiate or battle in the media passengers are inconvenienced
and workers are suffering.
The workers have had a seven wage freeze to contend with and now
they are trying to subsist on strike pay. How many more
sandwiches will be flattened on the tarmac before the minister
recalls the parties back to the negotiating table?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question.
I have appointed a mediator to this dispute. Both parties are
not meeting at this time. I have asked a senior official in my
department to contact both parties and attempt to get them to sit
down and come up with a collective agreement, which is important
for both sides.
* * *
[Translation]
SHEEP PRODUCTION IN QUEBEC
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the day before
yesterday, in response to one of our questions, the agriculture
minister hid behind legality to justify the unfair treatment
given to Quebec sheep producers who are in dire straits.
How can the minister hide behind the legal aspect of the issue,
while in western Canada the federal government used ad hoc
programs to retroactively compensate grain producers?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have told the hon. member and the
industry over and over again that the money in farm safety nets
to assist in the farm income situation, after we have played our
full and complete role and even recently increased the
compensation caps for sheep, is in the hands of the provincial
Government of Quebec.
I have written to the minister of agriculture of the province of
Quebec saying that I will sit down with him if he wishes to
discuss some readjustment of those moneys to assist farmers who
feel that they need more assistance in recovering from this
situation. He has written back to me and said that he was not
interested.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
knows that the federal government is to blame. In the past,
several billion dollars were retroactively given to western
grain producers through ad hoc programs.
Why is it that something that was possible for western grain
producers is not possible for Quebec sheep producers?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again. The farm safety net
money to support the income of Canadian farmers is distributed
equitably for producers in the provinces across the country.
In other provinces the producers the hon. member is referring to
could have drawn on NISA. In the province of Quebec the industry
and the government decided to put it on price support. That was
their decision. Unfortunately it was a decision made by their
industry and by their provincial government that will not assist
its producers in this situation.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We cannot hear questions and
answers. The hon. member for Peace River.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we have a
month of this to put up with in the future.
Canada's agriculture producers should be very competitive in
world markets because of our natural advantages. Yet our market
share in world trade in agriculture has slipped from 4% to 3% in
the last 10 years, mainly because of huge subsidies by the
Europeans and the Americans.
1140
How would the parliamentary secretary intend to increase
Canada's share back to where it was without resorting to
subsidies?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
government is presently in consultations with the provinces and
all industry groups trying to put together a united stand to take
into the new round of the WTO.
As the member knows, that round will be coming up in 1999. We
will be working with the provinces and all the industries to make
sure that we have a very strong position to put forward at that
time.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is to close 235 elevators at
170 prairie delivery points.
The producer members who paid for these elevators will not be
given the opportunity to buy them. As soon as the bins are
empty, the bulldozers will move in and these elevators will be
gone. As a bit of collateral damage, a lot of villages will lose
a third of their tax base.
Will the government just once do something proactive for the
benefit of farmers and put a moratorium on the destruction of
these valuable facilities?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it must be Friday. Up
until 30 seconds ago I thought there was no such a thing as a
silly question, but now I think we have resolved that.
The government has been doing things very actively for the
benefit of farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board, for example, has
been consistently working at generating high value and high
prices for farmers.
Despite the fact that world markets have been declining,
Canadians have been enjoying world price increases basically due
to the Canadian Wheat Board.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Fishers in Quebec and on the Lower North Shore are hurting
because of the federal government's mismanagement of fish
stocks. Will the minister travel to the Lower North Shore to
meet with the fishers and try to work out some real solutions
for the future?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member very
well knows, the minister of fisheries has said consistently that
conservation is a priority in the fisheries.
He has held extensive discussions with the fishing industry. He
has travelled from coast to coast to coast in the country to hear
what fishermen and fisherwomen have to say. He is putting a
conservation plan and a management plan in place which will
ensure that there is a fisheries for the future whether it is for
Quebec fishermen, Prince Edward Island fishermen or any other
Canadian fisherman.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General.
A recent report indicated that smugglers are bringing many
illegal immigrants into Canada as part of organized criminal
activity. This is very costly to the Canadian taxpayers. What
exactly is being proposed to crack down on this problem?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the smuggling of
people into Canada is part of the definition of organized crime
and organized crime is indeed one of the top priorities of our
department.
We have approximately 16,000 of them coming into Canada every
year. We have adopted among the most severe penalties in the
world in this regard. We are active on international forums to
address it from an international perspective, which is the only
valid one.
As we speak the solicitor general is discussing with his—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
* * *
FOREIGN AID
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
apparently CIDA has suspended its foreign aid to Jamaica because
$18 million of foreign aid is unaccounted for. Jamaican
officials refuse to answer questions and turn over the files. In
fact they shredded those files.
Why will the government not take the money previously earmarked
for Jamaica and spend it in British Columbia on the RCMP which is
fighting the drug trade and drug abuse? Why not use the money
instead of wasting it?
1145
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very
disappointed that an hon. member would want to reduce the level
of Canada's foreign aid. I am certainly not part of the group
that would want to advocate that and I am sorry to hear that is
the attitude of the critic.
Second, on the issue of the funds spent in Jamaica, what he is
referring to is a monetary program of some $18 million. That
program was fully expended in Jamaica. The auditors referred to
some difficulties in finding the proper documentation for 3% of
the expenditures.
* * *
2000 PROBLEM
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has said that it is on top of the 2000
computer bug problem and that it will be ready for the new
millennium.
Recent Treasury Board surveys show that many federal departments
will not be ready and that national defence is one of the very
least prepared departments.
If the government is ready, why is the RCMP cancelling all leave
between December 27, 1999 and March 15, 2000? Why is the
government preparing to deploy tens of thousands of military
troops in the new millennium?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yes, the Canadian government has been spending a lot of money in
an effort to get ready for the Y2K problem.
In the latest report published by Treasury Board, we indicated
the percentage of achievement of work on government-wide critical
systems. This shows that most of the departments, if not all,
will be ready for 2000.
However, we are not taking any chances. We are ready for all
contingencies and we have asked the various departments,
particularly the emergency preparedness group in the Department
of National Defence, to be ready.
* * *
BANK MERGERS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of financial
institutions.
There are now clear indications that the proposed mergers of the
banks are on life support, they are dying. In fact, even the
Liberal caucus now recognizes that the proposed mergers are not
in the public interest.
The real question is how is the government going to make it up
to its disappointed friends on Bay Street. Can the minister tell
us whether there will be a trade-off? Will there be a trade-off
if the government says no to the mega mergers but yes to the
banks selling insurance or getting into the auto leasing business
or both? Is that the trade-off?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to respond to the member because we have set in place a
process we are going to respect. It is a process whereby House
of Commons and Senate committees will report on this.
We will not be able to look at the issue of bank mergers until
we have heard from the office of the superintendent of financial
institutions and from the Competition Bureau. After we have had
that input and if we are then satisfied that we have sufficient
information, we will be in a position to take decisions.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, there are some 60,000 independent insurance brokers in
this country like Regina's Frank Buck. This morning I want to
give the minister an opportunity to speak directly to Frank Buck
and his fellow brokers.
Can he assure them that the government will not allow the banks
to retail insurance out of their branches? Can he speak directly
to that question and answer it now?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe the banks
are trying to short circuit the process we put in place for
coming to decisions on these very important issues for the future
of Canada and its financial institutions and for the insurance
industry as well.
The member may want to short circuit this process. We will not.
We want to hear from Canadians and we want to hear from the
committees.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the era
of post-panamax shipping is upon us. The port of Halifax is
ideally suited for growth at the expense of our international
competitors.
Yet the government risks losing this opportunity because the
current port authority structure does not represent local
interests. The Metropolitan Halifax Chamber of Commerce, the
Halifax Shipping Association and the International Longshoremen's
Association have proposed a new management structure to the
Minister of Transport. Will the minister commit to these needed
changes?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend has been for the
last couple of years. We just passed Bill C-9 which establishes
Canada port authorities across the country with one federal
nominee, one provincial nominee and one municipal nominee along
with four nominees selected in consultation with users.
The hon. member is trying to change a law passed earlier this
year by the House.
1150
The Halifax port authority will be treated like all other port
authorities. Consultation has been going on. We have formed an
advisory group representative of some of the interests he raised.
It is representative through a selection of nominees that
reflects user concerns.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, more
than 20,000 future jobs in the region may be at stake if the full
potential of the port of Halifax is not maximized. We need
changes that reflect the economic needs of Atlantic Canada, not
the control needs of the minister.
The joint proposal to alter the port authority is consistent
with the new Canada Marine Act. In 1997 the predecessor of the
Minister of Transport promised to provide local interests with a
strong voice in the port's direction. This voice would make
Halifax a panamax player instead of a port that unloads the top
layer of containers on ships headed for New York.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has his facts wrong. All
the local interest groups in Halifax have been consulted as to
the selection of members for this board. They will reflect a
broad range of interests dealing with users.
The hon. member should go back to Halifax, talk with those
individuals and generate a good selection of candidates so we
will be able to have a first class board that will lead Halifax
into the post-panamax world.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
will know that international concern over the situation in Kosovo
continues notwithstanding the last minute pullout of Serbian
troops and heavily armed police. Can the parliamentary secretary
provide the House of Commons with an update on the situation in
Kosovo especially as it relates to Canadian participation in the
2000-strong verification force?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
this important question. It gives us an opportunity to report to
the House. We are in the implementation stages of the agreement
that has been struck. Canada has committed to send verifiers.
The House might be interested to know that many Canadians have
expressed an interest in going to Kosovo and serving as
verifiers. We are compiling a list at the present time and we
will be submitting it very shortly.
I am happy to report to the House that humanitarian aid is
getting through to the victims. Canada has now raised its
commitment to—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
* * *
MAGAZINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
heritage minister's ban on Canadian advertising in foreign
magazines is one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation
ever. The government's own studies indicate that lifting the ban
would increase advertising revenue by 60%, creating more work for
Canadians involved in the magazine sector. Why is she putting
shackles on the growth of the Canadian magazine industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the shackles I am putting on are
support for Canadian voices. The legislation is supported by
every single party in this House except the Reform Party. Before
the hon. member continues his campaign of disinformation, I
underscore that this legislation will help the Western
Catholic Reporter, Legion magazine, Today's
Parent, Owl, Mennonite News, Chatelaine,
Anglican Journal, Essential, Living with Christ:
Complete Edition, Canadian League, L'essential,
Journeaux du Barreau, The Mennonite Brethren Herald,
Prairie Messenger—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the day
before yesterday, in answer to a question about the position of
the federal government concerning the negotiations to be held in
Buenos Aires next week, the minister was unable to set out the
position of the government in this area.
Can the minister tell us if she intends to pull another Tokyo on
us and make a last minute decision on the plane as she did last
time?
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has been
working with over 450 scientists from across the country to
develop an appropriate plan to make sure Canada will join the
minus six society and make some of the important changes needed
for this country and the world. I hope the member will support
the enforcement of health and environment standards in Canada.
* * *
1155
PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
busiest airport in the country is operating at bare minimum
safety standards because of a lengthy work stoppage there.
First there was a near collision between a 747 and a Dash 8 and
then the accident between an aircraft and a food services truck.
Now for the second time landing lighting systems have broken
down. It is only a matter of time before we have a major
disaster at Pearson airport.
Will the Minister of Labour act now and fix the broken mediation
process, assign a senior mediator to these talks and put the
strike to an end before somebody gets killed?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of concerns
which are not valid.
First of all, Pearson airport is operating safely. There have
been some problems but our officials have been on the spot around
the clock looking at the safety issues during this labour
dispute.
What is of great concern is there appears to have been a
criminal act conducted on the approach lights. That is being
investigated not only by Transport Canada but by the local police
because this could be a criminal matter.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in June the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans denied
quota applications from Canso, Mulgrave and Lismore, three Nova
Scotia communities requesting a share of the additional 7,000
tonne northern shrimp quota.
The minister's trite and insulting answer at that time was the
fish come first. Obviously the minister was telling us that Nova
Scotia comes last.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister how the
minister can justify slamming the door on three communities,
basically threatening their future existence.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am shocked by
what I am hearing from the member opposite because what he is
doing is really speaking in contradiction to what some of his
other members are saying in committee.
In terms of Canso, what Canso wants to do is use foreign vessels
to catch its quota. The minister, on the other hand, wants to
Canadianize the fisheries.
I wish the Tory party would get its act straight and get on the
same wavelength.
* * *
STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade that an investigation in
the U.S. is underway with the potential to affect the steel
industry in Canada.
Could the parliamentary secretary give some reassurance to steel
makers in Canada that Canada is prepared to take action on this
issue?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can give these
assurance.
NAFTA provides protection to those Canadian steel producers
which export to the United States.
At the moment we do not know if the United States steel industry
will petition, but if it does we know from NAFTA that Canada is
excluded from safeguard action as long as it is not a substantial
contributor to the serious injury.
Our steel industry is a good steel industry and we are fair
traders. We will continue to protect it.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1955 the Canadian government conspired with England and sold out
Hong Kong veterans' claim rights.
In June the minister promised to investigate but has sat on his
hands and has remained mute since. Japan enslaved our soldiers
for four years and Canada has shafted them for another 50.
When will the minister publicly apologize for this terrible
wrong and provide the long deserved recompense?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is very
concerned about this matter and he has indicated before in this
House that he is looking into it. He is trying to come to a
resolution of this matter as quickly as possible.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In August, the coast guard brutally boarded the vessels of Gaspé
fishers participating in a peaceful demonstration against the
minister's incompetence. Today, we learned that the minister is
making a disgraceful situation even worse by laying charges
against the very people his irresponsible policies are hurting.
1200
Does the minister recognize that the fishers were reacting to
his inertia and that he is now making matters worse by taking
steps to have them—
The Deputy Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be
inappropriate for me to speak on a case that is already before
the courts. I certainly can tell the member that if one is
caught fishing with no licence in a closed zone in Quebec, P.E.I.
or anywhere else in Canada, one will be charged. We are trying to
maintain the fisheries for the future and prevent illegal
fishing.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Night Rider program in Thompson provides emergency shelter to
people in need. Now it has become the victim of the government's
cost cutting. Cuts to transfer payments have left the province,
city and surrounding communities searching for enough money to
make up for the government's abandonment. Night Rider serves
local people as well as some nearby First Nations who rely on it
because the government does not provide adequate housing on
reserves.
There has already been snow in Thompson and winter temperatures
drop below minus 40. If Night Rider goes under, people will die.
Will the government ensure funding for the Night Rider program
or will it let Canadians freeze to death on the streets?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is quite a concern regarding homelessness
across the country. It affects not only the larger communities
but it also affects smaller towns.
There is a long term solution and a short term solution. The
long term solution involves not only the federal government, the
provincial government but also the municipal government. It
deals with matters of social assistance. It deals with the
issues of cutbacks as a result of government belt tightening. It
also deals with the deinstitutionalization of many people who
were in hospitals but are now on the streets.
This is a complex problem and we should all work together to
solve it.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during
question period the Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated her
willingness to table a document. We would be very interested in
this. I think you would find unanimous consent to have this
document tabled so we could all see it.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I would be thrilled to table the
document of literally over 1,000 magazines whose voices will be
protected as a result of this legislation that is strongly
supported by almost every party in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: If the minister wishes to table a
document she may do so. We will consider the document tabled.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages
the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October
8, 1998, your committee has considered Bill C-51, an act to amend
the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The committee has
agreed to report it with amendments.
* * *
1205
AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-452, an act to amend an Act for the
Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.
He said: On behalf of tens of thousands of Canadians who have
written supporting my efforts, I have the pleasure of once again
introducing my private member's bill to strengthen property
rights in federal law.
Unfortunately, property rights were intentionally left out of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms leaving Canadians
highly vulnerable to the arbitrary taking of property by
government. My bill would fix this by making it more difficult
for the government to override the property rights of its
citizens by requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the House.
Nor does the Canadian bill of rights provide any protection of
our right to be paid any compensation, let alone fair
compensation for property taken by the government.
My bill strengthens the property rights provisions of the
Canadian bill of rights by providing protection of our right to
have compensation fixed impartially, protection of our right to
receive fair and timely compensation, and guarantees every
Canadian their right to apply to the courts when the government
has violated their property rights.
Finally, approval of my amendments to the bill of rights would
allow Canadians to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1998
knowing that we have finally provided the protection of property
rights in federal law that the United Nations declaration called
for so many decades ago.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
BILL C-68
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by 25 people
living mainly in my riding. In this petition, the petitioners
call on the Parliament of Canada to repeal Bill C-68, the
firearms bill.
FOOD LABELLING
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to table in the House today.
The
first one is a petition signed by more than 300 people asking
for mandatory labeling and comprehensive inspection of
genetically modified foods.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am tabling a second, rather large, petition calling
on the Canadian government and the United Nations to take action
to oppose human rights violations against ethnic Chinese living
in Indonesia. This petition is signed by several thousand
citizens.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
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 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; and of the motion that the question be
now put.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
you had to interrupt me—and I am sure you were not happy about
it—before Oral Question Period when I was on a roll.
1210
I will start the second part of my speech with another quote
from Mr. Bourassa, the former Liberal Premier of Quebec who said
on Wednesday, March 4, 1992, in reaction to the Beaudoin-Dobbie
Commission's report:
What we find in the Beaudoin-Dobbie report is some kind of
domination reflex, of dominating federalism. They think they
must be involved in all sectors and that, for all intents and
purposes, they could have the last word. We do not think this
approach respects the Canadian Constitution.
That is what former federalist premier Robert Bourassa said.
Having said that, I should draw a parallel with this bill, which
is a very good example of the dominating federalism to which we
are constantly subjected in this Chamber and to which Quebeckers
want to put an end. We in the Bloc Quebecois say, and many in
Quebec agree, that the only way to get rid of this dominating
federalism is to have a sovereign Quebec.
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 the Canadian Federation for Independent
Business say
how important it is to remember that consumers are not only
individuals or citizens, but also small businesses that do not
have the same financial means as the large corporations and that
find themselves in the position of David versus Goliath, and
this has nothing to do with the Bible as things currently stand.
It is important to remember that small business is a large part
of Quebec's social and economic fabric. True, there are some
large corporations, but there are also small businesses and we
in the Bloc Québécois are trying to represent their interests as
best we can.
This bill is extremely disappointing. It fails to give citizens
the protection they expect. The Internet is not just for
commerce and cannot be isolated from civil society.
We had a debate on telemarketing in the House. The government
wanted to deal firmly with companies engaged in misleading
telemarketing, by requiring them to sat very clearly at the
beginning of the call who they were and what the purpose of the
telemarketing was. I am in favour of this approach.
The Bloc Quebecois sought to introduce an amendment extending
that to the Internet. Now we have a bill on electronic commerce
which says nothing on that score. Yet, more and more people
would like to use this medium—which is only a medium and not
another universe, as the OECD acknowledged—but they will do so
only if they have real protection.
The first step is a full protection, extending not only to
electronic commerce, but also to personal information and
privacy. This is what the bill is all about.
Those who speak after me will come back on that, but it will
probably require international agreements.
To conclude, I will say that that we, in the Bloc Quebecois,
expect the country to which we will belong for a few more years,
Canada, to show leadership, the kind of leadership that will
reassure the public. Based on the promises of this Liberal
government and the previous ones, we were expecting real
legislation, legislation that would protect privacy in the
private sector.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I begin by saying that I was somewhat astounded by the comments
made by members opposite in the Bloc Quebecois. Their
misinformation on this very important matter is disturbing.
Perhaps they do not understand what is being proposed in Bill
C-54, but I think that is probably not the case. I believe they
are deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts.
1215
I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight on
this very important matter. Let us do so by reviewing the facts.
The province of Quebec was the first jurisdiction to adopt
comprehensive privacy legislation for information held in and by
the private sector.
In 1994 the province passed an act representing and respecting
the protection of personal information in the private sector.
This act grants individuals the right of access to personal
information held by private sector businesses operating in Quebec
and regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal
information. The legislation is overseen by the Commission on
Access to Information which is responsible for conducting
investigations and settling disputes.
I also want to point out that the Quebec Charter of Human Rights
and Freedoms which came into force in 1975 enshrines the right to
privacy for residents of Quebec. Amendments to the civil code
providing extensive rights of privacy were enacted in 1991.
Because it has legislation which is substantially similar to the
proposed personal information protection and electronic documents
act, Quebec in fact will be exempted from its application. That
is important to note.
Like the Quebec legislation, the federal legislation will have
two basic components: a set of fair information principles and a
mechanism for overseeing the implementation of the law. The
federal bill is based on the Canadian Standards Association code
which, like the Quebec law, is based on the 1980 Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development “Guidelines on the
Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data”.
Let us be clear here because it is important. First of all,
Quebec will not lose any type of protection as a result of our
legislation. Moreover, our legislation will not force Quebec to
do anything or to not do anything. Finally, Bill C-54 will
complement Quebec's legislation. To suggest otherwise is
misleading, false and quite frankly, incorrect. It is important
that Quebecers and all Canadians know this.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I
rise today I cannot help but think about the importance of this
bill's title: An Act to support and promote electronic commerce
by protecting personal information that is collected, etc.
What we have to remember is that this bill was introduced by the
Minister of Industry, who is being asked to fulfill a twofold
mandate, namely to protect the industry and consumers at the
same time. We know that both the industry and consumers have
powerful lobbies.
It should then come as no surprise that, in the dilemma that the
minister is facing, having to choose between protecting the
industry or protecting consumers, the Minister of Industry, who
has been holding this position in the Liberal government since
1993, has so far always favoured the industry to the detriment
of consumers.
There is a long list of projects he has pushed aside under
pressure from lobby groups. I am thinking in particular of the
Ginn Publishing case, in which consumers got the short end of
the stick. I will give more examples later.
At the outset, when the Department of Industry was created, the
Bloc Quebecois asked the government not to give the same
minister two mandates that were so different from each other.
Section 4 of the Act to establish the Department of Industry and
to amend and repeal certain other acts states:
4.(1) The powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to
and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction,
not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of
the Government of Canada, relating to:
(a) industry and technology in Canada;
(b) trade and commerce in Canada;
(c) science in Canada;
(d) consumer affairs;
(e) corporations and corporate securities;
(f) competition and restraint of trade, including mergers and
monopolies;
1220
The Bloc Quebecois was opposed to the same minister defending
the interests of consumers and those of industry since it is
clear, for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear and most of
all a mind to think, that the interests of business, represented
by lobbies and large cash contributions to the campaign coffers
of federal political parties, would prevail over those of
consumers.
The bill proposed by Industry Canada is tailor made for this.
The Bloc Quebecois has already seen the opposition between the
interests of consumers and those of the industry. It has also
seen the Minister of Industry's clear preference for industry
rather than consumers.
I would like to remind the House of an interesting case, direct
broadcasting satellites, better known as DBS. The government did
not take the necessary steps to inform consumers that
technological changes were occurring and it allowed consumers to
acquire analog parabolic antenna systems, while the industry was
converting to digital transmission.
The Minister of Industry intervened on behalf of the Prime
Minister's relatives to make sure that the Canadian policy on
DBS would suit their interests. The Minister of Industry waited
a long time before warning consumers against buying parabolic
antennae connected to the American broadcasting system and he
asked the industry to circulate the warning.
However, the Bloc Quebecois intervened and asked the minister to
launch a broad information campaign on this issue. On December
19, we wrote the Minister of Industry a letter along these
lines:
As you are aware, almost half a million Canadians and Quebeckers
now own satellite dishes that will soon be obsolete, because
digital mode will soon be the only method used for broadcasting
radio signals.
What is more, the Department of Industry is also responsible for
technological development in Canada. You therefore played a
role in developing the unregulated grey market of satellite
dishes.
You were aware that there would soon be a major technological
change in satellite signal transmission methods but you did not
inform consumers of these changes on the horizon.
I feel you were remiss in your responsibilities towards
consumers who bought satellite dishes during the past year. Had
you truly been interested in protecting their interests, you
would have launched a full-scale information campaign to inform
them about the technological changes just around the corner.
I therefore call on you, Mr. Minister, to take the necessary
action to have your department immediately inform consumers and
retailers, among others, by placing announcements in newspapers
pointing out that satellite dishes are becoming obsolete as a
means of capturing analog signals, so that sales of this kind of
equipment cease; to launch an information campaign regarding DTH
broadcasting so that consumers, whose interests it is your
responsibility to defend, know exactly where they stand: the
incompatibility of technologies, subscription required for basic
service, the risks of purchase, given that the CRTC does not use
the viability of businesses as a criterion for issuing licences
to businesses, DTH—
On February 22, Quebec's Minister of Culture and Communications
wrote the federal Minister of Industry on the same subject.
She said: “There are two ways around this problem: require
applicants to offer consumers mutually compatible technologies,
or have them rent the antenna, the decoder and the remote
control from a DTH satellite service or from one of its
accredited retailers until the technology is ready for market.”
1225
On February 26, the minister answered my letter of December 19.
He said that he understood my disappointment and the
disappointment of the consumers.
I agree with you that it is unacceptable for some retailers to
still be selling parabolic antennas to receive signals in analog
mode without warning their clients that, soon, these signals
will no longer be sent out.
In short, the minister sympathizes with the public, but he is
doing nothing to protect them. The hon. member who spoke before
me said that there was no risk for people in Quebec.
I would like to quote here, in full, a comment on this bill made
by the Commission québécoise de l'accès à l'information.
It is the commission's contention that, if implemented, this
proposal would represent a setback on the privacy issue in
Quebec.
This contention is based on a comprehensive review of the CSA
code. There is good reason to be pleased with the Canadian
industry adopting such a code.
This is a sensible breakthrough which results from an
interesting analysis of the OECD guidelines relating to personal
information protection. However, the CSA code does not begin to
respond to the objectives of personal information protection
systems established by both Quebec laws, that is, ensuring
citizens an objective and equitable settlement of problems and
disputes that can arise in the growing area of the respect of
this dimension of private life.
Thus, the Commission suggested
to the minister of Culture and Communications that she remind
her counterparts in other governments that a legal system had
been put in place by Quebec. The Quebec system is, in the eyes
of the Commission, the only answer that respects citizen's
rights, considering the challenges of the information highway.
The draft bill the Minister of Industry and the federal
government are proposing for personal information protection
really is another reason for Quebeckers to achieve sovereignty.
Every day, we discover something about this government. When the
session is over, the record will be full and Quebeckers will
know what choice to make.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government must be really ashamed of its bill on
personal information protection in the commercial sector to have
decided late yesterday afternoon, in spite of parliamentary
tradition, to put it on the order of the day for second reading
today.
The government thus hoped to avoid a real public debate on its
bill. For those who do not know about parliamentary conventions,
I recall that on Mondays and Fridays half the members are not in
the House so that they can have a little time to meet with their
constituents. That is why parties usually agree on the coming
business so that the members interested in the matters on the
order of the day can be here to discuss them. But yesterday, the
government unilaterally changed the order of the day.
I partly understand it. If I were in the industry minister's
place, I would be ashamed of the tricks he pulled to make us
believe that personal information will be protected in this
country. Before introducing this bill, the government should
have recalled that a parliamentary committee had looked into the
issue of personal information in a technologically changing
world.
I quote from the committee report:
As is the case in the bill under consideration, which only
protects personal information inasmuch as it is collected, used
or disclosed in the context of a commercial transaction.
I resume the quotation:
1230
In its report entitled “Privacy: Where do we draw the line?”,
the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons
with Disabilities also wrote, and I quote:
Privacy is one of the most comprehensive of all human rights—broad,
ambitious and valued around the world.
Traditionally
understood as the “right to be left alone” in this technological
age, privacy has taken on new dimensions. To experts, privacy is
the right to enjoy private space, to conduct private
communications, to be free from surveillance and to respect the
sanctity of one's body.
To the average Canadian, privacy is a question of power—the
ability to control one's personal information and to remain
anonymous by choice.
It goes on:
As a human right, privacy belongs to everyone. The Members of
this Committee have listened to as many voices across this
country as possible. Canadians have never approved of peeping
Toms or unauthorized wire-tapping, and our criminal laws reflect
this. We know now that this same disapproval extends, for
example, to hidden video cameras in the workplace, genetic
testing for insurance purposes—
Under the subtitle “Privacy as a Commodity”, the committee
writes on page 10:
—the use of technology not only affects individuals; it also has
an impact on the commercial activity of the community as a
whole. Many townhall participants feared that privacy has become
a commodity that people are prepared to trade off for either a
better level of service or product or the minimization of
penalties.
Paul-André Comeau, the Privacy Commissioner of Quebec,
warned against a debate about privacy that focused solely on the
commercial value of information. This was, he said, “the
slippery slope we are lured onto by the new technologies in
their attempt at putting a dollar figure to each piece of
information.”
It is onto this very slope that the Minister of Industry is luring us
with his bill aimed at protecting personal information that is
collected, used or disclosed in the course of commercial
activities.
The committee then quotes Darrell Evans, on page 21 of its
report. I will do the same, as a bit of philosophy will not hurt
this government, which has focused exclusively on trade and its
own visibility:
I think the vanishing of privacy would be a victory of
materialism over the human spirit. I find it very hard to
picture what kind of room there would be for creativity on the
part of human beings in such a world. I feel the virtual bars
closing in faster and faster in a world like that.
We are constantly told it is a more secure world, of course, a
more efficient world, a world that catches fraud much better,
but to me, that is the victory of bureaucracy over human
creativity. An old phrase comes to mind here, that we know the
price of everything and the value of nothing—
What is our goal
in all this? What do we seek for individuals in this? We want
to put individuals in a place of causation rather than being a
complete effect of technologies and of a gradual erosion of their privacy.
If we are to maintain human freedom, I think that's what we have
to do.
But, when Human Resources Development and Canada Customs match
their records to check the forms completed by all travellers
entering Canada to make sure no EI claimant has left the country
while receiving benefits, the federal government itself violates
human rights and privacy by wrongly placing under suspicion all
Canadians and Quebeckers who have left the country until they
have proven their innocence.
1235
The Bloc Quebecois will follow closely the proceedings currently
before the Federal Court in the matter of the Canadian
government vs the privacy commissioner.
The House committee also suggested some fundamental principles
that should guide the government in its bill on personal
information protection:
Everyone is entitled to expect and enjoy: physical privacy;
privacy of personal information; freedom from surveillance;
privacy of personal communications; privacy of personal space.
Everyone is guaranteed that: these privacy rights will be
respected by others adopting whatever protective measures are
most appropriate to do so; violations of these privacy rights,
unless justifiable according to the exceptions principle—will
be subject to proper redress.
Among the basic duties owed to others to ensure their privacy
rights, the committee included:
The duty to secure meaningful consent; the duty to take all the
steps necessary to adequately respect others' privacy
rights—the duty to be accountable; the duty to be transparent;
the duty to use and provide access to privacy enhancing
technologies.
Finally, the committee recognized the following rights for
citizens:
Everyone is the rightful owner of their personal information, no
matter where it is held, and this right is inalienable. Everyone
is entitled to expect and enjoy anonymity, unless the need to
identify individuals is reasonably justified.
To fully understand the scope of the problem, I would now like
to quote Justice Gérald La Forest, of the supreme court:
We can only be sure of being free from surveillance today if we
retire to our basements, cloak our windows, turn out the lights
and remain absolutely quiet.
The legislation that the Minister for Industry is proposing
today for the protection of personal information that is
collected for the purpose of commercial transactions is not a
legislation aimed at protecting the privacy of Canadians.
The Quebec government passed similar legislation in 1994 to
uphold the right to privacy of Quebecers guaranteed by the
Quebec charter of rights.
All of the Canadian privacy commissioners and consumers
associations have pointed out to the minister how important it
is to have strong national legislation on the protection of
privacy, as this legislation will serve as a model for English
speaking provinces that do not yet have a law for the protection
of privacy in the private sector.
By being so permissive, the Minister for Industry has shown how
sensitive he is to the business lobby which, in any case,
finances the Liberal Party's election fund.
I will conclude by reading the following extract of the 1997-98
annual report of Quebec's access to information commissioner:
The Commission examined the consequences of the adoption in the
Canadian federation as a whole of legal standards and principles
to regulate the protection of personal information on the
information highway. Under the terms of a project that were
conveyed to the ministers responsible for the implementation of
the information highway, protection would be provided within the
framework of the voluntary code developed by the Canadian
Standards Association.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to address 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.
This long awaited bill introduced by the minister does not meet
the objective stated at the outset, namely to protect privacy in
a technological world that challenges this fundamental right.
What we have before us is a bill whose content is to be found in
a schedule, a bill that gives no real powers to the
commissioner. This is a bill whose form and content will both
create confusion.
1240
It is a bill whose wording lends itself to broad interpretation,
a bill that includes a provision allowing the governor in
council to amend the act without any parliamentary debate and
democratic consultation.
It is not likely, therefore, that the bill will meet the
public's expectations, because it is too flawed.
First, most of the provisions governing protection of personal
information are to be found in a schedule of the bill. Such a
structure—which is unusual, to say the least—could result in a
number of problems, since the schedule will have to be read in
conjunction with the rest of the bill.
This will only make it harder for businesses to figure out their
obligations and consumers' rights.
Moreover, the schedule is merely a model code for the protection
of personal information drafted by the private sector and by
consumers, as a framework to protect personal information, but
strictly on a voluntary basis.
The minister did not follow
through on the recommendations made by consumers and the privacy
commissioners, who stated that the code provides a good starting
point, but needs to be reviewed and amended if it is to be
included in the legislation.
This shows how anxious the minister is to see electronic
commerce develop in Canada, and it also shows the priority given
to economic values, rather than to social values and the right
to privacy.
Second, the legislation is muddled.
The conditional is frequently used in Schedule 1, for example,
“should be specified”.
We may well wonder whether the use of the conditional in Bill
C-54 means that the legislation is simply making recommendations
without imposing obligations, particularly since the answer is
not obvious. In clause 5(2), the bill provides:
(2) The word “should”, when used in Schedule 1, indicates a
recommendation and does not impose an obligation.
11.(1) An individual may file with the Commissioner a written
complaint against an organization for contravening a provision
of Division 1 or for not following a recommendation set out in
Schedule 1.
Clearly this confusion and these contradictions will make for
happy lawyers and unhappy consumers.
Clause 4.3.2 in Schedule 1, which sets out the CSA code,
provides:
Organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the
individual is advised of the purposes for which the information
will be used.
I would remind you as well that Quebec is a unique model in
North America for its legislation regarding the protection of
personal information. It has had this legislation for four
years. Like the charter of human rights, Quebec's laws consider
the protection of personal information a basic right. Article 5
of the 1975 Quebec charter of rights and freedoms provides that
every person has a right to the respect of his or her private life.
Clearly, Bill C-54 has as its sole objective to promote
electronic trade while the right to protection of privacy in the
private sector is relegated to the background. Its title alone
makes this clear.
Worse yet, this bill will reduce, in some cases, the rights of
Quebeckers acquired under Quebec law.
Let us consider an example. Under section 17 of the Quebec
legislation, an employee in a department store would be entitled
to see his personal file, even if kept outside Quebec.
With Bill C-54, he would not necessarily be able to view his
file, because his request would be subject to legislation that
ignores the right to privacy when the access to information
request is made under labour relations provisions and is not of
a commercial nature.
Moreover, as I said earlier, Bill C-54 is based on a voluntary
model code prepared by the CSA. Let us see what the access to
information commissioners of Quebec and British Columbia think
of that.
1245
On page 15 of his Annual Report for 1997-98, the Quebec access to
information commissioner says “going along with this proposal,
the CSA standard, would be a step backward from the current
situation in Quebec as far as protection of personal information
is concerned”.
The British Columbia commissioner, David H. Flaherty, compared
the BC legislation, the European Union legislation and the CSA
code which is the foundation of Bill C-54.
He came to the conclusion that the purpose of the CSA code is
not to protect the right to privacy; that the concept of
personal information is most poorly defined; that there is no
reference to data banks; and that the definition of consent is
evasive compared to what can be found in other legislation.
Also, the tools provided in Bill C-54 are ineffective, since the
commissioner cannot issue orders. In fact, Canadians will have
to go to the federal court to solve disputes, but only once the
commissioner has issued his opinion.
I could go on and on about this bill, but I am running out of
time. However, I support the request of my hon. colleague, our
industry critic, and urge the government to immediately withdraw
Bill C-54 concerning electronic commerce and personal
information protection in the private sector.
The bill as it now stands will not provide consumers with the
level of confidence they need to ensure the development of
electronic commerce.
There are three facts that surface when one reads this bill: the
bill allows the federal government to subject huge sections of
the economy currently under Quebec jurisdiction to federal
legislation; the bill is so confused that it could be
interpreted any which way; and last, it is extremely weak, since
it does not grant the federal privacy commissioner the power to
issue orders.
When we think about it, we once again wonder why the federal
government did not rely on the four years of positive experience
Quebec has in this area.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
read the title of Bill C-54 once again because it is important to
remember what the government is trying to do with this bill.
This bill is designed to support and promote electronic
commerce. We are in an era of expansion, an era of constant
electronic evolution, and developments in this field are faster
than in any other field.
I will quote the title of the bill:
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
What are the issues related to this bill? The issues are
different, of course, for the various stakeholders. For the
Minister of Industry, the issue is clear: making sure that
Canada participate fully in the global economy, more
specifically, as I said earlier, in the extremely rapid growth
awaiting electronic commerce. The figures, which are just
astronomical, speak for themselves.
It is estimated that the global electronic market could reach
$200 billion by the year 2000, compared to an estimated $2.6
billion U.S. in 1996.
Yet, at the last OECD conference, which was held in Ottawa, the
minister acknowledged that the main barrier to the development
of electronic commerce is consumer confidence. Everything must
be based on the confidence of those on whom this technology will
be used or who will be using this technology, namely, the
consumers.
1250
We must first establish confidence in the digital economy. Here,
in North America, less than one netsurfer out of five is
prepared to buy products on-line. This reflects their crucial
concerns about the safety of transactions, the respect for
privacy and the remedies offered to consumers.
We must reinforce throughout the world confidence in the
electronic market by guaranteeing the security as well as the
protection of consumers and personal information.
This is the challenge for the industry minister. But for
consumers' rights advocacy groups, for consumers themselves and
for the people's right to privacy, what is the challenge?
For these people, the challenge is also quite clear. It is to
provide an international agreement and national legislation that
will effectively protect privacy and consumers' rights. We
cannot accept any technological change, whether it is
economically desirable or not, that leads to systematic and
uncontrollable intrusion into people's privacy. We must thus
ensure that consumers will be protected in their daily private
lives.
There are other people who will be involved in this, for
example, the privacy commissioners in all the provinces.
They have to protect a human right, the right to privacy and
thereby protect democracy.
In testimony before the human rights standing committee on
November 21, 1996, Bruce Phillips gave the following examples. A
direct marketing firm sells the list of about 80 million
American households organized by ethnic origin. Let us suppose
that a marketing firm sells such a list and says: “Out of the 80
million names that I am providing you, there are x million
people from Germany, x million from Romania, x million from
Israel”, and so on.
In organizing the list by ethnic origin, let us say that among
the 35 groups identified, we find Armenians and Jews. The
information provided gives both the number of children and the
age ranges.
It is easy to imagine how glad a terrorist organization would be
if it could get its hands on this kind of information and use it
for its own violent purposes.
Here is another example. In Canada, the Department of Human
Resources Development and Customs Canada are currently matching
their data bases in order to track cheaters—people who are
supposed to be available for work and who travel to Florida
during the winter because they cannot find a job. The human
resources development minister matches his data with those of
Customs Canada to spot people who may be cheating the EI.
Despite the ruling of the privacy commissioner condemning this
procedure, this information is being used. Under the system
implemented by the government, all travellers are presumed
guilty unless they can prove otherwise.
This is computer technology at work. This kind of operation
would not be possible without the power of communication and
data processing technology.
Here is another case. In BC, Pharmanet has a register containing
all prescriptions being given out in the province. The purpose
of this system is to avoid the prescription of incompatible
drugs, but the content of this data bank can be made available
to law enforcement organizations. It is far from certain the
privacy of people is being protected.
Still another example. The number of hidden cameras is on the
rise. In 1996, there were 200,000 hidden cameras in the U.K.
alone. We are told daily how wonderful it would be to have
cameras on street corners, near red lights or just about
anywhere.
1255
As invasion of privacy becomes increasingly commonplace, it is
extremely important to find ways to protect privacy.
Basically those are the issues raised by the various
stakeholders who made representations about this bill.
What about the bill? Does it meet the expectations it created?
Does it meet the expectations of consumers and privacy
commissioners, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada? The
answer is far from clear.
The ethics in Bill C-54 are quite different from those in the
Quebec law as revealed by their respective titles.
The Quebec legislation is entitled An Act respecting the
protection of personal information in the private sector,
whereas the title of the federal legislation starts with “An Act
to support and promote electronic commerce” and then goes on to
say “by protecting personal information”.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has only one minute left.
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House for
unanimous consent to complete my remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have leave to complete
his remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the question I was asking is: Does
this bill meet our expectations? As I said, the answer is far
from clear.
First, the legislation has different titles at the federal and
provincial levels. The provincial legislation's main goal is to
protect personal information and privacy whereas the thrust of
the federal bill is to support and promote electronic commerce.
The protection of personal information comes second.
Whereas the Quebec legislation is aimed at protecting privacy
and applies to every organization, the federal legislation only
applies to commercial transactions.
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. English newspapers talk about this bill in
terms of a “lightheaded government approach to cyberspace”. One
can reasonably state that the Quebec bill is stricter and more
encompassing both in its form and its definitions, its clear
wording and the power to issue orders it gives the commissioner.
I will immediately move on to my conclusions, because I will not
have enough time for all my remarks in the five minutes at my
disposal.
What impression do we get from a more careful examination of
Bill C-54?
First of all, this is a jumbled and shaky bill, full of ifs and
whens, whose central feature is a schedule that includes without
any changes the voluntary code of the Canadian Standard
Association.
When a bill says that an organization should do this or that, we
cannot be sure it will do it, because it is not necessarily
required to do so.
Second, this legislation will make federal-provincial linkage
extremely complex, at least in Quebec. Our legislation being
stricter and more specific than the federal bill, we will end up
once more with legal wrangling over the interpretation of both
pieces of legislation, and lawyers will make a fortune out of
this.
1300
Third, this bill grants new discretionary powers to the governor
in council. Indeed, he will be able to amend schedule 1, the
core of this legislation, simply by passing regulations. He can
amend it as he sees fit to take any change to the CSA standard
into account. As a result, the industries normally subject to
the legislation will be in a position to amend the legislation
without parliamentary debate and with the minister's consent.
We know the pressures that some companies can exert on the
governing party through their contributions to campaign funds.
Finally, I would like to underline the fact that this bill is
mainly concerned about electronic commerce, relegating people's
fundamental right to privacy to second place.
Democracy is under constant siege, as we have seen in other
countries. Some of the people visiting Canada tell us that, in
their countries, democracy is trampled on a daily basis. Because
Canada is a democratic country, as Quebec will be when it
becomes independent, it is important that we do everything we
can to protect people's privacy and not let any legislation
weaken the mechanisms in place to protect this privacy.
No matter how important new technologies are, they should never
take precedence over the protection of privacy, which is the
very foundation of the democratic society we all value.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Discussions have taken place between the parties and the member
for Calgary West concerning the taking of the division on P-22
scheduled for Monday, November 2 at the conclusion of Private
Members' Business. I believe you would find consent for the
following motion:
That if a recorded division is requested on P-22 Monday,
November 2, 1998, the said recorded division shall be deemed
deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders on Tuesday, November 3, 1998.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
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 or record information or transactions and by
amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act
and the Statute Revisions Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the motion that the question be
now put.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Bloc Quebecois makes
the statement that the minister has dropped consumer interests
over industry interests with this legislation.
I remind the House that the Bloc voted against government
legislation like that of Bill C-20, amendments to the Competition
Act intended to fight deceptive telemarketers. This legislation
was intended to protect Canadians from coast to coast. Our
seniors are a particularly vulnerable population who are targeted
by telemarketers and consumers in general. The Bloc voted against
that legislation.
On Bill C-54 I remind the House and the hon. member from across
the way, and the divide is pretty big on this legislation between
the two sides of the House, that without consumer confidence in
electronic commerce industry that industry cannot grow. Canada
has an interest in seeing that it is one of the players in the
electronic commerce industry nationally, across North America and
internationally.
1305
The government understands that the key to successful electronic
commerce is to establish trust with consumers. That is one of the
main objectives of this piece of legislation. It will do it.
This legislation will create the condition so that there will be
consumer confidence in this budding electronic commerce industry
in Canada and will then allow us to become a major player
internationally. We have to put the person back into personal
information, and this legislation does that.
Let me inform the hon. member from that wide divide across the
other side of the House that there are quite a number of
organizations that promote consumer interest.
Those consumer organizations, to name a few, are the Public
Interest Advocacy Centre, La Fédération nationale des
associations des consommateurs de Québec, the British Columbia
Civil Liberties Association and Option consommateurs from Quebec,
my native province.
When it comes to the use, collection and disclosure of personal
information this bill represents concrete action, something this
government is known for doing. We take concrete action. We deal
with issues one at a time but we deal with them. We do not let
them live on, destroy confidence of investors, of Canadians, of
Quebecers like the PQ government does in Quebec with the
referendum issue. But I digress. Let me come back to the main
point.
I am a Quebecer. Quebecers already have good legislation in
Quebec on this issue. This legislation is not impeding on that
legislation. It complements that legislation.
The opposition, particularly the Bloc, does not want to say that
because, as the PQ, it wants to muddy the waters in order to push
its agenda forward, whether or not that agenda is in the best
interests of the people of Quebec and the people of Canada. We
see it again here. It is muddying the waters, distorting
information. If I were a journalist and those members were
journalists we would call it yellow journalism. But they are not
journalists.
These amendments will create consumer confidence in Canada in
our budding electronic commerce industry. This legislation
complements the legislation which exists already in the province
of Quebec, my home province, my place of birth.
This legislation will also complement the actions which are
already being taken by community organizations and public
interest groups. This legislation will allow them to do their
job better. This is concrete action to ensure Canada has the
real opportunity of becoming a leader in the electronic commerce
industry today and tomorrow.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak after the Liberal member. I would have given
her even more time to speak, as it is such a source of pleasure
on this side of the House every time she speaks.
I am also pleased, and it is an honour as usual, to speak while
you are in the Chair. Unfortunately, I do not get to do so
often.
This is the second time I have risen in this House to debate
this matter, which, I would say, is fundamental to a democracy
such as ours.
1310
The protection of personal information is a fundamental issue,
which warrants our constant attention. This attention must be
increasingly sharp, as our society is becoming more and more
electronic.
A few years ago, my colleague from Lotbinière talked about the
upcoming invention of fax machines. We had phones, now we have
fax machines, cell phones, which are easy to tap into, and the
Internet. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Therefore this House should take into account what the future
has in store, even if we cannot know what that might be.
This is why the bill that will eventually be passed must protect
personal information as much as possible.
We have a curious government opposite, with its Prime Minister,
who makes jokes about the respective merits of baseball bats and
pepper spray. The listeners of the radio station 93 FM in the
Quebec City region awarded him the “bolo” prize. I mention
this, because with the bill before us, the government should get
a second “bolo” award.
The bill totally ignores what is happening in Quebec. Contrary
to what my Liberal colleague was saying before me, the proposed
bill does not complement the legislation in Quebec. It is a
step backwards from it. The legislation in Quebec, known as the
act respecting the protection of personal information, has been
widely praised.
As far as protecting personal information is concerned, Quebec
sets an example. Quebec is the only government in North America
to have such an act. Unfortunately, the federal bill does not
seem to have be sufficiently inspired by the Quebec law.
Instead of talking nonsense, like members opposite, I would like
to quote three independent, impartial and non political
authorities, who are very clear on this issue.
First, there is the MacKay report tabled not so long ago. The
MacKay report, and in particular the Owens report on the
protection of personal information carried out for the MacKay
committee, that said that a literal interpretation of the Quebec
legislation shows that it applies to banks as well as other
financial institutions.
Mr. Owens also indicated and I quote:
The Quebec legislation includes a whole list of duties that are
stricter than what is stipulated in the codes.
In particular, the standard concerning consumer consent is more
severe than the standard found in voluntary codes. A file must
be opened to record the information and only the necessary
information can be collected; finally, the legislation specifies
a process to be followed to transfer to a third party lists
containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of
individuals.
However, Bill C-54 is based only on the CSA code. So, we would
be backtracking compared to what is being done in Quebec.
Second, I would like to quote from the 1997-98 annual report of
the Quebec commission on access to information, an independent,
non partisan organization that has a lot of credibility in
Quebec. The annual report says:
The commission has examined the consequences of introducing
Canada-wide standards and legal principles regarding privacy on
the information highway. Under the terms of a proposal submitted
to the ministers responsible for setting up this highway, this
protection would be based on the voluntary code of practice
developed by the Canadian Standards Association.
It is the commission's contention that, if implemented, this
proposal would represent a setback on the privacy issue in
Quebec.
This contention is based on a comprehensive review of the CSA
code. There is good reason to be pleased with the Canadian
industry adopting such a code.
This marks quite a breakthrough, stemming from an interesting
analysis of the OECD guidelines on privacy.
However, the CSA code does not meet the objectives of the
personal information protection system established under the two
Quebec laws, namely to guarantee to all citizens an impartial
and fair solution to any problem or conflict that may arise with
regard to the protection of this most important aspect of one's
privacy.
1315
The report says also:
Therefore, the Commission suggested to the Quebec Minister of
Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts that
Quebec has such a statutory system in place. According to the
Commission the Quebec system is the only response to the
challenges of the information highway that respects the rights
of citizens.
This needs to be stressed, for the benefit of my hon. colleague
who had her head in the sand. In the commission's view, the
Quebec system is the only response to the challenges of the
information highway that respects the rights of citizens.
This is not the PQ or Bloc members, or even separatist,
speaking, but the Commission de la protection des renseignements
personnels, an independent organization. Once again, we see that
the government does not listen to what anyone says in Quebec,
except the sheep in the Liberal government. Even completely
independent organizations do not have that ear of this
government that could not care less about the situation in
Quebec.
Let me quote for the benefit of my colleagues another person,
one who is not a Quebecker this time. The government is more
likely to be sensitive to these arguments.
The federal privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips, said, and
I quote:
“Building Canada's Information Economy and Society” is revealing
in that it lends priority to economic issues over social issues.
As such, the focus on electronic commerce precedes the goal of
protecting personal information; the paper also indicates that
the federal government wants to engage Canadians in a variety of
network activities first and then develop protection of privacy
later.
When this government's own creatures recognize that Bill C-54
does not protect personal information at all, not at all,
perhaps an alarm bell should sound in the heads of our leaders.
I would like to conclude by saying that the purpose of this bill
is to promote electronic commerce, not to protect privacy. This
is a fundamental flaw in the legislation, and we look forward to
this government taking into account the general consensus
reached in Quebec, and even outside Quebec, on this issue. The
government should reconsider and amend the bill to ensure that
it provides real protection of privacy.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise following the excellent speech
made by my colleague from Charlesbourg, who has two great
qualities. He is a lawyer and a humanist, and I think being a
humanist makes him prouder than being a lawyer.
I would like to dedicate my speech to the charming member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, but first, I want to wish all the best
to the Bouchard government. As we all know, that government is
headed for an election and will be re-elected with an
overwhelming majority, although we are not taking anything for
granted.
That government will be re-elected because it has done a good
job.
Spontaneously, when reflecting on the outgoing government, one
obviously thinks of how it defended Quebec's interests at every
turn, but one also thinks of a whole series of very important
measures.
There is the $5 day care program. I think many people in the
riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine benefited from that program.
There is also the work the CLDs are doing on employment.
1320
I could provide numerous examples of a dynamic government that
has protected Quebec's interests and paved the way to
sovereignty, always keeping in mind the need to implement a
social democratic project.
I am taking it upon myself to prepare the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who, as we know, is a sensitive woman,
to the inevitable fact that, if we all do our part, it will be
re-elected, because it was a good government. I invite my
colleagues to take part in a show of exuberance.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Today, we must deal with the bill before us.
Members can imagine the paradox. This started as an ordinary
Friday, like any other. However, the Bloc Quebecois—under the
great leadership of the hon. member for Mercier, and since there
is far too little leadership from the government across the
way—changed everything and will do its utmost to block this bill,
when it could have passed very easily.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Let us talk about this bill. The hon. member
for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine should pay attention, to the extent
of course that she can.
We are dealing with a bill that goes against one of our human
rights, namely personal information.
Anyone with a bit of common sense would have thought that the
Minister of Justice would be the one to rise in this House,
since we are dealing with human rights, the Canadian Human
Rights Act, the human rights declaration, the Canadian charter of rights
which is, in many respects, mediocre, but which nevertheless has
the merit of providing some protection for one's privacy.
Because this government is warped, because its thinking is
muddled, it is attempting and proposing to deal with the whole
issue of the protection of privacy, an area which is of
paramount importance, as pointed out by the hon. member for
Charlesbourg. Today, with computers, new technologies and
electronic data processing, there is a considerable flow of
information in the private sector.
The very title of the bill is unbelievable. Any law student at
UQAM, Université Laval, University of Ottawa or wherever who
handed in a draft with a title as convoluted as the one I am
about to read would be immediately and roundly criticized by the
professor.
I ask members to brace themselves—again, I urge the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to listen—and take a look at the title.
They will understand the Bloc Quebecois' objections. Had it not
been for the Bloc Quebecois, this government of sheep, this
blind and insensitive government, would once again have tried to
pull a fast one on Quebec.
The title says it all. It goes like this:
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.
Talk about confused. What blatant dishonesty—I think the word is
parliamentary—telling us that the bill we are debating today is
an attempt to respect people's privacy.
I hope that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who has a
law degree, if I am not mistaken, will remember her introductory
course—
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: With high marks on the bar exam.
Mr. Réal Ménard: What do they say in introductory law? They say
that the best legislative texts are the shortest ones.
If the law maker is unable, in one sentence—subject, verb,
object—to express an idea, the public is in trouble.
I want to point out, and we can never do so often enough, that
what we are seeing today is not a desire to protect personal
information originating with private organizations, but a basely
mercenary attempt to make it easier for business to access
private information.
1325
We will not let that happen. Clearly, it is not too late. If
the government, which as members know belatedly included the new
elements, wants to co-operate with the opposition, we can have
the bill withdrawn. We could ask pages immediately to go from
desk to desk to collect the copies of the bill.
No, that will not happen, because the government is stubborn.
As my grandmother used to say it is “hardheaded”. Fortunately,
the Bloc Quebecois is here and we will not allow the government
to move unchallenged toward dictatorial powers. That should be
made clear.
I hasten to say, to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine
in particular, that there is a Quebec model in the area of
co-operation and respect for human rights, a model enacted by the
Parti Quebecois which, as we all know, will be re-elected.
That model has been endorsed by the people of Quebec. A few
years ago, Quebec passed a bill that protects privacy in the
public sector, which goes without saying, and another bill
passed in 1994 by the National Assembly, the only assembly in
North America controlled by francophones and other Quebec
residents. In 1994, the National Assembly extended the
protection of the act to personal information in the private
sector.
I challenge the government members to name one organisation in
Quebec that did not applaud this excellent measure, that not
only did not applaud it, but that also did not wish it applied
throughout North America?
Would it not have been wiser for the government to learn from
this and to propose a bill including principles similar to those
found in the Quebec legislation.
I see that my time is almost up. However, in the spirit of true
co-operation that exists on both sides, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if
you would be so kind as to seek the unanimous consent of the
House to extend my allotted time by 10 minutes or so, to share
with the information I have with the House.
I would appreciate this extension and I would ask the hon.
members to be co-operative in this regard, because I worked
really hard to prepare this speech, and I have things I wish to share
with the House. The responsibility of the opposition is to
ensure that the government always improves itself. As everyone
knows, it is a full time job. It is also an exhausting job.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lee): The hon. member's time has
expired.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there
is surely no doubt that electronic commerce is here. Ensuring
increased confidence in this process is without question a good
idea, but is it not of equal importance that all Canadians have
the same opportunity to this new technology?
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous
consent of the House to extend the time allotted to the member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I think that you do have to ask the
House whether it agrees or not.
I would appreciate it if you could take the time to ask the
House whether it gives its consent, and I am sure that you will
do it with class.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lee): I would be happy to put the
request of the hon. member to the House. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1330
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
was wondering why the government would refuse the hon. member a
bit of extra time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lee): The hon. member realizes
that unanimous consent was not accorded at that time.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, there is surely no doubt
that electronic commerce is here. Ensuring increased confidence
in this process is, without question, a good idea.
However, is it not of equal importance that all Canadians have
the same opportunity to this wonderful new technology? The
government is forever talking about advancement in technology and
computer training, how we will not keep up with the rest of the
world if we do not support these efforts. I agree.
I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party believe that all
Canadians should have that opportunity. Seventy per cent of
Canadians are without Internet access. One of the greatest
barriers is cost to the individual.
My colleague from Churchill River during question period today
raised the concern that in northern communities we do not even
have adequate road access.
In my riding there are communities that are just now getting
single line phone access. There is one community where there are
three phone lines: one in the school, one in the council office
and one in the health centre. There was one pay phone which was
removed when those three phone lines went in.
I have spoken before of the town of Lynn Lake which lost banking
services and had to fight for an ATM. I know this same situation
will apply in rural as well as northern remote communities.
As a former school trustee I recognize that districts, with the
huge cuts that governments have made in education and transfer
payments, are fighting to keep technology within the schools.
Tech costs and the Internet on-line costs are very prohibitive.
When we had a publicly owned telephone service in Manitoba, I at
least felt that we all had relatively equal access. Of course,
that is no longer the case.
Larger centres may benefit, but rural remote areas are paying
the price. Smaller businesses will be hard pressed to survive
because of the prohibitive cost.
I was just in Chile and I can say that the majority of its
citizens cannot afford what should be a basic service, let alone
electronic commercial banking. Is this what we want in Canada?
If government is not willing to ensure that access is available
to the majority of Canadians, it is not acceptable. What it is
doing is putting in place the foundation for greater disparity
between the rich and the poor.
Another aspect, of course, is job loss. There must be
consideration given to alternative training, job opportunity and
support for affected workers.
I do not think there are very many Canadian workers or
businesses who trust the employment insurance and human resources
department to be there on their behalf. Most believe it is only
the finance minister who controls those dollars. Do we need more
unemployed in Canada?
The privacy of health information is, without question, another
concern to many Canadians.
As we hear of computer hacks breaking into all types of
programs, it is not unreasonable to worry about other personal
information being made available to outside interests: banks,
insurance companies, employers or the man or woman down the
street.
This bill fails to protect the privacy of Canadians and it fails
to ensure equal opportunity for all Canadians. I will not be
supporting it.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe
taking the floor after my colleague, the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who spoke eloquently, will not be an easy
task.
I will say it once more, this bill reflects Canada's two
solitudes, as the saying goes, two different visions.
Indeed, Bill C-54's thrust is quite different from the thrust of
Quebec's legislation. The titles of both laws give us an
important clue.
Quebec's legislation is entitled an act respecting the
protection of personal information in the private sector, and
the federal legislation is entitled an act to support and
promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information
that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances.
1335
While Quebec's law provides for the protection of privacy and
applies to all organizations, the federal law applies only to
commercial transactions.
Instead of presenting a real bill that would be aimed at
protecting privacy in the private sector, the Minister of
Industry is promoting electronic commerce, as his good friend at
the OECD, Donald Johnston, is asking him to do, and he is again
challenging the fundamental right to privacy.
Broadly speaking, the Minister of Industry is proposing a weak
bill; the body of the law is to be found in its schedules and it
does not give the commissioner any real power. Moreover, its
form as well as its content will cause confusion; its wording
will be wide open to interpretation; it will have a Henry VIII
type clause, whereby the governor in council can amend the law
without parliamentary debate and without democratic
consultation.
This last point is crucial because its deprives us of a large
part of our sovereignty as parliamentarians. One could talk a
lot about all the changes made to parliamentary structures
during the last few years. Let us mention, for example, the
millennium scholarships that will be managed by a private
foundation, as well as all the other organizations and
foundations that are being created by the government and which,
ultimately, with transfer political power to private institutions.
What is the use, I wonder. of electing people if those who form
the government keep giving away powers to institutions that will
manage certain programs without be accountable to the public.
This really concerns me. Once again, that is what we will see
with this bill.
Clause 27 says that:
The Governor in Council may make regulations to amend Schedule 1
to reflect revisions to the National Standard of Canada entitled
Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information.
This clause fully gives the federal government the right to
amend the bill by order in council without having to come back
to parliament.
It will thus be able to amend the legislation as a result of
pressure from large Canadian corporations, since we know that
neither consumers nor citizens organizations contribute to
campaign funds of Canadian political parties.
The nationwide harmonization of legislation on this issue seems
to be a major criterion for ensuring some consistency in the
protection of personal information, but we were entitled to
expect that the federal government would build on the four years
of experience in Quebec in the protection of personal
information. This is not what happened.
The Bloc Quebecois deplores that the government decided not to
give the privacy commissioner the power to issue orders. This
power, which is sadly missing from his capacity to carry out his
responsibilities in the public sector, should have been formally
provided for in the bill before us today.
The absence of this provision will affect the credibility of
this bill.
Moreover, we fear that, with these weaknesses in the bill, the
minister will never be able to reach his primary objective,
which is to promote consumers' confidence in the development of
electronic commerce.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois has no confidence whatsoever that
the government will provide the privacy commissioner with the
resources he needs to do the additional work that has been given
to him in the bill.
We know, for example, that the Copyright Board, an organization
that makes quasi judiciary decisions, did not get additional
resources after passage of Bill C-32, that doubled its duties.
Today, the industry minister is forcing it to consider cost
recovery.
Earlier I mentioned that the federal government did not seem to
have been inspired by the Quebec government's experience. What
about that Quebec legislation?
In Quebec, this right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted
in 1975. There is nothing ambiguous about section 5:
1340
The right to privacy is also recognized in chapter III of
Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and
Privacy”, from which I will quote the following sections:
35. Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation
and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without
the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.
36. The following acts, in particular, may be considered as
invasions of privacy of a person:
(4) keeping his private life under observation by any means;
(5) using his name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other
that the legitimate information of the public;
(6) using his correspondence, manuscripts or other personal
documents.
37. Every person who establishes a file on another person shall
have a serious and legitimate reason for doing so. He may gather
only information which is relevant to the stated objective of
the file, and may not, without the consent of the person
concerned or authorization by law, communicate such information
to third persons or use it for purposes that are inconsistent
with the purposes for which the file was established. In
addition, he may not, when establishing or using the file,
otherwise invade the privacy or damage the reputation of the
person concerned.
38. Except as otherwise provided by law, any person may, free of
charge, examine and cause the rectification of a file kept on
him by another person with a view to making a decision in his
regard or to informing a third person; he may also cause a copy
of it to be made at a reasonable cost.
The information contained in the file shall be made accessible
in an intelligible transcript.
39. A person keeping a file on a person may not deny him access
to the information contained therein unless he has a serious and
legitimate reason for doing so or unless the information is of a
nature that may seriously prejudice a third person.
Moreover, the Quebec government is the only government in North
America which legislated personal information protection in the
public and private sectors. Experts state that the Quebec
legislation governing the private sector is among the best in
the world.
To have a better idea of the benefits of the Quebec law, here
are a few of the provisions that could have been used as a model
for the federal legislation.
First, the objectives of the law are better defined in the
Quebec law, since privacy has to be protected regardless of any
commercial concern.
Second, the Quebec law clearly covers all businesses, either
profit-making or non-profit-making, while the federal legislation
provides for personal information protection only within the
framework of commercial transactions.
Third, the Quebec commissioner has the power to issue orders
while the federal commissioner has no power whatsoever, as has
been already demonstrated.
Section 45 of the Quebec law provides that a group of persons
may appoint someone to represent them in a class action suit.
There is no such clause in the federal legislation.
For the Minister of Industry, the stakes are clear: to ensure
that Canada fully contributes to the global economy,
particularly to the spectacular growth awaiting electronic
commerce. The figures are astronomical: it is estimated that the
global electronic market could skyrocket to $200 billion by the
year 2000 from $2.6 billion U.S. in 1996.
Yet, the minister recognized at the last OECD conference in
Ottawa that the main stumbling block to the development of
electronic commerce was consumer confidence.
Mr. Speaker, I see that I have a few minutes left and I deplore
having to conclude my speech in what seems to be a very empty
House. Is there not a provision in the Standing Orders of this
House that requires a quorum?
Mr. Speaker, I call for a quorum count.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1350
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: There is a quorum.
An hon. member: Where?
The Deputy Speaker: I just counted them. The hon. member
for Lac-Saint-Jean's time has expired.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think if you were to check your mathematical skills, you would
find that there were only 18 members present, including yourself,
when you said that we had a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: I counted 20 members. Members are
counted if I can see them. I could see 20 members. I counted
them personally. I am satisfied that there were 20 here.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am rather
proficient in French, but not that much in mathematics; however
I am sure that students in primary and secondary schools would
have seen, when you said that we had quorum, that unfortunately
there were not 20 members present, even though some of our
colleagues count for two.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but when I looked in the House
and around the House, there were 20 members, I counted them more
than once. The matter is settled.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we were to look
in Beauchesne's, we would find that only members in their seats
can be counted.
I know that you have too long an experience in this place to
think that rules could dictate otherwise; we know for a fact
that we did not have quorum. We are asking you to reconsider.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member considers the precedents,
he will realize the Chair can see members anywhere in the House,
and even in the gallery.
I counted 20 members present. I can see them in the House here.
This decision is final, and I cannot hear any more points of
order on this. The Chair has ruled and the matter is closed.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Could you
quote from Beauchesne's?
We maintain that you cannot count members that way, and
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: We ask for a quorum check once more. This is a
matter of integrity.
You cannot check the quorum the way you say it can be done. I am
ready to abide by your ruling, but I should be able to find a
basis for your ruling in precedence.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
We have quorum. As I indicated to the House, I made my decision
based on precedents. I have often discussed this issue with
House officials during my 10 years in the House.
1355
I am convinced members can be counted if they are in the House,
even if they are not at their seat. There has been enough
discussion on this point, and the matter is closed.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not think I would have a couple of minutes to
address this topic. I do not have a lot to express, but I have
had constituents come to me and I would like to raise a matter
with the House.
The primary concern that people have had with the bill that is
before the House and the regulations of the Internet and so on is
that this is simply the tip of the iceberg. The concern is that
these regulations are the beginning of an attempt to regulate
commerce over the Internet in such a way as to discourage
entrepreneurs in Canada. That is a key point.
People are really concerned that when we begin to meddle in this
the intention may be good at the beginning, but these regulations
will discourage entrepreneurs in Canada. It will somehow force
those who want to do business over the Internet to establish
themselves outside Canada.
We need the assurances of the government that it is not heading
in this direction.
Furthermore, the other concern they express is that when we
begin to regulate, at some point we may begin to tax. This may
be the tip of the iceberg. There may be taxes coming down the
pike that would tax the various transactions that are going to
take place over the Internet, especially economic transactions.
This is a concern of people and I have to raise that concern. I
am glad I have had a few moments to do that.
I understand the debate is about to collapse, but my
constituents would not want to see trade and commerce over the
Internet hampered by what might be at this point an innocuous
attempt to bring in a tax that would begin to discourage
entrepreneurs from using the Internet to transact all kinds of
transactions.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 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, let me first explain in general,
easy to understand terms what this legislation is all about.
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 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,
allowing the client to authorize payment after verifying that
the goods or services have actually been delivered.
1400
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.
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. Our credit card number is handled by strangers.
When I go to the restaurant and I pay with my credit card, the
waiter takes it away for a while to pass it through a mechanical
device or a magnetic tape reader to charge the check on my
account at my credit card provider. During those few minutes, he
or she could take note of my number to use it improperly.
However, in 99.99% of the people are honest and that kind of
fraudulent use of credit card simply does not happen. But it is
true that there are fraudulent uses of credit cards.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, could you, please call the House
to order?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, this is ridiculous. And it is such a great
speech.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that all hon. members would want
to hear the speech by the hon. member for Laurentides.
I, for one, can hear it very distinctly. I would ask her to
continue without being interrupted.
Mrs. Monique Guay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I personally listen
to my colleagues with great pleasure.
As I was saying, if a dishonest person wanted to get some credit
card numbers to use it for his or her own profit, that would be
perfectly possible unless protective measures are taken. That is
where all the question of electronic commerce facilitation kicks
in.
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 we 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.
This is extremely important because, whether we like it or not,
electronic commerce is bound to expand. It is here to stay.
1405
We have nothing against the fact that the rest of Canada is
passing legislation. It makes sense to do so. However, we want
to make sure that the act in effect in Quebec will remain in
effect, and we do not want yet another imbroglio after all the
ones we have had in the past.
We can make a judgment on how the Canadian federation has worked
in the past. We can condemn duplication. We can say that things
should have been done differently. We can propose ways other
than those used in the past.
If there is one area where the industry does not want two
levels of legislation, and does not want to get dragged into
problems relating to the constitution and to the interpretation
of the act, it is definitely that of electronic commerce which,
in any case, will be significantly affected by the need for
international agreements.
The bill opens the door to several interpretations, and it also
provides a discretionary power to the governor in council. But
the governor in council is really the cabinet. It is the
government which, under clause 27(d) can decide to change the
application of the act, without having to go back to parliament.
That principle is not often found in legislation and, under the
British tradition, is avoided as much as possible so there is no
abuse of power, particularly in areas as contentious as the
protection of personal information, where the government itself
could be involved while having the power to change the law if it
did not want it to apply in the way it was intended when it was
adopted.
We can also wonder if the bill meets the expectations of
consumers and of Canada's and Quebec's privacy commissioners.
The respective titles of both the Quebec and the federal act are
very explicit. While the Quebec act is designed to protect
privacy and governs all organizations, the federal act applies
only to commercial transactions.
We can see right there that the ideology is totally different.
In conclusion, we, of the Bloc Quebecois, find this bill totally
unacceptable because it is confused, because it uses the
conditional, because its main component is a schedule and
because it can be amended by the governor in council without
debate. This bill will make federal-provincial relations
extremely difficult for Quebec and will open the door to more
federal interference.
This bill focuses on electronic commerce, giving second billing
to the fundamental concept of privacy, to the protection of
privacy. This bill, in its present form, gives no power
whatsoever to the commissioner, has no teeth and ignores the
unique experience of Quebec with regard to protecting personal
information in the private sector.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
very important as we enter the 21st century and as we are poised
to participate in a global knowledge based society that we
debating the issue of e-commerce and the issues of the Internet
in the House.
We need to create in Canada domestic policies that provide an
opportunity to Canadians not only to compete globally but to
succeed globally. That means more than simply changing our
approach to e-commerce. That means creating domestic economic
policies that succeed and allow Canadians to succeed. That means
effecting change in the structural barriers we have to
competitiveness and productivity in the Canadian economy,
eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, reducing the tax
burden, reducing the regulatory burdens and allowing Canadians to
grasp the levers of the free market in a global sense.
This new world of globalization that has been demonized as of
late due to some failures in domestic economies represents more
opportunities to Canadians than threats. But we have to ensure
that the policies we create and the legislation we pass in this
House are able to guide Canadians and this very important
industry for Canadians into the 21st century.
This is particularly relevant if we consider the very sparse
population over a large country. We have already demonstrated
because of that situation and the position Canadians are in an
ability to succeed in e-commerce. My part of the country, Nova
Scotia, has one of the fastest growing high tech industries in
the country.
We are succeeding because of the quality of life issues, the
death of distance as a determinate in the cost of
telecommunications and our proximity to markets like New York and
Boston.
1410
Now we, as legislators, have to work with our provincial
legislatures to ensure that we create policies that allow
provinces like Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba to succeed in
this environment.
I agree with the principles of trying to at least come to grips
with regulating the Internet. It is extremely important that we
come to grips with this challenge. It is not a matter of whether
we come to grips with the challenge but it is how we will do it.
the Internet is a lot like an adolescent in some ways.
Governments are seeking to treat the industry as an adolescent,
to try to create rules to control this adolescent.
When we are parenting or creating regulations for adolescents we
have to realize that adolescents are in a period of change and
transition. This industry is in a period of change and
transition. It is important that we do not create rules and
regulations that reflect the realities today but that are not
adaptable to the realities of tomorrow because this industry is
changing extraordinary quickly.
We have to balance this whole privacy issue. Privacy versus
consumer protection is going to become increasingly important.
They need not be mutually exclusive in what we do. There will be
stresses to make it very difficult, particularly if we consider
the global consequences of what we do relative to the Internet.
I can look at something on the Internet from Finland, for
example. Finland may be guided by completely different rules than
Australia. If we look at something from Finland, we may as
Canadians be looking at a medium that is controlled by completely
different legislation from something from Australia. It is very
important that we do not deal with this complex global issue in
isolation.
Canada has an opportunity, I would argue an obligation, to
pursue this on a global basis through the OECD perhaps and to
demonstrate the type of strength that Canada has been able to
demonstrate in the past as a middle power as being very effective
in guiding the changes necessary to ensure we balance privacy
versus protection in this industry.
I was interested in hearing the comments of my colleague in the
Reform Party. It is interesting because the Reform Party is
averse to regulation in this area because it may lead to tax.
It is kind of a difficult position in some ways for some members
of the Reform Party. In a sense as the party of social
enslavement and economic freedom, it brings the whole
contradiction of its policies into line because effectively it
wants to give people all kinds of freedom with their cheque books
but it wants to control what they do in their own homes. There is
an inherent contradiction in those policies, in particular when
we are dealing with issues like the Internet.
I point that out because as the party of economic and social
freedom, our party will be consistently vigilant in defending the
rights of Canadians to succeed in a free market and to also enjoy
freedoms in their own homes and with their families and in their
country, the types of human rights absolutely necessary to the
quality of life in this country.
It is extraordinarily important that we address the fundamental
economic issues as well as the tax issues relative to e-commerce.
I received recently a briefing on some of the e-commerce tax
issues. These are becoming increasingly difficult, in particular
with complex financial instruments like derivatives. How are we
as regulators going to track these increasingly complex financial
instruments? How can we tax these financial instruments and
these exchanges through commerce?
1415
Although I do not have all the answers I probably have more than
some members opposite. We need to work collectively, not only
within the House but with all our provincial counterparts and in
a global sense with other countries, to ensure we are creating
regulations for the Internet that will grow and will not inhibit
our opportunities in this extraordinarily important area in which
Canadians can prosper and succeed in protecting the privacy of
Canadians.
At this juncture we are debating the MacKay task force and
discussing changes in the Canadian financial services sector. No
other sector has been as dominated by technology as the Canadian
financial services sector. We are grappling with the idea of
trying to control the Canadian financial sector. We are trying
to create a balance between competitiveness, consumer protection
and the success of our financial services sector into the 21st
century. We must recognize that this industry is controlled
largely by changes in technology.
Some people have bank branch myopia. They somehow think the
prevalent provider of banking services is still the bank branch.
It may be now but in 10 years we will find it difficult to
explain to a new generation that we used to go to a bank branch
to withdraw money and to talk to a loans officer. More and more
of these functions will increasingly be done in front of a
computer terminal. That is why any legislation debated in the
House needs to consider the incredibly dynamic risks and
opportunities of this new medium of e-commerce through the
Internet.
We will miss the point if we ignore the impact of technology on
sectors like the financial services sector and if we pursue
policies and procedures like the Liberal witch hunt on the
banking industry that was conducted last summer. The Liberals
are wont to sacrifice good public policy at the pyre of political
palatability. That is the Liberal way.
I commend my colleagues opposite. There has been a
proselytization that should be commended. As we debate
e-commerce in a global environment, we should remember that it
was not that many years ago that many members opposite fought
vociferously against the free trade agreement which paved the way
to allow Canadians to compete and succeed in the 21st century. It
was our party that was proud and steadfast in defending the
principles of free trade and in defending the opportunities for
Canadians to compete in the 21st century.
I suggest David Orchard would find a more natural home among the
social and economic Luddites opposite.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Do I not get a chance to reply to that vociferous attack
on Reform about—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid not. We are in a
position where it is 10 minute speeches for everybody and there
are no questions or comments.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today on Bill C-54 concerning electronic
commerce.
First of all, let me read the title of the bill. It is highly
important in this debate, because it sets out the main goals of
Bill-54. The title 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.
Members will have realized that this bill promotes the
development of electronic commerce instead of the protection of
personal information.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: What is the short title?
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate
comments from the members opposite, it shows that they are
listening, but maybe they could listen carefully.
1420
This bill should deal primarily with the right to privacy. It is
ironic however that the Minister of Industry should have chosen
to include the privacy provisions in a schedule of the bill. But
what is a schedule?
A schedule should contains additional or secondary provisions.
And in this case, we can see where the minister has put what
should be considered as the main element of the bill, the key
element. He has put it in the schedule.
Moreover, the provisions contained in this extraordinary
schedule are vague and open to interpretation, excessively so.
Let me simply give a few examples of some of the unclear wording
of this bill.
Clause 4.2.3 of schedule 1, says on page 41:
The identified purposes should be specified—to the
individual from whom the personal information is collected.
Clause 4.2.5 of the same schedule says:
Persons collecting personal information should be able to
explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is
being collected.
I could go on like this at length since I know of at least eight
of those conditional clauses in schedule 1.
One does not need a Ph.D in linguistics to understand that the
use of the conditional has nothing to do with an order to do
something. There is a world of difference between shall and
should. However, fearing nothing except, of course, the business
lobby, the minister even specified in clause 5 of the bill, and
I will quote because it is really worth it—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphon-Guiral: It seems that for some hon.
members, the difference between the present and the conditional
has no meaning. This might explain why things are so bad here.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Is there no whip on the other side?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Obviously, there is much enthusiasm for the
speech of the hon. member for Laval Centre, but I would ask
enthusiastic members to be a little more restrained so that we
can understand what the hon. member for Laval Centre is saying.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I will speak about
the use of the conditional, for the benefit of the many people
who are following this debate. The use of the conditional points
to a recommendation rather than an obligation.
Those who still had a doubt about the good faith of the minister
are now forced to recognize that the provisions of schedule 1,
which provides for the repeal of provisions relating to the
protection of privacy, have no imperative or mandatory
character.
While reading the bill, I stumbled onto clause 11 relating to
complaints. It floored me. I suggest that members listen
carefully to my reading of this clause and hold on to their
seat, because it could a rough ride.
This clause reads as follows:
An individual may file with the Commissioner a written complaint
against an organization for contravening a provision—
This is a major problem. How can recommendations that are not
real obligations be binding? I am at a loss to interpret these
provisions, but I would like the minister to explain this
masterpiece of ambiguity and confusion to me. This does not
augur well for citizens' rights.
There is more. Paragraph 4.3.2 of schedule 1 stipulates:
The words “shall make a reasonable effort” can be interpreted
many ways. It would have been clearer to say that organizations
shall ensure that the individual is advised. Obviously, this
government is not very good at creating obligations to protect
real people.
Schedule 1 says “Organizations are encouraged to indicate the
source of this information”.
1425
If I were to accept as an obligation every invitation extended
to me, my life would be very unhappy indeed. The provisions in
this bill show to what extent this legislation is inadequate and
does absolutely nothing to protect personal information.
However with the development of the Internet and electronic
commerce, more than ever it is of the utmost importance to
protect personal information collected by the private sector.
This bill meets the expectations of neither Quebeckers nor
Canadians.
Protecting personal information is all the more important as the
right to privacy is a fundamental right just like the right to
freedom and justice.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 50 years ago,
states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks
upon his honour and reputation.
In Quebec the right to privacy is protected under section 5 of
the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which says
clearly “Every person has a right to the respect of his or her
privacy.”
The right to privacy is also recognized in chapter III of
Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and
Privacy”. Section 35 provides, and I quote:
Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and
privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the
consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.
Section 35 goes even further:
Every person who establishes a file on another person shall have
a serious and legitimate reason for doing so. He may only gather
information which is relevant to the stated objective of the
file, and may not, without the consent of the person concerned
or authorization by law, communicate such information to a third
person or use it for purposes that are inconsistent with the
purposes for which the file was established. In addition, he may
not, when establishing or using the file, otherwise invade the
privacy or damage the reputation of the person concerned.
It is with pride that I point out that the Government of Quebec
is the only government in North America to have passed
legislation, as early as 1982, governing the protection of
personal information in the public sector. As for the private
sector, it was dealt with in 1994.
With respect to privacy, Quebec clearly has all the tools it
needs to ensure that personal information concerning Quebeckers
is protected.
At the federal level, there is legislation respecting the
protection of personal information in the public sector, but one
concerning the private sector was long overdue. In 1982, then
communications minister Francis Fox announced his intention to
legislate on privacy in the federally regulated private sector.
In 1987, the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor
General endorsed this recommendation in a report.
In his 1996-97 annual report, the privacy commissioner 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.
The government has recognized that technology makes it
impossible to provide adequate privacy if the legislation does
not apply to both the private and the public sector. Bill C-54
does not meet the requirements, because its topic is indeed
electronic commerce, with privacy as a side issue.
It is quite clear that the minister is focusing on the expansion
of electronic commerce at the expense of privacy. But what
matters to the privacy commissioner and to all our fellow
citizens is that the fundamental right to privacy be protected.
In fact, it is about protecting democracy.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but the hon. member's time has
expired.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not intend to rise on debate today, but the hon.
member for Kings—Hants attacked my colleague from
Yorkton—Melville during his brief remarks because he dared to
express some concerns regarding how much regulation the bill
might result in.
One of the biggest problems that business faces in Canada today
is regulation from government. Past Tory and Liberal governments
have both functioned on one guiding principle.
Now they wish to extend this principle to the electronic commerce
world. It seems the principle is: if it moves, regulate it; if
it happens to stop moving, tax it; and if it is on the verge of
going under, subsidize it.
1430
That is one of the big problems not only with this bill but with
a lot of bills that are passed through the Chamber. The
government continues to regulate, license and overregulate
industry until businesses are forced out of business.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member, I am sure, will want
to continue with his remarks when the bill is next taken up.
However I regret to inform him that the time for adjournment has
come. He will have nine minutes remaining in his remarks at the
next opportunity.
[Translation]
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)