36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 75
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 30, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| “RESULTS FOR CANADIANS: A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| ESTIMATES, PART III
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1010
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| China
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1015
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Use of Props
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
|
| Bill C-6—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1020
1105
(Division 1258)
| Motion agreed to
|
1110
| Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1115
1120
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1125
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1130
1135
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1200
| Mr. John Cannis |
1205
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1240
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1245
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1250
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1310
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1315
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1340
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1345
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| BUILDING DUFFERIN TOGETHER
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1400
| MULTIMEDIA INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| FUEL TAXES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| DOWN'S SYNDROME RESEARCH FOUNDATION
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| HIGHWAY 97
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1405
| CELANESE
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| BOMBARDIER
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1410
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| DR. JAMES LANGSTAFF
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1440
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1445
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CELANESE
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1450
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1455
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1500
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1505
1510
1515
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of motion
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1520
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1545
| Mr. John Bryden |
1550
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1610
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1615
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1620
1625
1630
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1635
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
1640
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1645
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1650
1655
1700
1705
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1720
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments.
|
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-205. Second reading
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1725
1730
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
1735
1740
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1745
1750
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1755
1800
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1805
1810
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1815
1820
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Justice
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1825
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 75
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 30, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
“RESULTS FOR CANADIANS: A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA”
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table on behalf of the government, in both
official languages, a document entitled “Results for Canadians:
A Management Framework for the Government of Canada”.
* * *
ESTIMATES, PART III
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my colleagues, I table part III of the estimates
consisting of 84 departmental reports on plans and priorities.
These documents will be distributed to members of the standing
committees to assist in their consideration of the spending
authorities sought in part II of the estimates.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to 15 petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by numerous people from the
province of Ontario.
It points out that Canada has the second highest incidence rate
of breast cancer in the world, second only to the United States,
and that the United States has had mandatory mammography quality
assurance standards since October 1994.
1010
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
IRAQ
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning.
The first is with respect to the issue of economic sanctions on
Iraq. It is signed by residents of Nova Scotia.
The petitioners note that the sanctions have resulted in serious
shortages of food, clean water and medicine; that water and
sanitation systems have collapsed spreading disease; that there
have been over one million fatalities according to United Nations
estimates, mainly children under the age of five; and that
sanctions, even under the oil for food program, continue to cause
the deaths of approximately 250 people each and every day
according to UNICEF.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to end all
Canadian support, including military personnel and equipment now
involved in the blockade of Iraq, and to ensure that the Canadian
government use effective diplomatic pressure to urge the UN to
end the economic sanctions against Iraq.
CHINA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition which is
signed by residents of my own constituency of Burnaby—Douglas,
as well as others in British Columbia, on the issue of religious
freedom in China.
The petitioners note that Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese
Qi-gong practice for physical and mental health, the
practitioners being guided by the principles of truthfulness,
compassion and tolerance, striving to become better people and
responsible citizens.
They note as well that the Chinese government has conducted a
campaign against Falun Gong and its founder. They set out some
very serious concerns about abuses taking place with respect to
Falun Gong.
Finally, they appeal to parliament to strongly urge the Chinese
government to release all arrested Falun Dafa practitioners in
China immediately, to lift the ban of Falun Gong practice, to
withdraw the international arrest warrant for Mr. Li Hongzhi, and
to begin a peaceful resolution through open dialogue.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present
which contains the signatures of 2,283 frustrated Canadians who
want the government to recognize the work of the Special Joint
Committee on Child Custody and Access.
The petitioners request that parliament amend the Divorce Act
immediately, taking into account the consideration of the
recommendations of the special joint committee, as well as
Reform's minority report.
The petitioners are irritated with the ineptness of the Minister
of Justice in dealing with the federal Divorce Act and
unwillingness to make necessary amendments until 2002.
[Translation]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present a petition signed by approximately 50 persons in the
ridings of Champlain and of Saint-Maurice, the riding of the
Prime Minister. This is another in the series of petitions
already presented relating to genetically modified organisms.
These citizens are calling upon parliament to promptly pass
legislation making it mandatory to label all foods that are
wholly or partially genetically modified.
[English]
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by many citizens of the Peterborough area who
are concerned about the sanctions against Iraq.
The petitioners point out that there have been enormous civilian
casualties, that the children have suffered since Desert Storm
because of the sanctions, and that oil is one source of revenue
for Iraq which would help children.
They know that Canada through humanitarian efforts is helping
the children in Iraq, but they call upon the Parliament of Canada
to demand the immediate cessation of sanctions against Iraq and
substantial support for civilians, particularly children, in the
country of Iraq.
[Translation]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour of presenting, in both official languages, two
petitions from residents of my riding asking parliament to
promptly pass legislation making it mandatory to label all foods
that are wholly or partially genetically modified.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have a supplementary answer for Question No. 10. If that answer
could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled
immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 10—Mr. Gilles Bernier:
With respect to the
Québec ministerial tour taken by the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, the Minister of National Revenue, the
President of the Treasury Board, the Secretary of State (Science,
Research and Development) and the Secretary of State (Amateur
Sport) from September 22 to 24, 1999, could the government advise
the House of the costs of this trip including: transportation to,
from and during the ministerial tour, accomodations,
communications, meals, entertainment and alcoholic beverages for
each of the ministers, their support staff and departmental
staff?
(Return tabled)
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1015
POINTS OF ORDER
USE OF PROPS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, right after the voting, my colleague, the
whip of the New Democratic Party, raised a point of order about
my friend from Calgary West who, when rising to vote, held up
sign which had a message on it. In terms of the rules of the
House of Commons, that is not really appropriate.
What the whip of our party wanted to do, was to
have you rule on whether or not that was appropriate, or whether
or not that vote should be counted and what the future behaviour
should be in the House. If that is permitted for one member,
then other members should feel free to do the same thing.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, no more loan guarantees. I opposed the bill. I wanted
everyone to know why I opposed it. I am sure there are some
value differences among myself and members of the New Democratic
Party. If I had been holding up a sign which said soak the rich,
it probably would have been something the NDP would have been
okay with.
I do not think there is sufficient demand for the ships to be
built. Therefore, the loan guarantees would make little economic
sense. It is not my fault that there are politics when it comes
to right and left, but in economics there is right and there is
wrong.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair regards the using of props
in the House with the utmost seriousness. It has been consistent
practice in the House for many years to enforce the rule that
members may not use props. Occasionally, members are able to get
away with it because either it is not noticed or sometimes the
member uses it before the Chair can intervene, not realizing it
is about to happen.
I must say to the hon. member for Calgary West, who gave what I
regard as a wholly insufficient explanation of his conduct, that
this problem has arisen before. When I have personally been in
the chair I have had to deal with the fact that he has held up
signs, in particular during the course of voting in the House.
As the hon. member and all hon. members know, points of order
are generally not permitted during voting. It is for that reason
that the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst was not permitted to
pursue the matter last evening. When the voting was complete,
the hon. member for Calgary West had left the House, so I
directed the matter to stand over.
Last night was the second time I personally warned the hon.
member and I know that one of the other occupants of the chair
has had this difficulty. It is not something which the Chair can
lightly tolerate because if one member, as the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle has said, can hold up a sign, so can other
members. In my view, it is entirely inappropriate and out of
place in the House. We are here to carry on a legislative
function, not an advertising function. If the hon. member wishes
to make his views known on a bill, he can do so by participating
in debate, by making a speech or by putting a question or making
a comment on another hon. member's speech. I invite him to do
that if he wishes his views to be known. Or, better still, he
could put it in his householder, which he is allowed to do four
times a year in his constituency.
The Chair will say that if members persist in using signs during
voting or some other demonstration of that kind which is
inappropriate in the House, the Chair will have no reluctance in
directing the clerk to strike the hon. member's name from the
list of those who have voted and continue to strike it if the
conduct persists and, if necessary, take further measures.
I hope that it will not be necessary to revisit this issue. In
the Chair's view, it is entirely inappropriate.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
ACT
BILL C-6—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-6, 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be
allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to
the bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time
provided for government business on the allotted day of the
consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings
before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the
purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for
the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith
and successively without further debate or amendment.
1020
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1105
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 130
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Perron
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
– 93
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
1110
[English]
SECOND READING AND CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion
in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, 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.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken
place between all parties and pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), I
believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on the consideration of
Senate amendments to Bill C-6, all recorded divisions to dispose
of the said motion be deemed requested and deferred until the end
of Government Orders on Tuesday, April 4.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief whip have unanimous
consent of the House to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to say a few words about Bill C-6 dealing with
electronic commerce that is before the House.
As we all know the bill we are dealing with today has already
passed third reading in the House of Commons and our party voted
in favour of it at third reading stage. We think it is the right
way to go.
The bill is supported by a number of consumer groups and by a
number of other groups and agencies around the country, such as
the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and so on. It is a bill
that is seen as going in the right direction. It sets out a legal
framework for electronic commerce, commerce on the Internet,
commerce online in this country and it deals with such issues as
privacy and security for individuals who are dealing on the
Internet.
The reason this bill is back again before the House is because
the Senate has dealt with this particular legislation and has
submitted amendments to the bill, in particular one dealing with
medical records. This amendment is actually a good amendment
that we support in terms of medical records being part of this
legislation. That is the right way to go.
I find that very difficult to say because I do not think in
principle that the Senate should be amending any legislation that
comes out of the House of Commons for the very simple reason that
the Senate is not elected, it is not democratic and it is not
accountable to anyone. The Senate is an appointed body made up
of cronies and friends of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Therefore, I do not feel very comfortable supporting anything
that the Senate has done, even if it is a good amendment to this
bill. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you feel the same way because
you are a true Democrat.
It is very unfortunate that we have in this country a
legislative body that is not elected, a legislative body that is
appointed and a legislative body that will spend $60 million in
the next fiscal year and not be accountable to anyone in the
country, in the House or anywhere as to how it will spend that
money. It was with those caveats and those reservations that I
rose to support this amendment that is before the House today.
After seven years in office, the Liberal Party, which at one
time was very critical of an unelected Senate, is now very silent
on the Senate. Every time the Senate wants an increase in its
estimates, the Liberals just get up and support the estimates of
the Senate. I see the member for Saint Boniface who is a cabinet
minister. I am sure that at one time he would have stood up and
complained about a legislative body in this country that is
appointed.
The Senate is not an ordinary commission like the Canadian Wheat
Board, the CRTC, the Canadian Transportation Commission or what
have you. It is a legislative body that can make legislative
change without accountability. It is a throw back to the last
century, a throw back to the old British system, a system we
should be getting rid of by abolishing the Senate.
I think my good friend from Calgary West will probably rise in
this debate a few minutes from now and say many similar things
about the Senate and about it initiating amendments and
legislation. Maybe the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt will do the
same thing.
1115
I look forward to those speeches. I see that they are getting
edgy and agitated. They are ready to get to their feet to say a
few words about the legislation before the House today.
That being said, we support the amendment and we support the
bill. Electronic commerce is becoming a more important part of
our country and the world. We have evolved from an agricultural
society into an industrial society. We are now in the so-called
post-industrial society, or the technical age, the online age,
the digital age, however one wants to put it, and it is growing
by leaps and bounds.
Currently it is still only a very small part of our economy.
Online commerce is estimated to result in the sale of goods and
services of about $3 billion in the year 2000. That is less than
1% of the $600 billion of goods and services that will be
purchased by Canadian consumers in 2000. That is a small amount
proportionately but that amount is going to grow very rapidly in
the days, weeks and years ahead. It is very important to have
legislation that deals with electronic commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would be very interested in that the
first province to pass legislation to deal with electronic
commerce was Saskatchewan. The justice minister, Chris Axworthy
dealt with it. When Mr. Axworthy was a member of the House of
Commons he sat right behind the member from Burnaby and I. He
was very concerned about electronic commerce, about protecting
privacy and providing security for people who used the Internet
for the purchase of goods and services. He has become the first
minister to introduce legislation that passed a legislative body.
Once again it is another first for the Government of
Saskatchewan.
When looking at electronic commerce one is reminded that the
world is getting smaller. Indeed we are living in a global
society. The time has come to not only deal with security and
privacy issues around electronic commerce but also to deal with a
new vision about the global society we are now living in.
One thing which is obvious is that commerce has become
globalized. Big corporations and companies have globalized. On
the other side of the ledger a lot of the people's organizations
have not globalized. For example there are no international
standards for the environment, labour issues or social programs.
In the world of tomorrow many of the things that used to be done
by the nation-state are going to be done at the international
level. That is something which is very important. I am sure the
member for Calgary West would like to say a few words about that
when he rises to speak in a few minutes.
That brings me to the whole issue of the Tobin tax. This House
made a step in the right direction a year ago March 23 when it
endorsed by a vote of 164 to 83 the idea of a so-called Tobin
tax. This is a small tax on the speculation of currency in order
to bring some order to currency rates and values around the
world. The proceeds would be used to build up a development fund
to help the third world, to help clean up the environment, to
help get rid of land mines and to do other useful things for
human beings around the globe.
There was overwhelming support in that vote. It was my private
member's motion that the House voted on. There was overwhelming
support from the government, from all the NDP members present,
from one of the Conservatives, from a couple of Reformers and
about a dozen or so members of the Bloc Quebecois. Even though
the motion was opposed overwhelmingly by the Reformers and the
Conservatives it still had supporters in the Reform Party and the
Conservative Party. It shows that it is a growing issue around
the world, that we have to bring some order and some regulation
to the international marketplace on behalf of the common good
globally.
Now that parliament has expressed itself, it is important that
the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other ministers
and members of parliament in international forums express and
advocate the will of parliament.
I am sure as true democrats even members of the Reform Party who
talk about reflecting grassroots and reflecting the people of
this country, when they talk internationally would advocate the
will of parliament and advocate the Tobin tax.
I look forward to hearing the member for Calgary West tell us how
he has been advocating the Tobin tax or a small tax on the
speculation of international currency, as he talks to people
around the world.
1120
That is the expression and the will of parliament. This body
spoke overwhelmingly by a margin of two to one that we needed a
small tax on currency speculation. Maybe it will be 0.1% or a $1
per $1,000 to cool down the hot money around the world and to
develop an international fund to help deal with some of the
important development issues we are faced with around the globe
today.
These are the issues of the tomorrow. These are the issues we
are going to have to deal with. These are the issues the
churches around the world are concerned with. These are the
issues young people are concerned with. These issues are going
to have to be solved if we are going to have a globe where people
live in harmony and peace. These are reasons the bill before the
House is a positive one and one that is on the right foot and
which is going in the right direction.
As I said earlier, the leadership on this issue came from the
Saskatchewan government. It was the first legislature in the
country to pass a bill providing a legal framework for electronic
commerce. That will be followed very closely by the House of
Commons passing a bill to protect the privacy and security of
people who use electronic commerce. Let us use this debate to get
into other international issues that are important for the
development of humankind.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I could not help but notice that the hon. member made
reference to the fact that the bill has been amended by the
unelected and appointed Senate. It is a Senate that the Prime
Minister made references to in his 1990 leadership bid. He said
he would do what he could to change the Senate. He said he
wanted to see an elected Senate too. He even said it in Calgary.
The province of Alberta will have a resignation of a Senate seat
on March 31. Bert Brown received more votes than any other
federal politician in Canadian history and was duly elected by
the people of Alberta in the second ever Senate election in the
country. I wonder if the hon. member figures that Bert Brown
would like to receive his seat in the Senate pending this whole
vote. What exactly are the hon. member's thoughts on this whole
idea of an unelected appointed chamber that is totally out of
touch with what everyday Canadians want?
The hon. member and I have tried to draw representatives before
the procedure and House affairs committee to hold the Senate
accountable for its egregious increases which are well above and
beyond the public service, the Government of Canada, the
parliament and the House of Commons. I would like his
perspective on the egregious spending with regard to the Senate
and its total lack of accountability.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with
the member for Calgary West that there has been reckless spending
in terms of the other house. I do not have my estimates with me
but my recollection is its estimates for the coming year will see
the Senate budget go up by 21% or 25%. That is much higher than
any other government department or agency I am aware of. It does
this without being accountable to anyone.
A year of so ago a few of us, including the member who just
spoke, tried to get the chair of the Senate internal economy
committee to come before the relevant House of Commons committee
to justify its estimates. After all, departments such as
agriculture, industry, HRDC or whatever have to. Of course, the
senator refused. He said they were not accountable to anybody in
the House of Commons. It is not right or proper that the Senate
can get this increase in funding without being accountable. I
agree with the member on that.
Where the member and I disagree is that the member wants to
reform and elect the Senate and I want to abolish the Senate.
Public opinion today is split roughly 50:50 between those who
want to abolish the Senate and those who want to reform it.
That debate should continue. In the last few years public opinion
has been shifting more and more toward the abolition side after
having gone toward the reform side before. It is a debate well
worth pursuing.
1125
The one thing we do agree on is that the existing Senate should
go. All the polling I have seen shows that about 5% of the
people in the country support the existing Senate. Five per cent
would be the senators, their families, a few friends, a few
others and not many more.
The member asked me about Bert Brown. I am sure Bert Brown
would like to take a seat in the Senate. Why would he not? But
that is the wrong way to go because I do not think the place
should be reformed and elected. It should be abolished. I am
also concerned about the Alberta solution, about the provincial
government having elections for the Senate under the present
powers and composition of the Senate.
For example, New Brunswick has ten senators and Alberta and B.C.
have only six each. If we started electing senators under the
present structure and representation in the Senate, what would
happen if Ontario and Quebec started to do the same thing? They
each have 24 senators. All of a sudden we would be locked into a
Senate that is legitimate because its members are elected and
Ontario would have 24 senators and Alberta, Saskatchewan, B.C.
and Manitoba would have only six each.
We would have a very unfair Senate locked permanently into our
structure. That Senate would be elected. Therefore it would be
more difficult to change and more difficult to get rid of it
because it would have been legitimized by virtue that those
people were elected.
If we followed the Alberta solution the existing Senate powers
would also be legitimized. Most people do not realize that the
Senate has almost as many powers as the House of Commons under
the constitution. It does not use them because senators are
appointed and are not legitimate. If we were to elect them under
the present powers we would have two very strong Houses. We
would invite gridlock between the two Houses. Also the Senate
would be very unequal in terms of its representation in that New
Brunswick with about 600,000 people gets ten senators and British
Columbia with three million plus people gets only six senators.
With respect, that is the danger of what Mr. Klein is doing in
Alberta in trying to elect senators under the present
representation and the present powers. That is almost anti
Saskatchewan, anti Albertan in nature because of the population
shifts.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was interested in hearing the member opposite speak
about Bill C-6 and its importance and the kind of information
protection that is available as a result of the leadership shown
by our government in this all important area.
I wanted to remind him in case he did not know, because I heard
him go on at length, he and the member opposite from the party
whose name I forget right now, I think it is the alliance and
before that it was CCRAP and before that it was the Reform Party,
were going on with respect to—
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
For the benefit of the member opposite, we are the Canadian
Alliance.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is quite correct. The
party is known as the Canadian Alliance.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I understand that is so at
this point in time. I guess we will see what the courts say with
respect to Mr. Kingsley's ruling as well as the higher court. We
will see where that goes.
In any event I wanted to point out on this very important bill
that the Senate plays a very important role. It has a
recommendation where the health sector will be exempted somewhat
for the next little while. Instead of kicking in on January 2001,
because of the Senate's position, the health sector will comply a
year later than that. As chairman of the all-party health
committee I can say this is very important. It is most important
that the Senate would play such a useful role in this very
interesting debate.
I found most interesting that the member for Calgary West in his
comments talked about the Senate. I remember not so long ago
that the party opposite, whatever its name is, said it would
bring a fresh start to parliament. They are the people who
during—
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member continues to attempt to make points but the
Speaker of the House has indicated that in this Chamber our party
will be known as the Canadian Alliance. I would expect that kind
of respect.
1130
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member is trying
to be respectful, but perhaps he is confused. The hon. member
for Waterloo—Wellington knows this is the Canadian Alliance and
I know he will try to remember to use that name.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same
point of order. Would it be in order for you to ask the member
if in fact he does know that we are the Canadian Alliance?
The Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Speaker to ask
questions. I think the point has been made.
I would ask the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington to be brief
because we have to give some time to the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle to reply.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and all
Canadians that it is not I who is confused but those members
opposite. They do not seem to know quite where they are going on
this important matter.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member opposite is still alleging that he does not
know the name of our party and, as a result, says that he is
confused. I think that you need to straighten him out one more
time.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member has done that
very nicely.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, they are certainly
thin-skinned.
The member for Calgary West was part of the nonsense when
Senator Thompson was in Mexico. They marched with sombreros in
these hallowed halls of parliament, with burrito juice and all
manner of things running on to the floor of this great democracy.
He was part of that. He was part of denigrating this great
Parliament of Canada. This is from the people who were going to
bring a fresh start, a new way of doing business to parliament.
It is unbelievable.
Where was the leader from Calgary Southwest when we voted on
Nisga'a and when we voted on the clarity bill? He was on the
beaches of Mexico.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I know the hon.
member is trying to be helpful, but the comments and questions
are to be directed to the speech of the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, who was not part of that march. The comments
seem to be going around a bit. Perhaps we could have a quick
question and then a quick response from the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon.
member of the NDP this. He talked about the Senate. Did he
agree with the member for Calgary West, who, when Senator Keon
from the heart institute found himself in a little trouble,
demanded the resignation of Senator Keon? I was at the heart
institute not so long ago as the chair of the Standing Committee
on Health. Did the hon. member agree with that member?
I also want to ask him whether he agrees with me that those
people opposite were strangely silent when their own member from
Crowfoot found himself in some trouble. Why is it that those
people opposite would be silent on one—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the question has gone on long
enough.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if I could try to
respond to the member across the way, I do not comment on
individuals in the other place.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member from
Regina—Qu'Appelle has the floor.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I did not comment on
Senator Keon. He is a brilliant heart surgeon. I do not attack
individuals in terms of their personal performance in either
place. What I attack is the fact that we have an institution
which is not elected, not democratic and not accountable to the
people of this country, which is the institution of the Senate.
I wish the hon. member would join us in that crusade.
Some 95% of the people of the country do not support the
existing Senate. He should ask his constituents how they feel
about it. They would tell him in no uncertain terms that they do
not support the unelected Senate down the hall. It is not a
democratic body. If he was reflecting the views of the people of
Welland he would say that in the House of Commons.
I challenge him to go out on the main street of Welland and ask
the first 10 people he sees whether they support the existing
unelected Senate. I would be surprised if anybody said yes.
They either want the Senate to be abolished or they want the
Senate to be reformed. They do not support the existing house.
The member should know that if he is in touch with his own
constituents.
1135
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to discuss the amendments to Bill C-6,
the electronic commerce legislation.
There is significant opportunity facing Canadians at this
juncture as we look forward to a brave new century. In my
opinion we will see the greatest levels of opportunities
available to Canadians in this bold new interconnected world that
we have ever seen. The changes occurring globally, in terms of
technological advances relative to the Internet, will rival those
of any technological developments in the history of mankind.
They will make other technological developments, including the
railway, the airplane and even the telephone, pale in comparison.
These are the types of challenges and opportunities that we face
as individuals in Canada, which is increasingly a very connected
country. It is a connected country largely based on the
interests and innovation of individual Canadians and, in many
ways, despite the continued malaise, inattention and efforts by
the government to hinder and impede technological adaptation and
opportunity for Canadians with new vehicles such as the Internet.
I was appalled at the recent national Liberal convention, which
I attended as an observer for my party. I also was a commentator
for CBC and CTV. I was there for the weekend and I felt a bit
like an undercover rabbi at a PLO conference.
It was an interesting experience, to say the least, but the fact
is that what I learned disappointed me about the leadership of
the Liberal Party at this time. Frankly, I had expected that the
Prime Minister would have had a better idea of where the world
was going in terms of some of these new technologies.
On Friday night the leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime
Minister—
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell us the relevance of this
matter to the bill before the House. He is talking about a party
convention that he, no doubt, was very pleased to attend, but
what relevance does that have to the business which is before the
House?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member is
quite correct. When I took the chair I had to ask the Deputy
Speaker what we were debating because none of the debate seemed
to be relevant to the bill at hand. Therefore, I would ask hon.
members to concern themselves with the relevancy of their words.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his typically erudite suggestion that I get to the point on
this issue, and I shall.
The point I was making was that on the Friday night of the
convention the Prime Minister of Canada referred to this brave
new economy in a way which disturbed me. He referred to
e-commerce as a problem. He said that we have to deal with the
problem of e-commerce; not as an opportunity, but as a problem;
not in terms of how the Government of Canada can enable Canadians
to access the levers of this brave new world and this brave new
economy, but how we can deal with the problem of e-commerce.
This legislation, to a certain extent, indicates that the
government is in fact more capable of dealing with regulations
and their implementation than it is with the other part of
e-commerce, and that is dealing with its opportunities and
reducing the intrinsic impediments which hold back Canadian
individuals and companies from full participation and success in
an increasingly interconnected, digital highway globally.
1140
The government is very slow to respond to some of the tax issues
which continue to hold back Canadians in terms of our global
competitiveness, but is quick to respond on the regulatory side.
I think that speaks volumes about a government that is far too
quick to regulate and far too slow to bring down the barriers to
unimpeded commerce and greater levels of opportunity.
The legislation addresses some important issues relative to
personal privacy in Canada on the Internet. The battle between
privacy and protection is an ongoing battle with regard to
e-commerce on the Internet. These issues have partially been
addressed by the government. I believe that the amendments from
the other place were appropriate and helpful. Again the Senate
has provided a level of constructive intervention and benefit to
the legislation of the House.
It seems that time and time again we see this kind of
constructive interaction between both houses. We
need to be reminded that there is a reason for the current
structure and for the nature of the Senate. Sometimes when I am
discussing issues of this importance with members of the upper
house I am reminded of the incredible level of knowledge and
expertise that we have in that other place to deal with some of
these increasingly complicated issues, whether we are dealing
with e-commerce or more traditional issues, such as finance. I
believe that in many ways the Senate banking committee has a
significantly greater level of expertise than the House of
Commons finance committee. I would argue that members of the
Senate banking committee, by and large, have forgotten more about
finance than members of the House of Commons finance committee
know. I speak as a member of that committee and it is just a
reflection on the high quality of membership we have on some of
the committees in the other place.
The onus with this legislation is on the government to utilize
laws and regulations to protect the rights and privileges of
consumers. We support this legislation and we support these
amendments, but I see some concerns about the government's
efforts on an ongoing basis to regulate but not to recognize the
opportunities.
One Canadian success story of an e-commerce Internet company was
Zero-Knowledge, which recently raised a significant amount of
money and is pursuing an IPO opportunity in the U.S. Its
business is Internet privacy.
When we look at Internet privacy, if it can be provided
increasingly by private sector entities like Zero-Knowledge, I
would urge the government, the ministry of industry and the
industry committee to study some of these private sector
alternatives. There does not always have to be a heavy level of
regulatory burden to achieve some of these privacy or protection
ends. Sometimes companies like Zero-Knowledge, a Canadian
success story, can help provide the tools to consumers.
The issue regarding health information is particularly important
as we see companies like Healthion and Dr. Koop.com involved, as
we see the continued integration of e-health vehicles with
hospitals and, as time goes by, the technologies that will
provide effectively the ability for health professionals to
diagnose and treat illness increasingly via media, including the
Internet.
In my home province of Nova Scotia there are start-up companies
that are developing increasing levels of expertise in these
areas, companies like Techknowledge and Caduceus.
They are developing technologies that will enable health care
professionals to provide a greater level of comprehensive service
to patients, which ultimately will be more cost effective.
1145
When we are dealing with health care information clearly privacy
issues are very important. Again I urge the government to
investigate all private sector opportunities or vehicles to
protect privacy as opposed to always going the government
regulatory approach.
When we are dealing with the issues before us relative to
e-commerce we have to keep in mind a few basic principles. First,
e-commerce and the Internet are based at this juncture on private
sector leadership. There should be a minimalist government role
and we should avoid unnecessary restrictions. Privacy is
important. We have acknowledged that some private sector
entities provide products which can be used to establish privacy.
In the area of e-commerce and Internet in general we have some
real Canadian success stories with bid.com and some of the
enabling technologies. There is a company now in Saint John, New
Brunswick, called iMagicTV, which is developing technology to
transmit television signals through traditional copper wires. I
believe the technology has already been rolled out in parts of
New Brunswick and will be in Halifax shortly. It will
revolutionize and be a very commercializeable initiative.
Some activities are happening on our financial markets, for
instance, with the automation of our financial markets, whether
it is with E-TRADE Canada, a Canadian entity, or e-commerce
friendly investment banking such as Yorkton Securities in Canada
or Wit Capital in the U.S.
We have seen great strides made in terms of venture capital for
e-commerce in Canada, whether it is Digital Harbour or EcomPark
that are providing the type of seed money required by Internet
entrepreneurs to achieve their next step and ultimately,
hopefully, public offerings. In that light we see a new CDNX,
which I believe will emerge as Canada's NASDAQ north.
All these opportunities are existing now and are helping to
spawn some of Canada's technology stars, whether it is Leitch
Technology or Versus Technology. Whether it is a more
traditional or technological leader like Nortel and JDS Uniphase,
all these great things are happening because we are an innovative
people. We have innovative individuals and innovative companies
across Canada that are doing amazing, interesting and successful
things.
Unfortunately I am concerned that we are not being led by an
innovative government. Again, as I mentioned earlier, I was
surprised to hear the Prime Minister refer to e-commerce as a
problem in a way that did not seem to recognize from his
perspective that in fact e-commerce represents more of an
opportunity.
If we look at the degree to which the government is embracing
some of the fundamentals of the new economy, particularly
relative to tax issues, I think we can see that we are falling
behind other countries.
Members opposite may look at the recent budget and say that
there has been some tax reduction. However, before the recent
budget Canada had the highest personal income taxes in the G-7
and the second highest corporate taxes in the OECD. After the
budget Canadians will still have the highest personal income
taxes in the G-7. After full implementation of these tax
measures over a five year period, Canadians will have the fourth
highest corporate taxes in the OECD. This is assuming that none
of the other 31 countries reduce their corporate taxes when in
fact 27 of them already have stated plans to reduce their
corporate tax levels.
Members opposite may say that we are heading in the right
direction.
However a tortoise heading in the right direction on the autobahn
will still be road kill. In the global environment and on the
interconnected digital highway of the global environment we
cannot afford to be a nanosecond behind.
1150
My concern is that as other countries make these gigantic leaps
we continue to take these baby steps in Canada. This
incrementalist, caretaker, day to day poll driven style of
government is holding back Canada at a time when other
governments are being increasingly innovative, governments like
Ireland, for instance.
Ireland has enjoyed over the past 10 years a 92% increase in GDP
per capita. I believe the U.S. has enjoyed about a 20% increase
in GDP per capita and I think the U.K. has been in the same
ballpark. Canada has had during that same period a 5% increase
in GDP per capita.
In the 1990s Canadians have seen their personal disposable
incomes drop by about 8% during a time when Americans have seen a
10% increase. Again, wealth being a relative thing, as
individuals in other countries get richer we get poorer in
Canada.
These phenomena are reflected in the Canadian dollar. Since
1993 the Canadian dollar has lost almost 10 cents of value under
this government. Every time we see a drop in the Canadian dollar
it is a reduction in the standard of living of Canadians.
All these things point to a greater issue: the inability of the
government to embrace the new economies and to embrace the
opportunities, not just the challenges or the problems of the new
economies, of the new economy and to actually present the types
of policies that will reduce the impediments to Canadians for
full participation and success in that economy.
While there are some difficulties in relating the Irish example
to Canada as a whole, there are some significant opportunities in
making a direct comparison of what is capable in Atlantic Canada
with the Ireland example. We could look at what we would do by
reducing corporate taxes and even capital gains taxes,
specifically in Atlantic Canada, and perhaps adjusting over a
period of time our current system of equalization, which actually
provides impediments and barriers and bootstraps individual
provinces on the recipient end. These are some of the things we
need to be looking at.
With the Internet and with e-commerce, borders are less relevant
now. This is a challenge. It seems there is almost a decline in
the role of governments in people's lives as the Internet and
other vehicles connect people individually. This is both
positive and negative.
It is positive from the perspective that as individual citizens
are connected, even from a social perspective, there will be more
difficulty for countries or for leadership in countries to wage
war on each other. It will be increasingly difficult to convince
people based on ethnicity or language that they do not like other
people if they are already communicating with them via the
Internet.
It will be increasingly difficult for the Milosevics of the
world, the Karadzics and the Tudjman type leaders in the former
Yugoslavia to wage war on each other as the citizenry is
empowered and connected.
Let us not always talk of the Internet and e-commerce as
problems. Let us talk about the brave new world that is
available. Let us talk about the free market working most
efficiently in the history of the free world with individuals,
regardless of borders, having access to the same information,
immediate price flexibility, and the ability to trade based on
that information immediately. It is a very exciting time.
While I recognize that the legislation is a step in the right
direction on the regulatory side, I wish the government would be
more responsive on the other side, the opportunity side of
e-commerce, as opposed to always dealing with what it perceives
to be the problem of e-commerce.
If we actually get out of the way I expect Canada can participate
and succeed globally in this exciting new world.
1155
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. He
had some interesting points to make, at least he thought in his
own mind he did.
I want to comment briefly on the fact that it was our Prime
Minister who in October 1998 first announced this very important
initiative. From there it was developed over the course of time,
ultimately came to the House and then went to the Senate. I was
somewhat pleased the member indicated that the Senate had a role
to play. I think we all know that in fact is the case and
rightfully so in terms of the recommendations it has made,
especially on the health side. As chairman of the all party
Standing Committee on Health I was very pleased that it did so.
I was interested in the member's comment that somehow the
government was holding back Canada in this area. I thought at
the time that if anyone was holding back Canada today it was Mr.
Clark. Mr. Clark is the leader of the Conservative Party. When
it came to Bill C-20, the clarity bill, where was Mr. Clark? Why
was he not standing up for Canada? He was nowhere to be seen.
Why does he not stand up for Canada on this all important issue?
When it comes to the whole issue of health care in Alberta and
Mr. Klein's bill-11, where is Mr. Clark? Mr. Clark is siding
with Mr. Klein and talking about the importance of for profit
private health care in Canada. He should be ashamed. It is not
this side of the House that is holding back Canada. It is that
side and Mr. Clark in particular.
Could the hon. member comment on some matters with respect to
Bill C-6? Could he comment on the role of the privacy
commissioner and whether or not he thinks the provisions
contained in Bill C-6 vis-à-vis the privacy commissioner is an
appropriate check and balance for this all important privacy
bill? Does he agree that the one time five year review is of
importance and necessary based on the proceedings of the House
and what Canadians wherever they live in this great country of
ours expect, demand and otherwise want?
I would be interested in listening to the hon. member's comments
on the one time review as well as the privacy commissioner's
role.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, as always I appreciate the
hon. member's non-partisan and constructive comments. I would
like to address his initial comments on my party's position on
Bill C-20 and that of our leader, Mr. Clark.
The fact is that the Right Hon. Joe Clark does not need to take
lessons on national unity issues from some young pup in the
backbenches of the Liberal government. The near toxic level of
arrogance that emanates from that side of the House is
encouraging to members on this side of the House because it
indicates that great change is coming.
Preceding great change and the decline of any entity, whether it
is a society or in this case a government, there is always a near
toxic level of arrogance: people are convinced that what they are
doing is right because they are doing it. I am pleased to see
that developing and would suggest it is almost an overdeveloped
arrogance gland on that side of the House which will precede
great opportunities for this side.
When Mr. Charest was leader of our party and there was an
opening in the provincial leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party,
the federalist party in Quebec, not one member on that side of
the House could muster up enough leadership ability to go into
Quebec and lead the federalists.
Where did they have to go? They had to go to the Progressive
Conservative Party because we had more abilities and credibility
with Jean Charest to lead the Quebec Liberals than that party
over there with its 160-odd members and I mean 160 odd members.
1200
Beyond that, in my opinion the best federalist positions in
Ottawa were the ones that helped Jean Charest become the next
premier of Quebec. That is the most important and commonsensical
approach to this. We need to ensure and work with the top
federalist in Quebec and that is Jean Charest. I believe Bill
C-20 continues to emasculate the provincial leadership in the
Quebec Liberal Party. It continues to attack our federalist
partners in Quebec and undermines the efforts of Jean Charest to
succeed as the next premier of Quebec. Instead of those people
focusing on short term poll-driven pragmatism, they should be
focused on leadership that keeps Canada together and not
anti-Quebec rhetoric that divides Canadians and hurts Canada.
The second point relates to the Klein government's initiative on
health care. The Klein initiative is being demonized by the
Liberals opposite. They are referring to it as two tier health
care because either they do not understand or they are
intentionally misleading Canadians about the intentions of the
Alberta government's legislation on health care. I hope the
Liberals are not trying to intentionally mislead Canadians by
demonizing what is being done there. I hope they are not trying
to throw some label on it as being anti-American.
As members are aware, patriotism is the last refuge of
scoundrels. When these individuals talk about an Americanized
health care system as being negative, they should take a look at
the Canadian health care system right now and what they have done
to it over the past several years. This government and this
Prime Minister have been the Dr. Kevorkians of the Canadian
health care system. They have done everything they can to
euthanize the Canadian health care system. At the same time,
these pompous, arrogant Liberal individuals, who are pounding
their chests like Tarzan and walking and strutting around Ottawa
like roosters so proud of what they have done with health care,
have in fact decimated health care.
For them to try to operate some type of policy of brinkmanship
and standing up to the provinces, whether it is Ralph Klein or
the province of Quebec or any other province that is trying to
innovatively approach some of these complex issues that their
government has put in front of them, is absolutely ridiculous,
rhetoric driven and dangerous for Canada.
I think the sooner we get these guys out and solid Progressive
Conservatives in, the better for all Canadians.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the member
by saying shame on him and his party for referring to the Prime
Minister and the government as being the Dr. Kevorkians. Members
of his party cannot even make up their mind how to vote on the
clarity bill. They flip-flop every day.
The Kevorkians are those Conservatives, those Brian Mulroneys,
those Kim Campbells and those Jean Charests who could not even
balance a budget in nine years. They had that opportunity. They
left us a country that was sadly described as almost a third
world banana republic. Today, I can look at the member in the
face and say that we are a country that stands above the rest.
I was in Germany and the finance minister said “What a miracle,
how you guys turned things around”. That is what this
government has done for this country. It has brought in
surpluses, balanced budgets, employment and dignity to the
household. Yes, we are trying to turn around and rebuild that
health system that they initially began to destroy.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his softball question. I assume he was trying to help me and
not hinder me with that kind of light and fluffy intervention.
The fact is that the previous Progressive Conservative
government, the Mulroney government, reduced the deficit as a
percentage of GDP from 9% in 1984 to about 5% when it left
office. What the Mulroney government inherited was a huge
problem, in that it was like that old country and western song
“give me forty acres and I will turn this rig around”.
It took nine years just to slow down the velocity that Canada was
heading in and in the wrong direction.
1205
During that period not only did the government reduce the
deficit as a percentage of GDP, but the government also
implemented some of the most important and visionary structural
changes to the Canadian economy in the last 50 years, including
free trade, the GST and deregulation of financial services,
transportation and energy. These were policies that recognized
where Canada needed to be in the 21st century.
I wish I had an opportunity to ask the hon. member what his
position was on free trade and on the GST. I believe, and
correct me if I am wrong, that the hon. member was, as were most
of the Liberal members opposite, vociferously opposed to some of
those initiatives.
I would ask all members of the House, particularly those
opposite, to recall their intransigence in opposition to some of
those visionary changes. Today The Economist magazine is
saying that it was those structural changes by the previous
government that were responsible for the elimination of the
deficit in Canada. It was not the pontificating Liberals on the
other side of the House, but those in—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, time is
up.
Before we get to the next orator, I want to remind all members,
because I am sure other members are just as confused as your
Speaker at the moment, that we are really on Bill C-6 moved by
the Minister of Industry, the personal information protection and
electronic documents act. I happen to have a copy of the Senate
amendments that we are debating if anyone is even in the least
interested.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can assure you that I am very interested in this very important
Bill C-6. As chairman of the health committee I was very
interested in the amendments that the Senate recommended with
respect to this all important area as it relates to privacy and
other matters in our very globalized and commercialized area.
I want to say however to the member for Kings—Hants, who made
comments with respect to Dr. Kevorkian, euthanasia and other
matters, that it is far better we talk about those kinds of
issues than the slow death of the Mulroney era and who and what
they represented in terms of the strangulation of our great
country.
I also want to point out to him that I was very pleased to be
called “a young pup” by him; far better a young pup than an old
dog. The Conservatives are nothing under Joe Clark than an old
dog with no teeth. I can assure the House that dog will not
hunt.
I do want to point out that Bill C-6 is a very important bill.
It was first announced by the Prime Minister in October 1998 and
it underscores a commitment by the Government of Canada to bring
forward legislation of importance to all Canadians wherever they
live in our great country. I want to point out by way of
background information that approximately 80% of Canadians think
that the government has a key and lead role in this all important
area. It is important to note that—
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I did not major in mathematics but I cannot count
anywhere near 20 people let alone 20 Liberals listening to this
wonderful speech. I think it would be a good idea if this
gentleman's colleagues were here to listen to what he has to say.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Cariboo—Chilcotin has called quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1215
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, that took some time but I
think it was worth waiting to hear my speech. I appreciate the
fact that you would call in a number of people who would be able
to partake.
I was saying that Bill C-6 is important legislation that will
apply to all federally regulated private sector areas in Canada.
It will also apply to crown corporations. It will cover federal
entities which are not covered under existing federal privacy
legislation.
I also want to note this very important point because it gets to
the very essence, the very pith and substance of what the bill
tries to do. With respect to interprovincial trading of personal
and private information and the international trading of
information, it wants to control that and make sure there is a
system in place where that kind of privacy is assured. That is
very important. I think Canadians wherever they are across Canada
want to see us take a lead role in this area.
I think I noted prior to the quorum call but I will emphasize
and reassert the fact that in a recent poll, and I think the
polling has been consistent with what Canadians have wanted, 80%
of Canadians have indicated that they would like to see us have
this kind of legislation.
It is important in that sense that we act quickly and accordingly
because it underscores the willingness and the urgency of the
Government of Canada to move in this all important area in a way
consistent with the values of Canadians.
1220
When reading the legislation it seemed to me that it was
consumer friendly and rightfully so. It was something that
ordinary Canadians wherever they are in Canada could listen to
and deal with.
In reading the bill and taking a close hard and fast look at it,
I found it was not something that was burdensome and cumbersome
to industry, especially small and medium industry. Small and
medium businesses are the engines for Canada. We do not want to
put something in place that would be cumbersome and which would
detract from their ability to do what they do best, which is to
be entrepreneurs and to make profit. Profit in entrepreneurship
is what makes this country great. As a result of their good
efforts and as a result of what entrepreneurs do in small and
medium businesses, they create jobs which in turn helps the
economy.
Canada's economy is going pretty much at full tilt these days as
a result of the good management and sound fiscal and monetary
policy of the government which has done the right things. It is
appropriate that we move in that sense accordingly. It
underscores the commitment of the government to work in a manner
consistent with what Canadians not only want but quite frankly
deserve. This makes for better lives for them and their
families. That is part and parcel of what we on the government
side want to provide for all Canadians wherever they live in this
great country.
The member for Calgary Northeast is heckling, caterwauling and
bellowing, as members of the Reform Party often do. I am sorry,
I guess that party has gone through two name changes. It went
from the Reform Party to the CCRAP and now it is the alliance
party. Whatever those members call themselves, their party is
really the same old thing recycled. We understand that for who
they are and for what they represent.
Quite frankly I think Canadians reject their extremist views.
They reject what they try to do repeatedly, which is they try
tear at the very fabric of Canadian society, tear people apart,
tear regions apart and tear populations and groups and all kinds
of Canadians apart. Canada is not like that. Canada is above
that.
I listened on Monday past when the member for Calgary Northeast
got up on a tirade. This was from the very people who said they
were going to bring a fresh start to parliament, a new way of
doing business, a new approach. The member accused me, among
other things, of being unchristian and not following in the
footsteps of Christ. I reject that. Never mind I am a devout
Christian, but I reject the kind of nonsense the member opposite
would try to spew out.
He or she who is without guilt will cast the first stone. Those
people opposite who live in glass houses should be very careful
in terms of what they do and how they do it. I think it is
written somewhere very important, and the hon. member should
listen accordingly and attentively for a change, that judge not
lest ye be judged.
The hon. member should think hard and long about the kind of
venom he is prepared to spew. He should think hard and long
about casting judgments on other people. That is so typical of
that holier than thou group that sits opposite, no matter what
its name is. That is so typical of who those members are and
what they represent, extremists to the nth degree. People of
their ilk and those who associate with them understand fully that
they will go nowhere fast.
Fair-minded, compassionate, tolerant Canadians see through that
party no matter what it calls itself. They see through those
members for who they are and for what they represent.
1225
I want to get back to the issue at hand, Bill C-6, and how very
important it is with respect to the agenda of the Government of
Canada in terms of providing safety and security regarding the
privacy issue for Canadians.
The government has been very intent on ensuring that the
legislation deals with issues of concern to the Quebec
government. We have tried, and I think we have been very
successful, to complement the Quebec legislation in this area
with respect to covering international and interprovincial flows
of personal data.
The Government of Canada is committed to work consistently and
hard when it comes to dealing with the government of Quebec
because it has made some good notations in this area. As a
result of good, solid federal-provincial co-operation on this
very important Bill C-6, we will be able to work constructively.
After all that is what Canadians want.
We can talk a great deal in this House of Commons. We can talk
at the federal level about what we should or should not do. We
can talk about the great issues that confront Canada, but
Canadians wherever they live in this great country of ours, in
all the regions, expect governments at all levels to work
together. They expect their federal government to take a lead
role often.
Witness health care for example. Canadians expect the federal
government to take a lead role in that, to work constructively
with other provincial and territorial partners and all
stakeholders. Canadians expect this not only in health care, but
in e-commerce and all areas of importance. Canadians are
typically people who like to see partnership and co-ordination
instead of the politics of blame and finger pointing like Mr.
Harris is doing right now on health care.
Imagine what Mr. Harris is doing. It is outrageous when we see
the kind of finger pointing that is taking place on health care.
It really should not happen. Canadians quite frankly expect more
from their premiers. What they should be doing as provincial and
territorial partners is coming together and meeting
constructively. Instead of the politics of blame, they should be
looking forward to the politics of hope.
The politics of hope underscore what Canadians want, which is
for all people, Canadians of good faith wherever they are in this
country, to work together. They expect their government leaders
to work together constructively to ensure that the right thing is
done at the end of the day. Why do they do that?
Canadians know that this is an enormous country geographically
and in many other ways, with huge physical and human resources.
They know too that with a small population it is incumbent upon
governments wherever they are in Canada to work together to
ensure that the Canadian way is respected, that Canada's great
values, symbols and institutions are ultimately respected in a
way which is consistent with what Canadians expect from their
leaders and their governments.
I want to take a moment to talk about the code in terms of Bill
C-6, and the 10 principles that are inherent in that code. The 10
principles are noted as follows.
Number one relates to accountability. Accountability is very
important. Canadians expect their governments in legislation on
all matters to include accountability and transparency in a
manner consistent with what we believe as a government. All
Canadians expect it in legislation and rightfully so.
Number two is to identify purposes and make sure it is done in a
manner consistent with the kind of information collected. Again
Canadians expect that that be done in the very important area of
privacy.
I think it is important and expected that government include it.
1230
Number three in the code is consent. Consent of the individual
is required because people in Canada genuinely deserve privacy.
They want it and they need it. People expect that if there is to
be a sharing of knowledge it will be done with consent. I think
that underscores exactly what the government is prepared to note
and put in by way of the ten codes.
Number four is the limited collection code principle. It will
be limited to what is necessary for the purposes of identifying
organizations or others for a lawful purpose. That too is an
important principle and one which underscores the commitment of
the government to do the right thing in this very important area.
Number five is the limited use, disclosure and retention
principle. It is used because it is important to note and it is
important that Canadians have this, by way of principles,
codified. Personal information shall be retained only as long as
necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which it was
collected. Again, I think that too is important.
Number six is accuracy. Canadians expect the information given
to be accurate. The mechanisms are built in whereby if there is
misinformation it can be corrected. I believe that Canadians
expect that kind of accuracy to be part and parcel of this very
important bill.
Number seven is the principle of safeguards. The information
will be protected by security safeguards appropriate to the
information presented. That too underscores the commitment of
the Government of Canada to ensure that safeguards are in place
and that those kinds of checks and balances are part and parcel
of this very important bill.
Number eight is openness, which concerns itself with the readily
available information to individuals of policies and practices
relating to the management of personal information. Again, this
is part of transparency. This is part of accountability. This
is part of openness. This too underscores the government's wish
to ensure that this is in place in a meaningful way.
Number nine is individual access. Upon request, I should note
because it is important, that an individual shall be informed of
the existence, use and disclosure of his or her personal
information and shall be given access to that information. An
individual shall be able to challenge the accuracy and
completeness of the information and have it amended as
appropriate. That is important. Again, Canadians want to see
that as part of this law. It is a principle which we are
prepared to put in place.
Finally, number ten is the challenging compliance principle.
Again, an individual shall be able to address a challenge
concerning compliance with the above principles to the designated
individual or individuals for the organization's compliance.
That too is a good principle and is part of the approach of the
Government of Canada.
Taken in total, these ten principles are very important and they
underscore the level to which the government is prepared to act.
I believe it is ultimately in the best interests of all
Canadians.
I want to talk a bit about the role of the privacy commissioner
and the important role that he plays in this all important Bill
C-6. I think it is incumbent upon all members of parliament,
from all across the country, to understand that the role of the
privacy commissioner will be consistent with what Canadians
expect and want and, quite frankly, the role which they have
become used to. I think it is important that we proceed in this
very important area in a manner consistent with the values of
Canadians. I think it is important that we do so and that we do
so as soon as we can because this is an important bill and we
need to pass it expeditiously.
There is a five year review built into the bill.
That too is important and again underscores the role of the
government to do the right thing in this all important bill.
1235
Therefore I urge all members of the House to get on with the
business at hand, to support Bill C-6 and to recognize it for
what it is; that is, a good piece of legislation which follows
on what the Prime Minister said in October 1998 and follows in
a way which I believe Canadians not only can identify with but
also support.
I would ask all members of the House to move expeditiously to
pass this bill as soon as possible, knowing that it is the right
thing to do.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
use this opportunity to question my colleague.
A lot of the Ontario members are nervous. A lot of things are
happening in this country. This government has a very slim
majority, after winning almost all the seats in Ontario. I
would be tempted to advise my colleague to control his disdain.
In his speech and in a question he addressed to one of my
colleagues in this House a few minutes ago, I heard him mention
our leader, say that our party was like a sick dog. I think the
hon. member should be very careful, because a number of
governments have faced election upsets.
The member has not been in the House long, I understand that,
but I advise him to temper his disdain for the opposition
parties. He could be in for some big surprises.
In this spirit, I would ask him what he plans to do after the
next elections.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the
sensitivity which Conservatives feel when it comes to the
leadership of Mr. Joe Clark, and sensitive they should be.
I think of the importance of Bill C-20, the clarity bill, on
which we voted, literally, around the clock for a number of days.
In my heart of hearts I felt proud; tired yes, but proud to be a
part of this great period of history, following the lead of the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who
led this country in a manner consistent with what Canadians want
and expect. I felt proud to a part of that great bill.
Mr. André Harvey: Terrible. It is the beginning of the
end.
Mr. Lynn Myers: The member opposite can say what he will,
but his leader was absolutely shameful in supporting and cozying
up to the separatists. That is what Mr. Mulroney did. That was
a shameful period of Canadian history when Mr. Mulroney cozied up
to the separatists. He tried to build an alliance, and look
what happened to him. He talks about where I will be after the
next election. I would challenge him as to where the
Conservatives will be after the next election.
We saw what happened when they played toe to toe and cheek to
cheek with the separatists. They were reduced to two seats. Why?
Because Canadians ultimately reject that kind of nonsense. They
reject it because it is not consistent with the party of Sir John
A. Macdonald. It is not consistent with the party of Cartier.
It is not consistent with what Canadians want and believe.
We will govern on the government side consistent with what
the people expect, and the people expect a united and strong
Canada.
Where is Mr. Joe Clark and why is he not standing for Canada?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a more specific
question so that the member can at least address the bill and
not go on the rant that we have just heard promoting his
government and what he believes are strong credentials.
I would like him to specifically address this bill as it
pertains to the concerns the provinces have raised, especially on
the jurisdictional issue.
1240
My colleagues in the Bloc have raised this issue, as well as a
number of the provinces. This bill may in fact encroach on
provincial responsibilities in areas of the management of health
documents and other forms of really important information.
Recently the industry minister received a letter from the
Alberta government, criticizing the government on this bill. It
said that there was inadequate consultation on the bill to this
day, that the federal-provincial-territorial working group of
officials had not met in over a year, and that their officials
have repeatedly requested that the group reconvene to discuss
issues related to the bill and the regulations that would be
required if it were passed.
I would like the hon. member to assure the House of what sort of
commitment his government would have in dealing with the
jurisdictional problems which may arise. With all of the
criticisms being relayed to the government from various
provincial governments, will it commit to work, throughout the
passage of this bill, to overcome the problems of jurisdiction,
especially when it comes to privacy?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, had the member been
listening to my speech he would have heard me deal with the issue
of Quebec and some of the concerns that were outlined.
An hon. member: He did not talk about Quebec.
Mr. Lynn Myers: The Bloc member opposite said that he did
not talk about Quebec. He actually raised it. He said that the
Bloc indicated that it had concerns.
What I would point out, and not only as it concerns Alberta and
Quebec, is that we on the government side have crossed our
ts and dotted our is in terms of whether this bill is
constitutional and respects the jurisdiction of the provinces.
In fact, it will not infringe on provincial jurisdiction. We
have made that very clear.
Is it not typical of the member opposite to stand in the House
and talk about what the Bloc might want to ask? Is that not
typical of the party which not so long ago, at its convention in
London, Ontario, organized as its keynote lead-off speaker Mr.
Biron, who is nothing more than a separatist?
Let us think about that for a minute. We have a western
populist reform party, which now calls itself CRAP, which has all
of a sudden metamorphosed into something called the Alliance
Party, which had a separatist as the lead-off speaker at its
convention.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We are debating a particular bill. The hon. member, to the huge
gathering on the opposite side of the House, is seeking to
exercise a predominant dose of arrogance, which is exactly what
is going to kill that party. The information I get is that this
arrogance, as they attack my colleagues, is exactly the thing
that has killed parties in the past—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I suspect that could
have a little debate in it. We will go to the next question.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to put a question to the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington. I will put it slowly because I think he
has difficulty hearing or understanding, I do not know which.
My Reform colleague talked about Alberta. Alberta is not a city
in the province of Quebec. Alberta is not a city inhabited by
separatists, who are born separatists and who die separatists.
Alberta is a province in your beautiful great country.
My Reform colleague's question concerned Alberta. It is not
separatist, it is not wicked and it will not kill the member in
the night.
My second comment will be along the lines of the one made by my
Reform colleague. It concerns provincial jurisdiction. I will
remind—I dare to hope that I will remind him, or at least
inform him—the member for Waterloo—Wellington that Quebec has
had legislation entitled an act respecting personal information
for the past five years. This legislation is considered
effective the world over.
1245
In Quebec, a province which I must admit does have some
sovereignists, there is the Barreau du Québec. This is not a
group of separatists. I simply want to explain this so that the
member will understand. The Barreau du Québec is an
organization that is made up of lawyers, sovereignists or
otherwise, and which administers the law. It is opposed to Bill
C-6.
There is also the Chambre des notaires. It might have been
infiltrated by a few nasty sovereignists but it is not a
separatist group. It is opposed to Bill C-6. The CSN—there are a
few more of them in that organization—, the National Assembly and
other organizations are also opposed to Bill C-6.
I would like to hear what the member for Waterloo—Wellington
thinks about the unanimous opposition in Quebec and Alberta—which
is not a city in Quebec, by the way—to Bill C-6.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I really do not need a
geography lesson from the member opposite, nor do I need a
spelling lesson, nor do I need an elocution lesson for that
matter in speaking slowly.
What I would ask the hon. member to do, however, speaking of
geography, is to take some time to travel our great country and
find out exactly what it means to be a Canadian and learn what it
means to be a Canadian and where the values of Canada are
consistent and part and parcel of our great land.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have not managed to commit Montpetit-Marleau to memory, but if
I am not mistaken, citation 416 of Beauchesne's states that a
member's reply must address the topic being debated in the House
and not wander all over the place, as the member for
Waterloo—Wellington is doing.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite
jumps the gun. I was getting to the point where I was going to
answer the question. It is really interesting how the Bloc
members are so thin-skinned. They are really quite sensitive. We
can only imagine that it must be because they do not know why
they are here in this parliament any more.
In direct response to him, if he had been listening and paying
attention to the minister he would know that the minister, in
tabling Bill C-6, announced publicly that Quebec will be exempted
from the application of Bill C-6 because it has similar
legislation in place. This will be done by an order in council
once the bill becomes law.
The member claims to be protecting the interests of his
constituents. He claims to be protecting Quebecers wherever they
live. Why would he not do his homework and know that this was
happening? I find it shameful that he would do what he is doing.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that when we ask
questions the hon. member opposite continues to say “If the
opposition had only been listening”. It is very difficult to
listen to a rant continued by the hon. member. Our eyes tend to
gloss over and we tend to fall asleep over here because it is the
same old rhetoric that we hear from this government and from this
member. Nothing, unfortunately, is new, nothing is insightful
and nothing has vision, which most of us in the official
opposition always like to challenge in the House. Mr. Speaker, I
know you know that and value that.
I am proud to stand today in the House to speak to Bill C-6. I
actually had the opportunity, prior to my colleague from Peace
River who has now taken over the industry file, to work on this
bill in committee when it was formerly known as Bill C-54. I
enjoyed working on the bill, particularly because it dealt with
bridging the gaps, as we often have in this country, between the
jurisdictional issues and trying to actually deal with a bill
that has issues on a global level.
When one deals with privacy as it relates to electronic commerce
and privacy as it relates to any other form of important
information, there is in today's electronic commerce an endless
amount of information travelling everywhere through different
channels, whether it is through the media, the Internet or other
forms of communication.
There is often sensitive information being transferred not only
within a city, within a country and across provincial boundaries
but also globally. That is why this particular bill is of unique
importance to Canadians. We are actually showing some
leadership.
1250
While I was working on the committee I commended the industry
minister for bringing forward a bill that shows some leadership.
Through my travels and talking with various people in industries
that deal with electronic commerce and privacy, I found that many
other countries were looking at Canada to produce something that
could set an example for the rest of the world.
One of the things we continuously criticize the government for
is its refusal to deal with many of the concerns of not only the
provinces but also the opposition. When I was sitting at
committee I put forward many amendments that would have
strengthened the bill as it pertains to health care documents and
the privacy of specific information on health care.
Unfortunately, even though many of the members opposite would
have paid lip service in supporting these amendments, they did
not do so, which was quite disappointing.
However, this particular bill, as we know it and understand it,
is well within the proper function of government to create a
civil and criminal law framework and regulatory regime to allow
electronic commerce to flourish in Canada. Legislation governing
the commercial use of private and sensitive information is
important and necessary to create a healthy and stable business
environment in Canada. It is not the proper role of government
to foster business through the creation of interventionist
government programs that are costly to taxpayers and largely
ineffective. Engaging in electronic commerce and especially the
growth that we have seen in this particular area, there is no
doubt that the government has a role to play in putting together
a framework to regulate sensitive information being transferred
over those channels.
Even though we are supporting this bill in principle and trying
to make it better during the course of debate here in the House
and in committee, we in the official opposition did have some
specific criticisms and ones that I would like to raise now.
We wanted to see the bill separated into two parts. As it now
stands, the government has rolled the section on electronic
commerce together with the one on privacy. It would have been
preferable to arrive at a consensus with the provinces to do this
co-operatively rather than use the trade and commerce provisions
in the constitution to unilaterally introduce legislation.
When challenging the minister on this particular issue of
provincial jurisdiction, he was sensitive enough to say that even
though federal legislation would be put in place to govern
privacy and electronic commerce on a national level, he would
encourage provinces that would like to have strong privacy
legislation because under the constitution privacy is a
provincial responsibility and that jurisdiction is in the hands
of the provinces. Quebec currently has strong privacy
legislation. If other provinces wanted to follow suit and create
privacy legislation that was stronger than this federal
legislation, the minister's commitment was that this legislation
would be complementary to that of the provincial legislation.
This gave me a sense of satisfaction, especially after talking
to some of my counterparts in Alberta. I told them that there
was a role for this particular bill to govern the rules
surrounding privacy and electronic commerce on a national and
global level. However, I encouraged my colleagues, especially
those in Alberta, if they saw flaws or weaknesses in this
particular bill, to see if they could come up with stronger
legislation and maybe even take examples from Quebec because it
does have strong privacy legislation. Alberta could then perhaps
create something that would be more specific to the province.
My counterparts encouraged me at that time and said that they
were planning on doing this in fall.
Since then I know that there has been much work done in that
particular area and in that particular jurisdiction.
1255
There have also been a lot of concerns and criticisms from the
Alberta government, especially on the process of dealing with the
government when it comes to coming to a consensus. This,
unfortunately, seems to be a common theme with the government. We
have seen it in so many other forms of legislation in the House
and in so many other ways when this particular government tries
to put legislation through the House, often without proper
democratic debate and without the proper consensus across the
country. It just does not care about dealing with the provincial
concerns. If it did, it would be so much easier to build
consensus. However, in its arrogance, it is just not committed to
that, as my colleague mentioned earlier.
To go back to some of those criticisms, the official opposition
has supported the e-commerce part of this bill. This section is
needed to facilitate business resulting from the new technologies
and the increasing growth in air freight. It shortens the time
for payment for suppliers because they can use electronic
signatures. That is an area that will be further developed in
this bill.
One of the areas in the first section of the bill that we wanted
strengthened was area dealing with privacy, especially providing
extra protection for health care records. As I mentioned, when I
sat on the committee I remember introducing a number of
amendments that were supported by a number of organizations,
especially in the health care field. I remember the Canadian
Dental Association, the Canadian Medical Association and a number
of other groups that really wanted to see medical health records,
especially the privacy surrounding those records, strengthened in
this particular bill.
I was very disappointed, when I did introduce those particular
amendments at the committee, that for some reason the committee
did not want to make the commitment to health care. We have seen
that, obviously, in the way that health care is funded, because
the cutbacks have been radical regarding transfers to the
provinces when it comes to the funding of health care. That is
why we have the problems that we do today where provinces are
trying to make up the difference in government cuts.
It would have cost the government relatively nothing to
strengthen the privacy of health care records in this particular
bill but it refused to do so. At least now, in debating the
Senate amendments to this particular bill, I know that the Senate
actually added a particular amendment to deal with personal
health information. It inserted a separate and detailed
definition of personal health information as opposed to lumping
it with all personal information. This is at least a step in the
right direction toward what we would like to see. We hope that
will be supported by the House because it does help to make this
bill a little better.
One of the things I also want to touch on is the criticisms by
the provinces, which have been quite significant during this
process. I would like to quote, as I did when I asked the hon.
member opposite to respond to some of the concerns that the
Alberta government raised. I want to get to that and read some of
the other quotes that they had identified as potential problems
with this legislation.
To address the other amendments put forward by the Senate before
I get to the criticisms, one of the second amendments provides
for a moratorium of one year before the legislation applies to
organizations which deal with personal health information. This
is similar to a postponement of one year given to provincially
regulated industries. It is a step in the right direction but
the Alberta government has raised some concerns about this.
The sooner this legislation is up and running, in the Senate's
view, the better. The two moratoriums are somewhat regrettable
as they create a temporary patchwork implementation regime for
e-commerce and e-document.
Federally regulated enterprises and organizations will be
subject to the legislation first, then provincially regulated and
health related organizations one year later. It is unfortunate
that the government did not do its homework with respect to both
the provincial governments and health privacy advocates before
imposing time allocation to rush the third reading debate in the
House of Commons. Nevertheless, Reform is pleased to see that
personal health information is better protected for a change,
thanks to the Senate.
I will get to some of the criticisms, especially as raised by
some of the provincial jurisdictions, namely Alberta.
1300
I talked briefly about this point earlier. It seems to me that
the government, especially when it comes to promoting democracy,
consensus and using the House of Commons for a place of healthy
debate, even if it means criticizing legislation to make it
better, is so arrogant that it often refuses to allow debate to
happen in the House.
We have seen time allocation moved on almost every bill since I
have been here. If we spent a little more time on some bills
that I think could become very good legislation and if we had
input in a fair and democratic way from all members of the
opposition, we would see this piece of legislation and others
like it actually become better. The government would be better
off to allow that.
Time allocation has been moved on third reading of the bill. It
has also been moved in many other circumstances. We saw it moved
on Bill C-20 in committee, which was disgusting. The government
does not allow the democratic process to work or further the
democratic process with its lack of commitment to democracy at
the root level in the House of Commons.
As a young person trying to make the country better, trying to
make it more democratic, and trying to get the involvement of
elected parliamentarians and Canadians, I ask how it can be
justified to Canadians that their democracy is working and that
their members of parliament are effective when the government
refuses to even engage in the democratic process at this very
fundamental level of representation in our country. In any case
we hope that it might learn and listen to some of the provincial
concerns.
The Government of Alberta is a strong proponent of privacy
principles in electronic commerce. It remains concerned about
the flaws in the process pertaining to Bill C-6 and the extent of
the consultation that occurred with regard to business readiness,
issues of jurisdiction, the scope of coverage of the proposed
legislation and the provisions relating to substantially similar
provincial legislation.
I hope the minister was true to his word when he talked about
the commitment to make this legislation complementary to the
provincial legislation. This was obviously one of the concerns
raised by the provincial Government of Alberta in its letter to
the minister.
I remember the hon. member opposite in his response to a
previous question said that everything in the bill was within the
constitutional realm of the federal government and did not
conflict with any form of constitutional rules pertaining to the
provinces. However, it is obvious that the Alberta government,
my colleagues in the Bloc and the Quebec government have felt
quite differently about that.
I will quote from a letter sent from the Alberta government. It
was actually sent by two ministers, the minister of international
and intergovernmental relations and the minister of municipal
affairs. It stated that there was a disturbing trend in this
federal legislation toward the use of provisions similar to the
substantially similar clause to extend federal legislation into
areas of provincial jurisdiction. It went so far as to say that
if the bill were passed the Government of Alberta would be forced
to consider a constitutional challenge to preserve its authority
under the constitution. It is obvious that the provinces have
major concerns with the jurisdictional issue.
We have made a great effort when dealing with the bill to put
forward our concerns and to have the government deal with them.
The member opposite stands in his place and claims that there are
no problems of jurisdiction in the bill, that the government has
done its homework and that it is committed to dealing with the
provinces. This is absolutely false, especially when a number of
provinces are saying that they would challenge the legislation
unless improvements were made. It is time the hon. member who
always claims the opposition may not have done its homework to do
his own. The government refuses to do that and continues to
throw out the rhetoric we continuously see in its place.
Another criticisms raised by the provincial government in the
letter to the Minister of Industry was the fact that there was
inadequacy of consultation on the bill which continues to this
day. The federal-provincial-territorial working group of
officials has not met in over a year.
Alberta government officials have repeatedly requested that the
group reconvene to discuss issues related to the bill. The
related regulations that would be required if it were passed have
come to no avail. They indicated that there has been no
willingness on the part of the ministry or the minister to enter
into meaningful discussions with provincial counterparts on the
very real issues that the bill raises but does not address. There
is still no clarity whatsoever about how the ministry would
propose to effectively address outstanding issues such as those
related to personal health information.
1305
This information was contained in a letter dated March 16, 2000,
It is barely two to three weeks old and the Alberta government
still has concerns in this regard.
On the issue of health care documents, we saw Senate amendments
coming in to strengthen that. At least on that level the Alberta
government might be happy. My colleague from Peace River and I
will be discussing with our counterparts in Alberta their final
thoughts on the bill. At least it moves in the right direction.
We need some form of commitment from the government. Quite
frankly none of us in the opposition really believe the
government when it talks about working with the provinces. As I
have said before, we have seen lip service on many issues such as
the Kyoto deal, other forms of legislation and now Bill C-6. It
says it has a commitment to working with the provinces in dealing
with provincial jurisdiction and taking it seriously. However,
even from what the Alberta government is saying, in over a year
the working group has not even bothered to meet with the province
of Alberta to discuss some of the concerns.
We could only imagine that, if in fact the group would have met
with the province, the bill would have been able to take care of
some of the problems the Alberta government has raised and
perhaps we could have had a better piece of legislation. What a
shame it would be if not only from Quebec but from the province
of Alberta we have a basic constitutional challenge to preserve
the authority of the province under this legislation. That would
be a shame, especially when the bill could have done so much to
deal with setting the stage internationally for a piece of
legislation that could have led the world in electronic commerce
and particularly in privacy.
It is very important to raise these issues today. We often
forget how important it is in dealing with specific legislation
that especially touches on areas of provincial jurisdiction but
may well have a mandate federally. In fact the government should
become more focused when trying to build consensus in the
country. It is obvious for my colleagues from Quebec, many of
whom have criticized the bill because of the jurisdiction, and it
is obvious for my colleagues from Alberta who have the same
criticisms, that the government has failed in its mandate to be
able to successfully deal with the provinces in trying to build
consensus on one of the most important pieces of legislation
heading into the 21st century.
I encourage all members in the House to take the time to look
over these particular amendments by the Senate. As I have
outlined, they are moving in the right direction. Obviously the
bill is a good one, but let us see in this final stage if we can
actually make it better. Let us hope that the government opens
its eyes to try to work with the country and try to unite the
country rather than divide it as it continuously does all the
time.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and compliment my
colleague on his discussion of the Senate amendments to the bill.
He mentioned that the federal government in dealing with this
issue had not been very co-operative in discussing it with the
provinces that have the broad jurisdiction, in particular with
issues of privacy. However there are privacy issues that come
under the federal government. I am thinking of federal
institutions such as banks and interprovincial communications,
protection of personal property and lists that are transferred
through lease, loan or sales agreements.
Could my colleague comment on the federal government's dealing
with privacy issues relating to federal institutions?
1310
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his very pertinent question. This is one of the reasons the
official opposition in the House has actually supported the
principles behind the bill.
As my hon. colleague pointed out, there are areas of
jurisdiction concerning privacy that are within the federal
realm, especially as they pertain to federal institutions and the
exchange of information among those institutions.
It is interesting that when it comes to the particular area of
privacy among federal institutions, not even mentioning the
provincial areas that I made some criticism about, there has also
been great criticism in the way the government tries to deal with
building consensus. It is the same thing over and over again,
the arrogance and the lack of wanting to try to look beyond their
own scope to improve conditions in the House and in the country.
I know of some of the greatest criticisms concerning the bill or
at least the fears. Many banks and other companies dealing with
Internet service, at least when it comes to dealing with private
information and as we continue to deal with federal regulations
that apply to those institutions, have been critical in that they
feel the government refuses to try to hear them out, especially
to see what they have done to ensure that privacy is respected.
Surprisingly enough I remember when I sat on the committee that
many of these organizations came before the committee to talk
about how they had customers for whom they were responsible. Many
of them have people to whom they provide services. They deal
within confidential information every day. In order to have the
confidence of those consumers and those people, they need to
ensure that privacy is respected.
In trying to craft the legislation they hoped the federal
government would consult them to see what they have accomplished
in building public confidence in privacy. It was to no avail. A
lot of their suggestions and improvements for the bill fell on
deaf ears on the other side. That is why we are so skeptical
about the government in dealing with many of the stakeholders in
the bill.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for a very good speech. He is the first
speaker I have heard today who actually spoke about Bill C-6,
which was a nice change. I have one concern about Bill C-6 and I
would like to get the member's opinion on whether he feels that
Bill C-6 satisfies my very legitimate concern.
In this era of downsizing of public sector agencies and the
wholesale privatization of many aspects of government, we have
seen in many provinces that the data services aspect of
government, the agencies that take care of health records,
employment data or any of those things, are now being privatized
through the private sector.
In the case of Manitoba it went to an agency which then further
subcontracted to a company in Dallas, Texas, so that now all my
personal medical records are being held by a company I do not
even know the name of in Dallas, Texas, two or three steps
removed from the original agency.
It is a very grave concern because obviously there are people
who would like to know who holds the personal private health
records of Canadians. Whether it is drug companies doing
research or even if people are applying for a job, the employer
might want to know if they have any serious medical problems that
would make them a less likely employee.
Is there anything in Bill C-6 that would safeguard Canadians
from the trend toward taking public records and putting them into
the private sector? Is there anything to make sure that they do
not go any further, to be misused or abused? Is the member
satisfied, if he is in favour of Bill C-6, that very real concern
has been addressed by Bill C-6?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I think that was an
excellent question posed by my hon. colleague from the NDP. I
remember when we were dealing with the particular issue in
committee that same question was raised by a number of people
especially concerned about, as the hon. member mentioned, the
transfer of public sensitive documents to the private sector.
He and I may disagree at least on some of the philosophy behind
that sort of trend happening, but what I will try to address is
his particular question on whether or not the bill extends to
protect privacy, if this is continuing to happen, to whoever is
managing the particular information.
1315
To my knowledge, when we dealt with this in committee that was
the case. The goal was to strengthen privacy particularly in
areas where there was sensitive documentation, whether managed
publicly or privately, and that the same rules would apply,
especially in the transfer of that information. Currently we
have strong regulations in place in many cases for privacy in
dealing with the sale of that information to other organizations,
especially if it is treated as confidential. On that level, I
was satisfied with the direction of the bill. I think it does
deal with the hon. member's concern.
One thing I will reiterate, and I mentioned this to my hon.
colleague before, is that we should not necessarily be afraid of
some of these private companies that are dealing with sensitive
information because they are bound by confidentiality. They are
providing a service and in order for them to continue to do
business and to have the public confidence, they have to make
sure that they are very strict about those regulations.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton
for his proposal, his outlook and the honest and frank way in
which he not only presented his position but also answered the
questions.
I am pleased to note that he understands, contrary to the former
speaker, that there are many ways in which we could improve the
bill and that maybe we still need to improve it. I do not take
the attitude of the member for Waterloo—Wellington that the
government dotted every i and crossed every t. I
believe that in a bill such as this one, if the federal
government wants to build support across Canada, there is nothing
wrong with sending the bill out and asking people for their
reasons for not approving it and how it could be improved. To
leave the people who are going to be most involved with it out of
that very simple process is a lack of basic understanding in a
country as wide as Canada.
Would my colleague agree in dealing with information like this,
that the government should be in total contact with its
counterparts across Canada? Should it let them look at the bill
and give them a period of time to come back with their solutions
and propositions so that we could study it further in the House?
Constitutionally or by any other means would there be anything
wrong with that?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, there would be absolutely
nothing wrong with that. My hon. colleague has asked a perfectly
legitimate question.
As I mentioned during the course of my speech, it seems that the
government refuses to want to deal with its provincial
counterparts in a sincere manner. It gives lip service and
continually talks about respecting provincial jurisdiction.
I raised the example that was pointed out by the Alberta
government. A working group was set up to deal with the
provincial jurisdictional issues and bridge the gap with the
provinces on privacy legislation. The government did not call
that group which was mandated by the government for a whole year
to try to build consensus and deal with the problems that the
provinces were raising. That gives me no confidence that the
government is sincerely trying to build consensus and trying to
deal with the provincial jurisdictional issues.
I still hope that the government has the wisdom, but
unfortunately I do not think it has, to open its eyes and try to
make the legislation better by getting the input from the people
who will help make it better.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak in the debate with a great deal of interest and excitement.
Excitement may be too strong a word given the nature of the
debate that has taken place this morning.
I want to comment on a statement which was made in the questions
and comments. The issue of how one deals with this information
and the importance of this information in the growth and
functioning of our economy over the next decade or so is vitally
important.
1320
I support some of the statements that were behind some of the
questions and the response I just heard. I applaud the members
for actually discussing the bill. When I sat in the House this
morning I was quite disturbed that we were not talking about the
bill. We were using it to play the kinds of games that are
played in the House.
This is a critically important issue. I have spent an enormous
amount of time working on and thinking about this issue. I want
to walk through some of that. I want to suggest to members
including the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who in his intent
in his questions is absolutely right, that this is an issue
which, in all of its forms and this privacy bill slices through
one small aspect of it, will come before the House many times
over the next decade. It is an issue that will, it is my belief,
cause some fundamental restructuring in how democracy functions
in this country.
I have argued as recently as a couple of weeks ago in a speech I
gave here in Ottawa that unless government begins to get its
policy mind around what is happening with its use of information
technologies, we will simply continue to fail in the introduction
of information technology to government. I want to preface those
remarks by saying one thing. This is not to say that this
government and this government alone will fail. This issue
affects democracies all around the world.
I have spent 20 years working in this area, 13 years as part of
a research group that studies these issues on an ongoing basis.
One of the things we discovered back in the late 1980s was that
despite the fact that government was introducing information
technologies, was investing in computers and connectivity and the
high speed networks and all of those things, government was not
demonstrating any of the structural changes that we were
witnessing in the private sector.
It is interesting that if we look at what has occurred in the
private sector over the last couple of decades, we can certainly
see the precursors of this in very large organizations. Back in
the 1960s they began to adopt mainframes and started to automate
some aspects of their operations. The real explosion began in
the 1980s with the introduction of personal computers. Their low
cost gave companies the ability to adopt the technology and
spread it widely among their employees.
One of the things that is observed after some period of time
with the technology is that the organization begins to change.
It does not just change in terms of its cost structure or the way
it delivers services; it begins to fundamentally reorganize
physically. It was an interesting phenomena.
People who are interested in this have heard about how
organizations become flatter, they de-layer, they push some
decisions out to the point of contact with customers. They take
other information back to the centre. Senior management is
involved in decisions that otherwise would have been delegated to
middle managers and fewer managers are intermediating. We see
that.
We turn to government and we have seen in the same period that
government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on information
technology. However we have not witnessed any of these changes
that are so common in private sector organizations.
That is not to say government has not made use of technology. We
can send out 10 million cheques with ease. We can do very large
transaction based operations. The departments shuffle around a
bit, but essentially the structure of departments is pretty much
what it has been for the last 20 or 30 years. The way this place
operates is not that radically different from the way it has
operated historically. But the outside world has changed
enormously.
Bill Gates in his latest book posits in the opening chapter that
the 1980s was the decade of quality and the 1990s was the decade
of restructuring and the decade we are currently in will be the
decade of velocity.
What he is really saying is that change is taking place so
rapidly in the private sector that the challenge for any
organization functioning in the economy is to deal with the issue
of constant evolution and change. We need to be able to manage
that as part of our ongoing environment in order to be
successful.
1325
I like his framework for that. We heard a lot about quality in
the 1980s. Dr. Denning was all around the world and there was
lots of work on quality movements in government.
The fundamental issue with quality movement was the ability to
have low cost networks that were powerful enough to collect
information and feed it back to the point of decision in real
time. If in a supply chain or a production chain defects were
seen in the output, the process could be modified while operating
in order to improve the quality. We saw the rise of ISO-9000,
9001 and 9002 as organizations became better at heading toward
defect free operations.
It also brought a lot of information back to the decision point.
Information in and of itself has some unique characteristics
worth thinking about. This takes us into the decade of
restructuring. The big difference was that in the mid to late
1980s as they began to develop networks, they were not just
bringing back the information from one production chain but from
a whole lot. All of a sudden the information could be
accumulated if they had the strength, the power and the tools and
they could see their organization differently. For the first time
they could actually visualize their organization. That allowed
them to make changes and receive feedback and see what happened.
In the same way we would change the production system in some
ways we would be able to actually look at and change the
structure of the organization.
A very good study was done on this in a book published by MIT in
1990. It talked about the issue of networking and the building
of tools that allowed us to see the organization in a way which
allowed one to affect it.
What happened in government? What is the nature of the quality
movement in government? What is the system that looks at
interaction with a client, be it a tax filer, an EI recipient or
someone who has a complaint? What is the feedback on how that is
processed? What is done to improve the quality of that
interaction so that the client gets better service? Some attempts
have been made to do that but they have not been terribly
successful to date and there is a body of thought on that.
I have already mentioned the lack of any appearance of physical
restructuring. Re-engineering in government tended to become
privatization. A number of members in the House were active on
the transport committee which I chaired when we dealt with the
privatization of the ports. There were arguments that I
supported at the time although I now have come to think about
them.
The argument was that we had to separate the port from the
government because it needed to innovate more rapidly. It needed
to make changes in real time. It needed to be more responsive to
local conditions in order to deal with the issue of increasing
demand for change. It was the velocity issue coming at us.
We ended up taking the ports away from government. We said we
would privatize the airlines, the ports, anything that could be
justifiably privatized. If we turn that argument around, we
really said that government was too slow and incapable of
functioning in today's world. We lose something by not
challenging ourselves to look at how these information tools can
assist us.
As we accumulate information, we have an ability to view the
organization in more holistic ways. I want to lay out one other
argument before I try to pull them together.
1330
There is a Canadian economist by the name of Harold Innis who
wrote extensively during the thirties and forties. He started by
doing standard economic studies, but as he got into one area, the
study of the forest industry, that led him into the study of one
of the great consumers of forest products, newsprint, which led
him to look at communications. I think he is one of the most
brilliant thinkers that Canada has ever produced. The work which
he produced actually underpinned the work which Marshall McLuhan
did later. Marshall became much more famous for it, but I think
it was Mr. Innis who really pointed the way.
What he noted was that throughout history the dominant groups
and cultures have been able to monopolize the knowledge and the
information. They maintained their control by monopolizing that
information until another group came along with a new technology
which knocked them off the pedestal. Historically those were
fought through wars, conquests and all of those other things.
He also noted that with the arrival of systems that started to
break down those monopolies, the classic one being the printing
press, all of a sudden, at a low cost, people could get
information. More people could have it, which would educate
people. It was no longer simply the priests handwriting books in
a few back rooms. All of a sudden books could be distributed to
a lot of people. A lot of people could become educated.
It is interesting. There are those, and I count myself among
them, who draw a line between the availability of the information
and the ability to educate ourselves and the rise of modern
democracies as we see them.
For those who go back as far as I do, they will recall that
during the late sixties and early seventies there was a lot of
talk about the problems with dictatorships in South America. One
fellow wrote a book, which I still have and quite like. He said
that if we want to solve the problem of dictators and oppressive
regimes, we should not send the population guns, we should send
them books. If we educate them they will sort out all of the
other problems. When a lot of people have access to the
information, and when a lot of people have a common base of
understanding, they will take charge of their own lives.
Think about that for a second. There is a modern example of
that. There is a man by the name of Peter O'Toole from the
University of California who wrote an article about how the
Berlin wall fell as a result of the existence of fax machines.
The East German government could no longer control the flow of
information, hence the people could organize and communicate in
ways they never could before. After a while a population which
does that cannot be controlled. They cannot be oppressed in the
same way.
The same thing is happening in China. I have spent a lot of
time in China in the last few years and I am always a bit
bemused, which is a polite word, at how every now and again they
shut down the Internet. There is a huge struggle going on in
China between those who would modernize and those who would keep
the old system. Just recently there was an article about how
they want to build a fire wall on the Internet to prevent the
Chinese people from getting access to disturbing information.
In a funny way, as I was reading that article, I had one of
those enlightening moments. In many ways we are not different.
I want to be very careful and say that by “we” I mean modern
democracies; Europe, the U.S. and Canada. We tend to hold too
much information about the operation of the government and the
exercise of power in the country in one central little group.
I argue strongly, and I believe strongly, that one of the
reasons we have not been able to introduce information tools to
government successfully is because we have not confronted one of
the underlying issues, which is the democratizing effects they
have.
I would be prepared at another time to debate direct democracy
because I think there is a huge argument there. I am one who
believes that it is inevitable in some form. But even now I
think that some of the resistance is no different.
If we think about it historically, when the nobles took hold of
King John and said he had to pay attention to them, they had a
comfortable system for a few centuries until the landed began to
get a little more knowledge, more education and better organized.
They said they wanted in too, and the Commons came into
existence.
1335
As people in the middle class developed and became wealthy,
women became educated. All of a sudden they said “Wait a
second. What is this nonsense?” and the Suffragette movement
arose. The same thing happened with aboriginals, and it happened
just recently with apartheid. It is this issue of education and
access which I think is a very, very powerful force.
I do not want to suggest that what is happening in Canada or in
the U.S. is akin to something as severe and grotesque as
apartheid, but there are elements of the sense of trying to
control everything and own everything.
I argue that is why we cannot introduce information technology
to government, because it is too disturbing. It will always be
disturbing until we turn the paradigm around.
I will tell the House where the issue of privacy arose. When we
looked at the issue of how we could introduce this, we kept
hearing that privacy was the reason we could not do it. Privacy
was the thing that would stop it. I always thought that was
simply security. I have no fear of the hackers. We can keep the
information secure, in large part. That to me is a false issue.
We organized a bunch of individuals from departments that were
thoughtful about this and had big client service loads. We
brought in some of the experts, the privacy commissioner, Mr.
Phillips, whom I think is an extremely important thinker on this
subject, along with others from this Chamber and the other
Chamber, and we workshopped this.
What emerged from the privacy issue that I thought was so
important was that it was not a concern about security. People
accept that we can do that. It was a concern about rights. It
was a human rights argument. It was: “What are my rights
relative to the government? Until we satisfy that question I
will not be a co-operator in this”. Once more it has that
democratizing effect. “I will give you information, but I want
information back”. That is what poses the challenge to us, and
I believe it is a challenge which the House will have to confront
and which the government will have to confront.
I was recently invited by members of the Dutch government to
speak to them on the subject, because they are having exactly the
same problem in the European community.
What is interesting about the bill is that it is not a public
sector bill but the same issue arises. When the Department of
Industry started going down this road, I argued with the
minister. I said that we needed privacy legislation. He said
“We want the regulation to be light. We want to do like the
U.S. We want to have a voluntary system”.
There is all this pro-government, anti-government, government is
a bad thing nonsense that goes on in some of the ideological
debates that take place here, so the department was headed down
the road of having no regulation, following the voluntary model,
until the people who were at the front edge of the e-commerce
world said that if we did not have a decent privacy regime people
would not play. It is a powerful force when it comes to
government, but it is the same force in business. “I will not
go to your business unless I have some guarantees about how I
will be treated”. It was the community which came back and told
us to forget about not having regulations. We need regulations
because it is a customer driven business and the customers want
protection.
This is an important piece of legislation. It does not go all
the way, but I think it is fundamentally important to getting
Canada further down the road in terms of not just e-commerce, but
understanding and using these very powerful information tools and
understanding the relationship between individuals and large
powerful organizations, because I think all of us in the House
want the control to remain with the citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is as far as I will go. There might
be a question or two and I am prepared to go down any of the
roads I have opened.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon.
member for Winnipeg South on a great job. It is too bad that
more people could not listen to his speech.
It has been a pleasant relief today to hear a speech from an
intellectual, someone who has dealt with this issue without
throwing some of the things that have been thrown in the House
this morning, and for that I want to thank him very much.
The hon. member has studied this a great deal.
It seems to me—and correct me if I am wrong—that we are going
to have some problems as this evolves. The hon. member used the
term “educate”. Will we not have to educate people about what
we can do in this field to protect the personalities of people,
their bank accounts and everything else? We have to build some
trust into the system and somehow apply the new technology so
that it includes a touch of a personality at the same time.
1340
It seems like every time we move into these fields the rank and
file people who are not sure complain that it is impersonal when
they make a phone call to be told to press button one, button two
and so on, or they get a message on the fax.
Would the hon. member not agree that it is the responsibility of
the government first to educate and second to put a a human touch
to what we are doing as it relates to the people?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the first thought to go
through my mind was that it used to be when we phoned someone and
we got their answering machine we said “I don't want to talk to
a machine. I am tired of this”. Now when we phone someone, if
they do not have voice mail, we say “Damn it, I can't leave a
message”. Again, our understanding is shifting.
The hon. member raises a really good question. When the member
was speaking about the buttons and the voice mail, I am not
certain whether he was speaking about the specific aspect of
service to citizens by government. In that I agree completely.
I always want to say this. I have worked with a lot of
technicians and the information policy folks in the Canadian
government and I think they are trying as hard as they can to
change the understanding of this. The argument I make is that
this is a much more fundamentally important issue than anyone
realizes.
That is why it is bedevilling to government. If it were easy to
do we would have done it or someone else would have done it
already. Having said that, I have a lot of sympathy for public
servants because they are beset upon all the time by the vagaries
of this place and the hot debate that takes place in any
democracy. Therefore, they tend to build systems that are rules
based, in part to protect themselves.
The hon. member and I would do the same thing if we were subject
to the same pressures. It is not a criticism. When we put them
into a very rigid system, a computer, we have a sort of doubling
of the effect. We have a rigid set of rules to begin with and a
very rigid system. All of a sudden we create service systems
that do the exact opposite of what we want.
I bet the hon. member's files are full of examples. I know mine
are. I actually started writing columns on stupid government. I
hope that over the next few years we will see, as the
understanding improves, a change.
The hon. member's point about education was absolutely right.
This is new turf for all of us. We are all just feeling our way
around on this. We think it is simple because we see the boxes
and we understand it, but the boxes are just the collectors. The
real power lies in the fundamental information and how it gets
used. It will tell us things about our government and our
country that will surprise us.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal
colleague for his obvious dedication to this topic and his
knowledge of it.
He mentioned our information commissioner, Mr. Phillips, as
being one of the important thinkers on this subject, and I agree.
There was a time when we were concerned, as Mr. Phillips said,
about personal knowledge being carried back and forth across the
continent. There has been very little attempt that I know of to
protect, as he has suggested, this right of a person to private
knowledge.
The technology grows in both directions. It was not that long
ago that I first heard about identity theft and had it explained
to me. Now identity theft is something I hear about fairly
regularly. I am wondering, in light of this, if the hon. member
sees in this legislation any of the fundamental tools which are
necessary to protect people from great damage to their personal
lives and to their families.
I think this is fairly specific and very important and I would
like to hear the hon. member's comments about how this bill might
help protect people.
1345
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the member raised an
important concern and I want to treat it in two ways. I suggest
to him that reality does not support some of the stuff we read
about the incredible power of the hackers, the widespread nature
of all these fanciful problems and some of the scary images that
are drawn. That is not to say it is not a real issue. The
member touched on an incredibly important area. It poses all
sorts of challenges to how we communicate when we communicate
electronically. Like any new technology there is a star wars
scariness which the media seem to like to latch on to.
Does the legislation solve all those problems? No, it does not.
I have probably been as immersed in this issues as any person,
certainly any person in the Chamber if not in this city, and I am
still having these little connections as I walk down this road.
It sets in place a framework. It has the paradigm the right way
around. It says that citizens have the right to be informed. We
must not forget that this is largely voluntarily collected
information.
The health area is an interesting one. There has been a change
by the Senate which I can support. Is that information really
voluntarily given? We go to the doctor and he says that he needs
to take a test. Are we going to say no? We have no choice but
to give it. Largely this is in the commercial system. It is
like not government information that is often collected.
It has the paradigm right. I have the right to be told why the
information is wanted. I have the right to prevent them from
sharing it except under conditions that I have been informed of.
It puts a lot of control in the hands of the consumer.
The issue of identity theft is one that the world will have to
deal with. We can do some things. I noticed a number of
companies are now working with key infrastructures that allow
them to know that when an item came in it actually came from the
person. There are ways to build secure mail systems which allow
that to happen. The post office is working on one and there are
other private sector examples.
A classic problem, which the member for Huron—Bruce was
concerned about, was child pornography on the web and how to
prevent and control the proliferation of it. It is very
difficult. How do we do it if the picture is taken in one
country, sits on a server in another country, the payment is
processed in a third country and goes to someone in a fourth
country? There are issues which I believe have to be taken to
international forums if we are ever to solve them.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure and an honour for me to have the opportunity to speak
on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-6, formerly known as
Bill C-54.
Bill C-6 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.
Today we are addressing a fundamental question in a society
claiming to be as civilized, as ours does. At the same time, we
are addressing something that is in a way the price of
modernity, the price of progress. The most sophisticated of
technologies now enable us to access what are considered the
private affairs of individuals, and we can do so in a very
subtle, very insidious and, let us face it, a very dangerous
way.
1350
Addressing this type of issue requires a fairly lofty debate.
We need to realize that we are drawing here on the Declaration
of Human Rights, passed 50 years ago now by the United Nations
and subscribed to by Canada, which says that everyone has the
right to life, liberty and security of person and which states
the following:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
honour and reputation.
We are drawing at the same time on the Quebec charter of rights
and freedoms, which provides that “Every person has a right to
respect for his private life”.
To give an idea of the scope of the question and the extremely
important issues here, I would like to quote a very important
passage from a statement by the executive director of the
Commission de la protection de la vie privée du Québec, Julien
Delisle, of Quebec, summarizing the issues facing us today.
These remarks were made in 1996 and are still current. He said:
Privacy protection is nothing less than the idea that we cannot
live in a democracy in a free society without protecting our
intimacy.
Ten years ago, it was easy to live incognito.
At that time private enterprise and the government sector had
access to a lot of personal information but in unrelated bits.
Telecommunications and the growing amount of information have
totally upset this delicate balance by eliminating two natural
mechanisms protecting privacy: the volume of paper and the
impossibility of cross checking information from various files
or agencies.
We have here before us a very important law, which has been
debated in this House and which has been referred, as procedure
would have it, to the other House, commonly known as the Senate.
The other House also addressed the issue with witnesses, as did
the Standing Committee on Industry.
The result, the other House having shifted the debate to health
and thus muddied the waters even further in the view of a very
great many people, is greater confusion than ever.
Numerous experts were heard, including lawyers who waded into
the issue. Their views were so divided and conflicting—with all
due respect for lawyers, of which there are many, maybe too
many, within the ranks of the Bloc Quebecois—that the debate was
more confused than ever, and opinions often ranged widely, when
they did not contradict one another outright.
Having gone through all that, we are back at square one.
What this means to us is that there is a major flaw in the
federal government's approach, in its shameless attempt to once
again trample the Constitution of Canada, which is supposed to
govern the actions of this government and of the provincial
governments.
This does not come from us. It comes from no less than the
Conseil du patronat, one of the many bodies I will list later
that supported the Government of Quebec. The Conseil du
patronat does not have very much in common with the present
Government of Quebec, as we know, but it supported it and Quebec
received incidental, intelligent and qualified support.
Having given the matter some thought, the Conseil du patronat
made the following statement when it appeared before the
Standing Committee on Industry:
In so far as there is no challenge to the constitutional
jurisdiction conferred on the provinces with respect to the
protection of personal information and privacy under section
80.13 of the British North America Act, and in so far as
Quebec's lawmakers have already passed their legislation in this
regard, it is to be expected that numerous disputes over
jurisdiction will ensue.
So said the Conseil du patronat, and there is every reason to
think its prediction will come true.
1355
Another a very competent person, Jacques Frémont, a well-known
constitutional expert from the Université de Montréal, appeared
before the Standing Committee on Industry and said:
In my opinion, Bill C-54, now Bill C-6, violates the spirit and
the letter of the division of powers as it should be understood
in this country. It proposes an arrogant and intrusive approach
to provincial jurisdictions. Privacy protection is essentially
under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, for example, it is
property and civil rights. It is the Civil Code. It is Quebec
law that applies in addition to the Canadian and Quebec
charters.
This allows us to say that on the very face of it there is a
technical flaw in this bill which, to some extent, could be
viewed as unconstitutional since it respects neither the letter
nor the spirit of the constitution, more specifically section
92.13.
Moreover, the bill takes a giant leap that is a very serious
infringement on what has so far been done by the provinces in
this area, as provided for under the constitution. That leap is
found in clause 3 of the bill, which reads as follows:
The purpose of this Part is to establish, in an era in which
technology increasingly facilitates the circulation and exchange
of information, rules to govern the collection, use and
disclosure of personal information in a manner that recognizes
the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their
personal information and the need of organizations—
And here is what is new:
The important thing in this clause is that far from recognizing
the fundamental nature of the right to privacy, it now tries to
balance this right with the right of companies to do business.
That leap is a very serious infringement, almost a business-like
move, which fits very well into the current neo-liberalism where
citizens no longer count, where they are only of interest to the
economic system as consumers, and where—
The Speaker: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member. He
has 11 minutes left. Since it is almost 2 p.m., we will now
move to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BUILDING DUFFERIN TOGETHER
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 21st century presents us with many
exciting opportunities and challenges. Technological progress
affects everything in our lives from the size of our population,
the condition and use of our land, our health and medicine, to
the speed and convenience with which we can communicate with each
other over vast distances. Communities need to build strong
partnerships and make strategic investments to meet these
changing needs.
I am pleased that constituents, local leaders and business
people in my riding will have an opportunity this weekend to
share their ideas and innovative approaches to help our
communities. The sustainable community symposium, “Building
Dufferin Together”, provides a forum to discuss and share ideas
on a wide range of topics from agriculture, the environment,
economic development, recreation, education, heritage to
conservation.
There are many excellent examples of community led projects and
concepts in my riding and across Canada. Now more than ever it
is important to pool our ideas and share our resources so that
Canadian communities can look forward to continued long—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Albert.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday evening I spoke with a young man from my
riding on a recurring issue. This young man like so many others
is caught in the jaws of the divorce industry.
He has children and until now was able to claim equivalent to
spouse on his income tax while they were separated. Now his wife
is suing for divorce and custody of the children and the forces
are arrayed against him.
He will lose the tax exemption at the same time his wife seeks
additional support. Parents may divorce each other but they
cannot divorce their responsibility for their children.
1400
But consider this injustice. While this young man's children
will receive only a marginal increase in support, the Minister of
Finance will reach deep into his pocket and take out almost
$2,000 in additional taxes.
This is not an isolated instance; it happens all too often and
it is a national disgrace. The government must act now for the
good of children of divorce and both of their parents.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTIMEDIA INDUSTRY
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take the few minutes available to me to draw
attention to an excellent initiative taken by our government to
provide additional support for the already promising multimedia
industry in Quebec.
Last Monday, the Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of
State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada
announced an additional $800,000 investment in the Fonds
d'expérimentation en multimédia, thus bringing our total
contribution to $2.3 million.
This fund is intended specifically to support young creators and
entrepreneurs in the crucial start-up phase of innovative
projects. Already more than 40 young entrepreneurs have been
able, as a result, to bring their projects to the final
marketing stage.
Judging by the initial results, a number of successes can be
expected to ensue in this booming sector of activity.
This announcement is evidence of our government's clear
commitment to the future of young people within the new global
economy.
* * *
FUEL TAXES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance and member for LaSalle—Émard is prepared
to reduce fuel taxes for Canadian consumers, provided all
Canadian provinces are in agreement to do the same.
Why is the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, refusing to
reduce fuel taxes, particularly since the Government of Quebec
receives $1.5 billion annually from them, from Quebecers?
Messrs Bouchard and Landry, you are invited to come to Ottawa to
discuss this problem on behalf of consumers. Let us work
together to cut the tax on gasoline, diesel and fuel oil.
* * *
[English]
DOWN'S SYNDROME RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the member for Vancouver Kingsway I am pleased to report that
the Down's Syndrome Research Foundation announced last week a
$3.5 million capital campaign to build a new facility in
Vancouver. This new centre will be the one and only of its kind
in North America.
Allow me to congratulate all the volunteers, staff and donors
who have supported this project for our community. Their work
and dedication is an inspiration to all of us.
* * *
HIGHWAY 97
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, recently in the House I asked the Minister of Transport
to join me and the civic leaders of the southern interior of
British Columbia to facilitate the continued growth and
development of this dynamic and progressive part of Canada.
By designating Highway 97 as part of the national highway
system, specifically the portion between Osoyoos on the United
States border and the junction with Highway 1 at Monte Creek, the
minister would be recognizing the highway as an extremely
important trade corridor to British Columbia.
Number 97 is one of the great highways of North America, running
from Alaska to California, joining our homes and businesses in
the Okanagan Valley with other vibrant and progressive areas of
Canada and the U.S.
In recognition of its importance, this portion of Highway 97
must be designated as part of Canada's national highway system.
It is an important initiative which we must all pursue with
vigour.
* * *
[Translation]
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 22, 2000, the Knights of Columbus celebrated the
centenary of the founding of the fourth degree of their order.
One of the goals of this fraternal, family organization is to
promote patriotism within the movement and within the community.
[English]
Last Thursday my colleague the hon. Don Boudria and I received
members of the Knights of Columbus on Parliament Hill to mark
this significant event. During this official ceremony we
presented them with the Canadian flag that flew on top of the
Peace Tower on the day of the 100th anniversary of the fourth
degree of their order.
[Translation]
This flag will be proudly put on permanent display at the
Knights of Columbus museum in New Haven, Connecticut.
On behalf of all members of the House, I wish to congratulate
the Knights of Columbus on the centenary of the founding of the
fourth degree of their order.
1405
[English]
The Speaker: Just a gentle reminder, colleagues, that we
should not call each other by our names but by our riding names.
* * *
[Translation]
CELANESE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker:
So?
So how are things, Jane? Fill me in.
The way I see it, all is well
Although one item I should tell.
So small, so lacking in import
And hardly worthy of report,
The Celanese plant shut its doors,
Finito, but apart from that,
Just fine, just great, so worry not.
So how are things, Jane? Fill me in.
Is Celanese a goner then?
What can we do for all those men
Laid off, to help them start again?
We hardly have a cent ourselves.
Tell me your version of events,
I am quite shaken, truth be told.
It goes like this, if you must know:
Because of grants not processed right
And billions gone, right out of sight,
What workers feel is not delight—
Betrayed, abandoned, used, more like—
They want to see you take a hike,
A long one, but apart from that,
Just fine, just great, so worry not.
* * *
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one can imagine
the surprise last Thursday, when Air France made English the
mandatory language of communication between pilots and its air
traffic controllers.
And yet in Quebec and Ottawa, bilingualism is not an issue. The
Liberal government in Ottawa made French mandatory in the air in
1976. We are still proud of that fact today.
Let us hope that the separatist government in Quebec and the
Bloc Quebecois in Ottawa will support the Government of Canada
so that French may remain in use in the air.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Alberta Senator Ron Ghitter is resigning. He is giving
the Prime Minister an opportunity to actually fulfill an election
promise, this one regarding the Senate.
Some time ago the Prime Minister sent a task force out to
Alberta to find out why Albertans will not vote for him. The
simple answer is that Albertans do not feel the Prime Minister is
listening to them.
They are frustrated for example, that in the middle of Alberta's
Senate election the Prime Minister appointed a man who was not
even on their ballot. Undaunted, Albertans gave Mr. Bert Brown
more votes than any other federal politician in history.
Last week in Calgary the Prime Minister asked Mr. Brown if he
wanted to be appointed to the Senate. Mr. Brown humbly replied
“Yes, Mr. Prime Minister, I do on behalf of Albertans and
Canadians”.
On behalf of those Albertans, Canadians in general and Mr.
Brown, the Prime Minister should show respect for them and have
the courage to listen, to change and to appoint Bert Brown to the
Canadian Senate.
* * *
[Translation]
BOMBARDIER
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the economic good news continues. Yesterday,
Bombardier unveiled a record making contract of nearly $3
billion for the sale of 94 regional jet planes. This contract
will mean 1,000 new jobs in the Montreal area.
Bombardier also signed an agreement in principle worth $2
billion U.S. with two Delta Airlines affiliates.
Bombardier also intends to create 600 jobs at its Canadair plant
in Montreal, and 400 others in its network of suppliers
clustered around the city.
This phenomenal order shows clearly that Canada and Quebec have
met the challenge of specialization in small jet planes.
Our Canadian government is delighted with such good news, which
confirms the renewed confidence in the Canadian economy.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two days ago I rose in the House to
remind the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that the auditor
general had said that his department was managing the shellfish
industry in the same way the groundfish industry was managed
prior to the collapse of the cod stock, which by the way has cost
taxpayers billions of dollars.
I also reminded the minister that his scientists are now telling
him that the present snow crab stocks off Newfoundland could be
gone in three years.
Finally, let us not forget about the lobster and the Marshall
decision. The season opens very soon and all we hear from the
minister are very vague statements, the same vague statements we
had prior to the supreme court decision.
First it was west coast salmon, then east coast salmon, cod and
now possibly snow crab. Will lobsters be next?
When the minister was asked how he would protect our precious
marine resources, his response was “Liberal times are good
times”. I can only hope that Canadians do not wake up with the
loss of another fragile resource in our oceans and with a
taxpayer hangover.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on January
17, 2000, the Minister of Human Resources Development released
the findings of an internal audit that was devastating for her
department. It called into question the quality of management at
the department during the period when her predecessor, the
current Minister for International Trade, was in charge.
For the Prime Minister, this was a minor problem involving a
mere $251. Two months later, the grants given by Human Resources
Canada are the object of numerous police investigations,
including three in the Prime Minister's riding. We learned that a
$150,000 grant intended for the riding of Rosemont ended up in
Saint-Maurice, but we do not know how the money was used. The
auditor general calls this situation of one of the most serious
he has seen since taking up his duties.
Worse yet is the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mel
Cappe, the deputy minister responsible for this administrative
mess, to the position of top public servant in the federal
government. Enough is enough.
People are outraged, they want a major cleanup, and this is
urgent.
* * *
[English]
DR. JAMES LANGSTAFF
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to a founding father of Richmond Hill, a
gentleman and a country doctor, Dr. James Langstaff, who passed
away at home last Sunday.
He graduated from medical school at the University of Toronto in
1935 and for a time set up a small hospital in his home. Caring
for patients 24 hours a day was too much to handle with such a
busy practice, so he campaigned for the building of a new
hospital, York Central Hospital in Richmond Hill. He was the
first chief of staff, a post he held for four years.
The first Dr. Langstaff opened his practice in 1838 on Yonge
Street in the same house where James was born, lived in and died.
In fact, the only time that Dr. Langstaff changed addresses, he
did not move, the house did.
For 162 years there has been a Dr. Langstaff in Richmond Hill.
My condolences to his wife, his children and his many friends. We
will miss him.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has worked hard
since November on the issue of border security and refugee
protection in Canada.
The report, which was tabled in the House last Wednesday,
contains two amendments that I had proposed: first, that a
photograph and the fingerprints of each refugee claimant be taken
upon their arrival and, second, that the government pursue its
efforts to conclude treaties for the safe return of some to their
country. It was requested that progress be reported to the
committee and to this House.
Earlier this month, excerpts of the new Immigration Act were
leaked, and that concerns me. I hope that all the work done by
the committee, the amendments proposed and the testimonies of
witnesses will not have been in vain.
Will the minister follow up on the report tabled by the standing
committee on March 22?
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let us examine the government's record in dealing with
the issue of illegal migration.
Eight months after 600 illegal migrants arrived by boat, only 5%
have had their cases finalized. Does the government send a
strong message to illegal migrants that people smuggling will not
be tolerated? No, quite the opposite. It allows 80% of those who
come to Canada illegally to stay, whether they have been accepted
as refugees or not. It seems that the government will make it
easier for people smugglers by allowing certain groups from
certain countries to stay no matter what.
While other countries carefully respect the UN's definition of a
refugee, this government will greatly expand that definition.
As unbelievable as it might sound, the government will give full
charter protection even to those who may seek to enter our
country.
What this hard-hearted government is doing is entrenching a
system where queue jumpers and people smugglers must be rubbing
their hands in delight while genuine refugees are left out in the
cold.
* * *
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme
Court of Canada is now deliberating the legality of the
government's controversial gun control legislation. This follows
a challenge that was launched by a number of provincial and
territorial governments, including my home province of Nova
Scotia.
The challenge was launched on the grounds that the registration
provisions of the Firearms Act are an invasion of provincial
jurisdiction over property and civil rights.
The Liberal gun registry is nothing less than a colossal waste
of taxpayers' money. The legislation will not reduce crime in
Canada. Those intent on committing crimes are not going to
register their firearms. If anything, the gun registration
process punishes responsible gun owners.
1415
The Liberal government said the new gun registry would cost $85
million. To date costs have exceeded $300 million. I ask myself
how much safer would our streets be today if the government had
invested the money in more policing rather than wasting it on the
registry.
It is time the government acknowledged its costly mistake and
repealed this useless gun registry.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the HRDC minister
to explain why neither she nor her predecessor did anything to
address the damning indictment of her department's ethics in the
1998 audit. Her response was “That was 18 months ago”,
basically, “Who cares”.
The point is that she should care because it was her government
that was in power for the five years leading up to that audit.
It created the problem and then it ignored it.
Why are ethics not of concern to this government?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ethics are of concern to this government.
From my point of view, the actions that we have taken on this
particular audit that I have received as minister are exactly the
right things to do. We got the information and we made it
public. We told the Canadian public that we will improve our
operation and, from my point of view, that is exactly what should
be undertaken.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is a little story tale here.
She said that she wanted to make it public and she made it
public. In fact we had to wait beyond the imposed limit of law,
a month beyond that, before we even got this audit. She was not
exactly parading it around as a success story.
That audit was an internal warning that there were serious
ethical problems in the department. I will quote from it. It
says “Employees were not convinced that they could report
suspected contraventions without fear of reprisal”. This is
nothing to brag about; they are talking about fear.
How is forcing honest employees to keep quiet any benefit to the
minister?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the other things
that this report said. For example, it says “Senior management
has taken steps to clarify roles and responsibilities where
weaknesses have been identified”. We continue to build a strong
public service.
What is interesting to me is that on that side of the House,
they, day after day, attack us for taking action, for making an
audit public and for implementing a new strategy of action that
will change the relationship that we have with the Canadian
public.
Which way would they have it?
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the way we would have it is that
honest public servants would be proud of the job they are doing
without political interference.
The audit said that control was a four letter word. The audit
said “The old virtues of prudence, probity, economy, efficiency
and effectiveness are not as deeply embedded in the HRDC culture
as they could be”, or probably as they used to be. Things are
much different there now.
The minister's response was that she would “find modern
methods” of control. What is the important modern method? Is it
incompetence? Is it patronage? Is it waste? Or, is it this
boondoggle that this government—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is important to me is acting on
information when I receive it.
Let us go through this one more time. An internal audit was
done by the employees of the Department of Human Resources
Development Canada, itself a control mechanism, itself a
reference to ethical behaviour. Within the context of our
department we made that information public and are acting on it.
Would the opposition have us do it any other way?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago a shocking HRDC audit
made no bones about the fact that the department fell far short
in prudence, honesty, economy, efficiency and effectiveness, yet
the Liberals hid that damning audit and the Liberal minister has
repeatedly denied that there was any serious problem.
Why should Canadians trust a government that hid this appalling
situation for so long?
1420
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why should the Canadian public trust an
opposition that refuses to talk about the positive things in this
audit and only talks about the negatives? Why do they not talk
about the fact that we did a successful job of designing and
implementing Canada's education savings grants, or that we
deliver services consistently even when making significant
program and organizational changes, or that we are able to
resolve problems once they are identified as having operational
consequences? Why did they not talk about the department doing a
good job of implementing program review?
There are always two sides to the coin. I would like the
opposition to also recognize the good in this audit.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this minister must be the only person
on the planet who can find something positive in a lack of
prudence, honesty, economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The bad part is that the Liberals did absolutely nothing to fix
the problem. Only months later, when threatened with public
exposure, did they begin to admit that they had been derelict in
their duty. Nothing had changed from the time of the first audit
to the time of public exposure just a few weeks ago.
I ask this question again. How can Canadians trust a government
that let them down?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering what the Canadian
Alliance is an alliance of. I wonder if it is an alliance to
restore those who were kicked out of the party back into the
party.
When I listen to these questions, I have a feeling it is an
alliance of destruction, of negativity and of elitism. They show
it day after day in the extreme.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development
acknowledged that the fact that a company has placed itself
under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act constitutes a breach
of the contract signed by her department.
This is the case with Placeteco, according to section 10.1 of
the contract. The minister made reference to section 10.2, so
we will speak of this. According to it, the minister may issue
a notice of breach or impose a recovery plan.
Has the minister called for a recovery plan? Has the minister
produced a notice of breach, as was her duty under the section
10.2 she mentioned? This is a clear question, and I trust that
I will receive a clear answer.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the contract, 10.1 and 10.2, there is
a discussion of the issues of bankruptcy or potential bankruptcy.
What is clear is that the government has options in this regard.
We sit down, we look at the files, we look at the intended
results and we make our decisions.
As a result of continuing to be in partnership with these
companies, 170 people, including 92 in the Bloc riding of
Trois-Rivières, continue to be employed.
Is the hon. member saying that he would rather not have those
people employed?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, Placeteco is in Saint-Maurice. There were 81 jobs and
now there are 78. The minister must stop clouding the issue.
The loan was to Placeteco.
The minister decided not to make use of section 10.2. Instead,
she decided to appoint Gilles Champagne, the Prime Minister's
buddy, as trustee for Human Resources Development Canada.
Gilles Champagne is the lawyer for Gauthier, the future
purchaser of Placeteco, and another of the Prime Minister's
buddies. Champagne and Gauthier were also creditors in the
bankruptcy. It would be pretty hard to find a nicer set-up.
Why has the minister chosen a plan brought forward by some of
the Prime Minister's buddies rather than doing her duty and
requiring a recovery plan, as she is empowered to do?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the hon. member opposite
would respond to the 170 people who continue to be employed
because of this relationship. Would he say to them “Sorry your
jobs don't count. Sorry, you don't count?”
Whether we are talking about Placeteco or Techni-Paint, two
companies that were part of our original contract, let us
remember that 170 people are working and, from our point of view,
that is a positive result.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister's arguments have no
credibility. The facts are clear: not only did the grant to
Placeteco not create jobs, some were actually lost.
Worse still, everything was done in violation of the minister's
duty, which is to protect taxpayers' money.
In light of all these damning facts, why does the minister not
avail herself of clause 10.04 of the contract, which enables her,
today still, to withdraw the grant given to Placeteco?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why does the hon. member not ask his
colleague from Trois-Rivières if he would have wanted us to do
that?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to divert
attention not to discuss the serious Placeteco affair involving
friends of the Prime Minister.
If the minister refuses to use clause 10.04 of the contract, is
it not because that contract is now meaningless, since the
minister did not avail herself in due time of the provisions that
might have allowed her to manage this grant properly?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me just go through the facts again.
Indeed, we monitored this file very closely. Indeed, a senior
administrative review was done of this file. Indeed, there were
administrative errors and I talked about those on a number of
occasions in the House. Most importantly, men and women in the
riding of Saint-Maurice and in the riding of Trois-Rivières
continue to be employed as a result of the partnerships that we
forged with the private sector, with the Government of Quebec,
with the communities and with yourselves.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Markham meeting will shape health care in Canada for a long time
to come.
The provinces say that we need federal money. The federal
government says that we need a plan. Why will this government
not admit that we need both? We need a plan to restore health
care funding. We need a plan to transform health care for the
21st century based on the commitment to a not for profit, public,
single tier system.
When Canadians so desperately need both, why has the government
provided neither?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual the hon. member is wrong in the premise of her
question.
I will quote the federal government's advertisement yesterday.
It said “Canadians know that governments need to work together
on a plan. The Government of Canada will put more money into
health care once governments work out a common plan to strengthen
health care, now and for the future. The Government of Canada
will play its part”. Those are the facts.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with
answers like that no wonder Canadians are deeply worried that the
outcome of the Markham meeting will be market medicine.
With so many key issues unresolved: privatization, home care,
pharmacare, primary care and prevention, the success of the
health ministers meeting depends on what the federal government
puts on the table.
How can the federal government pretend that it is providing
leadership in tackling these issues if it leaves its chequebook
at home?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no wonder the NDP is on the verge of disappearing from
the political scene. It is simply out of touch. If is simply
not listening.
I just said that if there is a common plan to strengthen health
care, now and for the future, the Government of Canada will play
its part. This means, and again I quote the advertisement of the
government, “The Government of Canada will put more money into
health care once governments work out a common plan. We say
“Health care: let's pick solutions not fights”.
This is what we are asking the provinces to do, to join with us
in finding the solutions we need to maintain our publicly funded,
single tier health care system, something that is one of the
glories of Canadian life.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians watched in horror as the CBC's
Fifth Estate told the story of Stephen Truscott, a man who
may have been wrongfully convicted of murder on scant and
unreliable evidence.
It appears that investigators fit the evidence to the guilt of
the crime. Much of what went wrong occurred in the handling of
the matter by members of the Canadian armed forces in conjunction
with the OPP.
1430
Will the Minister of National Defence instruct his officials to
undertake a thorough review of all files relating to the
involvement of the Department of National Defence in the Stephen
Truscott case?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in
the House, we have not heard from either Mr. Truscott or his
lawyer. If and when we do hear from Mr. Truscott or his lawyer,
we will take any allegations or any submissions made very
seriously.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, that is encouraging because the Truscott case, as we
know, has been a festering wound on the psyche of this nation and
casts a shadow over the entire criminal justice system.
The case against Truscott was based on ambiguous, circumstantial
and inconsistent testimony from children, impossible medical
analysis of the murder victim and Mr. Truscott himself.
It seems obvious that the irregularity surrounding the
investigation and subsequent trial and the new evidence warrant a
full inquiry. In the pursuit of justice and public confidence,
will the Minister of Justice commit to conducting a full public
inquiry upon receipt of Mr. Truscott's application?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member knows
that we take any allegations of wrongful conviction very
seriously. If such allegations are submitted to me by Mr.
Truscott or his lawyer, we will review them expeditiously and
seriously.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, nowhere in the minister's six point plan is there
mention of protection for HRDC employees who want to blow the
whistle on unethical behaviour, but according to the audit seven
out of ten employees in her department felt that they could not
expose that type of behaviour without fear of reprisal.
If the minister is so concerned about cleaning up the problems
in her department, why is there nothing in her plan to protect
employees who want to expose that kind of wrongdoing?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my approach would be to encourage
employees to come forward with areas where we can improve our
undertakings.
I want to remind the hon. member that it was the department that
identified shortcomings in the internal audit and we made it
public. I would ask the hon. member opposite if he thinks that
his daily chastising of the department for coming forward and
taking action to make improvements is helping to encourage
employees to come forward in the future.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, make no mistake. I blame the minister for the problems
in the department, not the employees.
Seventy per cent of the people in her department fear that they
will lose their jobs if they expose wrongdoing in her department.
This is a department that handles tens of billions of dollars
every year and every protection should be put in place to protect
taxpayer money. How does the minister expect her plan to work if
employees are afraid to expose wrongdoing in her department?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me point out that employees were not
afraid to expose areas for improvement. That is what these
audits do.
From our point of view the strength of a government can be seen
in its ability to be transparent and accountable. We are doing
that, but I would say to hon. members opposite every day pointing
fingers at the Department of Human Resources Development Canada
and its employees, undermining their confidence, undermining the
relationship they have with communities, is destructive. It is
debasing and building on the negative, and that is not
appropriate.
The Speaker: Once again, the microphones are on two
desks. Sometimes it is difficult to hear the answer either from
the minister or the question from the other side. I appeal to
members.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, our questions
for the Minister of Human Resources Development concern the
payment of a grant of $1.2 million to Placeteco in the Prime
Minister's riding, and no other business.
We know that $1 million was paid to the bank and $200,000
cannot be accounted for. These are our questions.
I would ask the minister whether her main mistake in this matter
involves the conflict of interest arising from the
threefold role played by Gilles Champagne, the friend of the
Prime Minister, who is the government trustee, a creditor of the
company and the lawyer of the individual purchasing it—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
1435
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will go through it again and I will say
to the House that indeed we reviewed this file. We have
undertaken, along with our partners, to ensure that the invoices
that were required to satisfy the investments made have been
obtained.
We also know that employees are working in this undertaking as
well as its former sister company in Trois-Rivières. From our
point of view, continuing to invest in this undertaking is the
right thing to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are not
talking about Trois-Rivières. The minister is intentionally
mixing the files. We are talking about Placeteco. That is quite
clear.
An hon. member: P-l-a-c-e-t-e-c-o.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Placeteco got $1.2 million from the
government. That is what we are talking about.
My question to the minister is: Where did the $1.2 million go?
Where are the invoices? Where is the truth in this matter?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again, the administrative—
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Show us so we can check them.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon.
member again that one of its partners was the Government of
Quebec.
[Translation]
Ms. Harel said “This project meets Quebec's job creation
priorities and was initially discussed by our two organizations.
I understand that you will be paying this amount over three
years”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: It is a scheme.
The Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the minister's
answer.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my only point being that
along with other partners we believe this was a good investment.
We have confirmed that again by doing an administrative review of
the files, by determining that the appropriate invoices
supporting the investment are clear, and by supporting those
people in the ridings that those companies exist in for a period
of time so that the companies can become stabilized and grow and
develop.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, if you are a debt plagued American company and your own
government turns off the money supply, where do you go to secure
a desperately needed line of credit? The Export Development
Corporation. Canada will help.
EDC officials confirmed this morning that the sky is the limit
for Amtrak loans. Why does the government continue to write
Amtrak blank cheques with taxpayer money? Why?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear on this particular file.
The government does not write blank cheques, as the opposition is
alleging.
The EDC is an arm's length corporation. The government is
helping Canadian exporters to export around the world. In this
particular case the EDC has had Amtrak as its client, EDC has
said, since 1985. It buys good Canadian products, creating jobs
in Canada in transportation.
1440
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, arm's length, my foot. The EDC signs cheques faster
than the HRDC minister after she has had her fifth cup of coffee.
If $1 billion for Amtrak were not enough, how about an additional
$145 million for good measure? There is plenty more where that
comes from and your privacy is guaranteed.
The government continues to write blank cheques for Amtrak. Why?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the EDC has existed for 56 years. It has
helped Canadians export more than $300 billion of goods and
services around the world. There is no blank cheque there.
Everything EDC is doing in its corporate account is at the
commercial interest rate and EDC has made money, $118 million
last year. The EDC is well run and well managed and it helps
Canadian exporters.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I have appealed to members two or three
times in this Oral Question Period. If hon. members do not wish
to take part in Oral Question Period, please just wait in the
lobbies until we are finished. This yelling cannot go on. It
cannot.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we realize
that the higher gasoline price provides the federal government
with more tax revenue, when it is already collecting over $5
billion annually, not counting the income tax paid by the major
oil companies.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he who is using
the provinces as the excuse for his inaction tell us what
concrete action he plans to take in order to help consumers?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all very pleased that
OPEC has already announced increased production. It is obvious
that taxes are a matter for the provinces and for the federal
government, because there is more than one level of government,
but only one taxpayer.
There has been co-operation between the federal and provincial
governments in a number of areas, for example the infrastructure
program, the child tax benefit, taxation of revenue rather than
taxation of tax. That is what federal-provincial co-operation—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is not shy about bulldozing the provinces when it
suits it to do so, but when it can act by itself in its own area
of jurisdiction by lowering the tax and dealing with the matter
of competition, it does nothing.
Why this double standard?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to
discuss the matter of a lower gas tax, perhaps he would like to
talk to Mr. Landry about it.
Second, we must also point to the outstanding report by the
Liberal caucus, headed by the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. The report stated that New Brunswick
lowered the price by two cents a litre in 1992 and that this cut
was not—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
two weeks ago the Minister of Health committed a drive-by
smearing in Alberta. Now the Prime Minister is retaliating
against Ontario with a propaganda campaign.
How could the government be so arrogant to say it wants
solutions for health care when it keeps picking fights with the
provinces?
1445
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is in the usual dream world of the
Reform Party.
The federal government ads simply establish the truth in
response to the misleading advertising of the Ontario government.
Why does the hon. member not admit that? Those are the facts.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member cannot even get our name right.
The health minister claims that there is no money for the ailing
health care system. Perhaps he should talk to the finance
minister who says there is money if the provinces submit to
Liberal harassment.
We have a mismanaged HRDC department. We have a health care
system in shambles. What does the government do? It places a
gun to the heads of the provinces.
Why does the health minister not simply go to the HRDC minister
and ask for a grant?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, listening to that question I can understand why
Canadians are not clear whether the new C-C-R-A-P group is a
party or a movement.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
[Translation]
CELANESE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Celanese in
Drummondville is closing its doors tomorrow. Of the 310
employees who will lose their job, 55 are over 55 years of age.
For them active measures are not a solution.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development simply sit
back and do nothing for these workers, who find themselves
without a job, without a support program and who have
contributed all their life to the employment insurance fund but
have not taken a cent from it? What is she going to do for them?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Celanese plant is
closing, but I want to convey that we are not crossing our arms.
I want to remind the hon. member that we have now devolved our
active measures program in the value of $2.9 billion over the
next five years to the Government of Quebec. It now has the
resources to assist in this regard.
With particular reference to older workers, we are working with
the provinces and are investing $30 million to develop pilot
projects, province by province. I would ask the hon. member to
talk to his counterparts in Quebec and ensure that there are
opportunities through them to help these employees.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not sure if you have ever heard of the black hole. Perhaps it is
here today.
In any case, in New Brunswick seasonal workers have periods of
time between their EI benefits and the time their season begins
for work.
I would like to ask the minister today if there are any special
measures to help these people who find themselves in the black
hole when they have no income for their families during that
period of time.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of travelling to
Miramichi and the Acadian Peninsula with the hon. member.
I have talked to seasonal workers who find themselves in
difficult circumstances because they are attached to the seasonal
sector.
The member knows, as does the House, that in 1997 we signed a
labour market agreement with New Brunswick.
To date we have invested through that province $253 million to
help get people, including seasonal workers, back to work. Over
the next two years that province will receive $80 million per
year for such undertakings.
1450
The unemployment rate in New Brunswick has dropped from 12.1% to
9.7%. It is clear that the Government of New Brunswick has the
necessary means to undertake active labour measures as well as
targeted measures to address labour market difficulties in that
province.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
with the provincial health ministers meeting with our federal
minister, the provinces want one question answered, and that is,
why in priorities would this government spend more on cash for
grants and contributions than it spends on cash for health care?
Why would it do that?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is really off base. Last year we put
$11.5 billion into health care; in this year's budget, $2.5
billion. There are billions and billions of dollars of
equalization and adjustments under the cap on CAP to resolve that
problem.
The hon. member is really off base in what he is saying. We are
putting very substantial funding into the health care system
through the provinces, but then why do provinces like Ontario not
spend the money on health care when we give it to them?
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let me quote from an unbiased health care activist:
“The total transfers, cash and tax points together, are still
less in real terms per capita than seven years ago when this
government took office”.
Who was that? The Deputy Prime Minister's wife.
Why do they not tell—
The Speaker: I am not sure what the administrative
responsibility is. The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has proven that he and his party are not
even in the 20th century. They are back in the 19th century.
Spouses are not extensions of their spouses. They have
independent careers, and if my wife is speaking on behalf of the
Health Care Association, then that is something she is doing on
behalf of her organization. We should be willing to accept that
in the 21st century.
The hon. member ought to go off to sensitivity training before
he gets to his feet—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a ship called the Wan Lay is on its way from
Japan to the port of Vancouver. It is carrying 90 tonnes of
toxic military waste containing PCBs and they are bound
eventually for northern Ontario.
This waste is from an American military base in Japan, but the
Americans will not touch it in the United States because it is
too toxic. The Government of Ontario has made it clear that it
does not want it in its province either.
Will the Minister of the Environment intervene to stop this
shipment of toxic waste from being unloaded at the port of
Vancouver?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Ontario, as the member correctly
points out, yesterday indicated that it would not accept this
waste in Ontario. We were in touch, in fact previous to that,
with the United States department of defence. It will be
approximately a week before this vessel gets near the west coast.
We expect to have this matter dealt with in conjunction with the
United States by that time.
I can assure the hon. member that if the level of contaminants
in the shipment is above Canadian regulations we will not accept
it in Canada and it would then have to be returned to Japan.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that, but let me ask a more
general question. Canadians want to know why they are in the
business of cleaning up after the cold war: first plutonium from
old nuclear warheads and now toxic waste from U.S. military bases
overseas. Our environmental laws actually make it possible for
companies to set up shop here when it is illegal for them to do
so in the United States.
1455
Will the minister commit to improving Canada's environmental
laws to end this disturbing trend toward turning us into the
world's toxic waste dump?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is perhaps unaware that we have
altered the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which was
brought into force in 1992. We had a review of it, which took
many years. We now have the revised act coming into effect,
which will improve substantially on the previous regime of the
last century. I look forward to being able to deal with
shipments such as this effectively under the new legislation.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the finance minister expressed disappointment
in the lack of questions in the last number of weeks concerning
his budget, but he was not as disappointed as Canadians were in
his budget. The $2.5 billion dedicated to health care in this
country will keep our system running an average of three days in
each province.
Is that the best the government can do after seven years, keep
our system running for a mere three days?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy
Prime Minister said, in last year's budget we devoted $11.5
billion in transfers to the provinces. In the last budget we
devoted another $2.5 billion. That is a 25% increase over two
years.
In addition to that, we said that we wanted the provinces to sit
down with us. If we can work out a way to save the principles of
medicare, then there will be more money on the table.
Canadians do not want provincial and federal governments
bickering. They want quality health care for Canadians.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, we all realize that we want quality health care for
Canadians. The health ministers and the premiers recognize that.
But the government is escaping the responsibility that was given
to it seven years ago. It has taken government members seven
years to realize that there is a problem and there is still
finger pointing, name calling and blaming someone else other than
themselves.
I remind the minister that his government has taken $30 billion
out of the system. They selectively remember what they want to
remember. The fact is, they have taken so much money out of the
system that they have buried the health care system. They killed
it. We want it fixed.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind
the hon. member that our transfers in the CHST to the provinces
are now at the level of $31 billion, the highest ever. In
addition, we are transferring the highest amount of equalization
ever, which is close to $10 billion. That is over $40 billion.
When we consider that the total amount spent by the provinces on
health care is around $56 billion, it is not an unsubstantial
amount.
As I said before, working in harmony and co-operation with the
provinces we are prepared to do more.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
climate change is one of the most important issues facing the
world and our nation today. I understand that over the last two
days federal, provincial and territorial ministers of energy and
the environment have been meeting on this subject in Vancouver.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources please inform the House
about the discussions that took place?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had useful discussions with the provinces. Together
we are moving beyond frameworks and strategies to produce
specific business plans by this fall, dealing with matters like
emissions trading and testing the concept of credits for prompt
action.
The Government of Canada is going further. From our own federal
operations we will reach an emissions reduction level that is not
6% but 20% below 1990 levels. We will reach that not by 2010 but
by 2005. In addition, there was $625 million in the budget
earlier this month.
* * *
1500
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could bring us
up to date on the business for the rest of today and more
important, the business for next week. It is my hope that the
Canadian Alliance will get a supply day and we can hold the
government accountable in that way at least for one day in this
place.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this has to be the most precise
question of the week to which I will give a very precise answer.
This afternoon we will conclude consideration of the Senate
amendments to Bill C-6, the electronic commerce bill.
Tomorrow we will debate second reading of Bill C-26, the airline
legislation.
On Monday we will commence report stage of Bill C-23, the
modernization of benefits and obligations bill.
The news that my hon. colleague across the way is waiting for is
that Tuesday shall be an allotted day.
Starting on Wednesday we will call second reading of Bill C-22,
the money laundering legislation, followed by Bill C-25, the
income tax amendments from last year's budget, followed by Bill
C-19, the war crimes bill and then back to Bill C-23 for third
reading.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, 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.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I was
saying, before Oral Question Period, there is a fairly
significant leap in Bill C-3 from Bill C-54. Bill C-54 dealt only
with the basic nature of the right to privacy be recognized.
With Bill C-6, we are making a leap to the recognition of the
need of organizations to gather information and to use or
communicate personal information for purposes that a reasonable
person would consider acceptable under the circumstances. It is
a good idea to repeat this because it transfers fairly
significantly concern about and responsibility for what was in
the past a matter of privacy and becomes a matter of information
that may be useful to business.
1505
This ties in with the fact that societies, and the individuals
who are part of them, are increasingly losing power and respect
in our life as a society.
The Quebec government and the Quebec society reject this bill.
In that area as in many others, a consensus was achieved whereby
the federal measure is being condemned by everyone, by all those
who take an interest in that issue, in Quebec.
When I say everyone, I do not mean just anybody. Here is a
partial list of the stakeholders. There is the Barreau du Québec,
which is not close, except in certain circumstances, to the
Quebec government. The Chambre des notaires vigorously opposed
this bill, and so did the Action Réseau Consommateur, the Quebec
Interprofessional Council and the Commission d'accès à
l'information. The Quebec government itself formally opposed this
legislation, through two of its ministers.
One thing that particularly struck me in this coalition—we
might call it the labour management coalition—was to see the
Conseil du patronat which, except under particular circumstances,
is not close to the Quebec government, and the Confédération des
syndicats nationaux, the CSN, which tends to be close to
government, get together to denounce this bill. That in itself is
enough to make one wonder, provided one is acting in good faith.
This is perhaps what we should question about the federal
government in this matter as in others: its good faith. In light
of the very reasonable criticisms made, and given that Quebec's
legislation in that area has been in existence since 1994, has
proven its usefulness over the past six years and is well known
all over the world, Quebec's legislation should have served as a
basis for the federal act, but it did not.
One wonders why the federal government turns a deaf ear in such
a context. It may have reasons to do so. I am sure that many in
Quebec share that view. If we make the intellectual effort, we
can only wonder where we are headed. Why does the federal
government insist on introducing such a bill?
It is part of an operation, a vision, a new way of doing things
in this new Canada now taking shape, this underhanded Canadian
nation building we are now seeing here. This came up one or two
years ago.
By signing the social union agreement, the Canadian provinces
gave the federal government permission to interfere in areas
that, according to the Constitution, come under provincial
jurisdiction. The only open opposition to the plan came from
Quebec, through its premier, Mr. Bouchard. But the federal
government forges ahead.
It worries us. There are signs that this is all part of
implementing the social union.
As proof, I wish to cite the comments made by a representative
of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association before the
Senate:
In Ontario and in other provinces, legislation is now being
drafted which would make it possible to obtain health
information from all existing sources and create a medical e-file
on every Canadian.
The federal government, together with the provinces, plans to
create a national health information system in which these
medical e-files would be available, along with other information,
under the watchful eye of whomever is chosen to run it.
It is because Bill C-6 threatens to thwart this plan that stakeholders
from the health sector have brought such strong pressure to bear
on the Senate and the other place—
i.e. the House of Commons.
1510
When someone who undoubtedly has privileged information uses an
expression like “national health information system”, it is
based on something. And while we are on the topic of
vocabulary, the bill states that, if a province wants to pass
privacy legislation, it will have to be legislation, and I
quote, “essentially similar to the federal legislation”. The
federal government is taking on a role for which it has no
mandate and which is not supported by the Constitution.
It must be kept in mind that, under section 92.13, this is a
clearly recognized provincial jurisdiction. The anglophone
provinces allow the federal level to act freely in an area that
belongs to them, and the federal government tells them they must
enact legislation that is essentially similar to its own.
So here we are setting up a pattern to have everything in this
country done, increasingly, slowly but surely, the way the
federal government wants it. In 5, 10 or 20 years from now,
decisions are going to be made here in Ottawa and no longer in
the provincial capitals. The provinces will all be considered
on an equal footing, Quebec included, and will become, slowly
but surely, nothing more than great big regional county
municipalities.
The choice that is clearly going to be offered to Quebecers will
be to become either an authentic sovereign country, master of
its own destiny and its own future, or a simple province like
the others, one in which the Quebec people will have no
recognition.
This leads us to the conclusion that this is a cleverly and
insidiously worded bill, clandestine, non-transparent, which the
leaders of the present federal government do not have the
courage to defend publicly. We have seen the initiatives it
takes, for instance, in the area of young offender legislation,
where Quebec has an exemplary law of its own, which will be
trampled under foot by Ottawa's initiatives and Ottawa's dogged
insistence on interfering in the area of health research with
its Health Research Institutes. The Bloc Quebecois has put the
government's will to the test.
While it can be agreed that the federal level does have some
legitimate involvement in research, it constantly stresses
matters pertaining to health instead.
It insists on using the expression matters pertaining to health
instead of limiting its intervention to health research, as the
Bloc Quebecois would have preferred.
This is highly significant, and we clearly feel, despite the
weakness or the underhandedness of the federal leaders, that they
are increasingly getting involved, in an underhanded way, in
nation building.
We see it with the millennium scholarships in education, which
is well managed in Quebec with a system of loans and grants that
is unique in Canada. The federal government, trampling on
Quebec's rights once again, treating it with contempt and passing
over the Quebec model and structure, has taken upon itself to
intervene in a field of jurisdiction that is not its own.
We can see this with assistance to transients, which goes
directly to the public. We see it in assistance for home care,
which goes directly to the public, even though home care is a
provincial prerogative. These sectors are sacred in Quebec and,
furthermore, they are well managed by Quebecers. The federal
government is using its spending power to intrude.
This, therefore, is an insidious instance of nation building,
something that is very current in the problem raised by Bill
C-20, for example. In order to better crush Quebec, the federal
government passes legislation, but when it comes to recognizing
distinct society, nothing happens, because never was there
mention of a distinct society.
Not with the transients, not with the millennium scholarships,
not with young offenders, not with the institutes did they say
“Quebec has special status; it is a distinct society”, a
distinct society that is the subject not of a bill, but of a
motion. To crush Quebec, they passed Bill C-20.
The distinct society exists on condition that it be nothing more
than a hollow shell, because English Canada would not agree to a
distinct society such as the Prime Minister liked to talk about
following his commitments at Verdun, where he dropped Quebec like
a hot potato, just like his predecessor Mr. Trudeau, at the time.
We must remember that. We must have some sense of history,
because the stakes are too high.
1515
We cannot take a piecemeal approach to these issues. We must
know where the Privy Council is headed, and talk about the Privy
Council. We must talk about what is Canada's motivation right
now, what is responsible for this contempt toward the
Constitution of Canada. The government despises the existence of
the people of Quebec, it does not recognize it. This bill on
personal information is yet another illustration of that
contempt.
I hope Quebecers will take note of this type of behaviour, which
may appear insignificant but is actually very meaningful.
* * *
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to
table a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 28,
2000. I ask that an order of the day be designated for
consideration of the motion. I would also request, because there
has been so little disagreement with the budget in the House of
Commons, that we could pass this bill on all three readings right
now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will just table
the notice of the ways and means motion, because we have to have
some time on debate.
* * *
[Translation]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, 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.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières for his speech.
Looking at my notes on Bill C-6, I was wondering, and I put the
question to my colleague, how parliament could pass legislation
that has been condemned by the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the
Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Barreau du Québec, the
Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Action réseau consommateur
group, the Quebec Interprofessional Council, the Commission
d'accès à l'information du Québec and the Quebec government
itself.
Quebec is several years ahead in the area of personal
information protection. Why did neither the House of Commons nor
the other place, which reviewed the bill and paid particular
attention to health related issues, tale into account all the
representations made by Quebec?
Is this not an insidious manifestation of the fact that the
federal government clearly realized that the whole issue of
personal information protection is tied to a society's culture?
What this government wants is to cast a single culture, the
Canadian culture. As part of the Canadian system, Quebecers would
have no choice but to fit in and give in to this vision, in spite
of the fact that we, in Quebec, have had legislation in effect
for several years, legislation that is very effective in meeting
its objectives, and does not have a purely commercial approach,
but truly seeks to protect personal information.
I wonder if the hon. member for Trois-Rivières could comment on
this.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague
from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques for
his question.
I think my colleague raises a very important problem, which
should be at the heart of some later debate on the future of
Quebec as a sovereign country in the context of the Canadian
federation, because clearly—and I tried to get this across
earlier in my remarks—the federal government is not quite so
determinedly setting course for centralization, excessive and
almost unconstitutional intervention.
We know that the Constitution is clear and that section 92.13
says so, the Conseil du patronat talks of it, the Quebec bar
refers to it and the major stakeholders concerned with this sort
of question criticize it. The government refuses not only to
withdraw its bill, but also to make an exception at least for
Quebec.
It might perhaps be time to speak of distinct society. Why does
it not? That is what all Quebecers wonder. I notice the
Minister for International Trade—a good Quebecer—who should be
distressed by the attitudes of his government, which denies
Quebec's distinct character, despite the motion on the distinct
society.
This motion is a hollow shell, because if the federal government
were consistent in its action, it would waste no time in the
matters of personal information, young offenders, the health
research institutes, the transients and so on, as is its
practice, in finding out whether the concept of distinct society
it proposed applies.
1520
If it does not, this means that it does not believe in it. If
it does not believe in it, that means it believes in
centralization as the way of the future. If I were a Canadian, I
would be a centralist.
An hon. member: You are one.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I am a Quebecer, let there be no confusion
about that. I am here by accident.
If I were a Canadian, I would be a federalist and a centralist.
My federalism would be a Pierre Elliott Trudeau-style federalism,
in order to have a strong central government, one capable of
making decisions to enhance Canada's competitive position in the
world. That is logical.
This is a virtual necessity for the other provinces, but this is
what is so traumatic for Quebec and the Quebec people, to be
caught up in the infernal workings of a system in which, minority
that we are in terms of representation, we can never gain the
upper hand and escape being crushed.
If we do not take control, then we must call a spade a spade:
Quebec will become another Louisiana. That situation did not
come out of the blue, nor did this one.
There is a process going on, one that those in power do not want
to talk about, and I am thinking of the Minister for
International Trade. There is a process going on here in Ottawa,
that has been entered into in order to centralize powers, to make
Canada a unitary state, not at the expense of Alberta, Ontario or
Nova Scotia, but at the expense of Quebec. Quebec is not a
province, but a people, and this is the whole issue.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
to understand today's debate, one must understand why the Senate
sent this bill back to us.
The minister introduced Bill C-6 and it was rammed through the
House. It was rushed through for all sorts of reasons, some of
them undoubtedly having to do with the political agenda of the
Liberal members opposite. But the bill raised many questions in
Quebec.
Many people came right out and said that the bill was not only
ineffective but ill-timed, given what was being done in Quebec.
I do not wish to repeat what my Bloc Quebecois colleagues said,
but they have raised the important point of the bill's
constitutionality. If I can put it this way in the House, we all
but pleaded the case. Had the senators wanted to do something
useful, they perhaps should have spent a bit longer on the bill
and tried to bring the Liberal members opposite around to their
way of thinking, since they also hold a majority in the Senate.
They could have woken the House up. It is often the Senate that
is asleep at the switch, but this time it is probably the
government members across the way, or perhaps they know what they
are doing and once again have it in for Quebec.
Witnesses who appeared before the committee raised an important
constitutional point. I will read a passage from the testimony
of Jacques Frémont, a constitutional expert at the Université de
Montréal. This is what he said:
In my view, Bill C-54 violates the spirit and the letter of the
division of powers, as it must be understood in this country. It
takes an arrogant and ill-timed approach to provincial
jurisdiction.
I think that this is fairly clear. These are the words of an
emeritus professor, a recognized constitutional expert, not
something that came out of the mouth of a member of the Bloc
Quebecois or a nasty sovereignist.
He went on to say:
Privacy is basically a provincial jurisdiction in theory. In
Quebec, for instance, property and civil rights, the Civil Code,
and Quebec law apply, in addition to the Canadian and Quebec
charters.
1525
This is not from someone who is directly involved in the issue.
This is a professor who studied the bill and who, based on his
experience, came to that conclusion.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec told the committee more or
less the same thing, albeit in different terms. It said:
doc.
Because the constitutional power given to the provinces by
section 92(13) of the British North America Act regarding the
protection of personal information and privacy is not at issue,
the Quebec lawmaker has already passed its own legislation in
this area. It is to be expected that many jurisdictional
conflicts will surface.
The representatives of the Conseil du patronat told the
government opposite not to legislate in this area, because it is
not one of its jurisdictions. However, the government did so, as
it always does, sometimes for suspicious reasons. In this case,
it is rather striking.
One would have thought that the senators would have examined
this issue. If they did, it is not reflected in their amendments
today.
In Quebec, as we mentioned several times, but it is worth
repeating, we already have similar legislation, which has proven
effective over the past five or six years, which is extremely
effective and which protects all personal information relating to
Quebecers within the province's territory. This legislation is
recognized and used as a model all over the world.
When I checked with the National Assembly, I was told that
several other assemblies and parliaments have asked for copies of
the act. They have asked about the philosophy behind it and how
it works. I think the legislation we have in Quebec is an
example.
Had the federal government done things the same way as Quebec,
it would not have been so bad, but this bill is an intrusion and
creates interpretation problems in this particular case.
Let us be clear. The federal act intrudes into areas under
Quebec's jurisdiction. Let us take a concrete example. Which act
is going to apply to a business in Quebec that has information
pertaining to individuals? Will it be the federal act or the
provincial act? Will both acts apply?
That is more or less what witnesses came to say, that the way
the two acts will be enforced makes no sense.
I will give examples of duplication that may lead to serious
conflicts. At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who will
end up footing the bill.
I will give an example with regard to individual consent.
Whereas the Quebec act says that such consent must be given
obviously, freely, in an informed manner and for specific
purposes—it is pretty well defined—Bill C-6 says that it
can vary depending on the circumstances. The wording is quite
different. It can vary from one situation to the next and it
should be explicit when dealing with personal information that
can be considered sensitive. There is a big difference just on
this important part of the act regarding consent for the
collection, use and disclosure of personal information.
It is a lengthy bill. I will not go through all of its clauses
because we have had ample opportunity to discuss all that
already. But how will the courts interpret it? This is always my
main concern, especially as justice critic. I think it is not
going to be clear.
1530
The Senate has examined this bill and returned it to us with
amendments that, overall, change nothing, nothing at all. What is
added on? A year longer before it comes into effect, just as far
as health is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to let me know if I do indeed have
20 minutes, because I am being given the two-minute sign, when I
thought I had 20.
There are several amendments proposed by the Senate. It is
unanimous in its opposition to Bill C-6 in its present form,
sometimes for reasons that are totally contradictory, and one
might wonder why.
It also feels this bill is poorly drafted. This is not
surprising; we said so on numerous occasions. It also finds that
medical information, which it considers more sensitive than other
information, is not being sufficiently protected. This too we
have said on numerous occasions.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. The
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm is correct. There is a 20
minute slot. The Chair made a mistake because I thought the time
was being split with the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. The
Bloc then ended up with two slots.
The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm has another 12 minutes to
go, and it will be sorted out after.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Thank you for the clarifications, Mr.
Speaker. I shall try to start where I left off.
These Senate amendments are a good example of the fact that what
they do is often highly inefficient.
I think they could have sent the government a far clearer
message about this bill. We MPs have received certain messages,
and no doubt the senators have received the same ones. They
originated with all the people who will have to apply this bill,
or have it applied to them, at some point.
They have said nothing about them. The federalists in the other
place could have dealt with flexibility, which is a catchword
these days. Nearly every bill makes some reference to
flexibility, this one included.
I will quote from several letters, which will show you the
flexibility of the federal government.
On October 19, 1999, the minister responsible for the Quebec
personal information protection act, David Cliche, and Robert
Perreault—because these two ministers supervised this
legislation—wrote to the Minister of Industry, warning him that
legislation already existed in Quebec and not to infringe on
Quebec's jurisdiction.
I will quote the second paragraph of this letter:
In fact, as ministers responsible for this matter, we have
written on several occasions to express Quebec's position in
this regard. Without reiterating all of our arguments, we
remind you that this bill would not complement the Quebec
legislation. It would duplicate it.
And the ministers sought an emergency meeting with the minister
to examine the bill and make the necessary corrections or just
to try to convince the minister he was off track. This was on
October 19, 1999.
1535
On November 18, 1999, the minister wrote to David Cliche and
Robert Perrault to say:
I agree that we should meet, but in the short term it would be
appropriate for our officials to work together to discuss the
exemption that would apply to the organizations covered by the
Quebec legislation and any technical issues relating to the
bill.
That was his acknowledgement of receipt. On February 10, 2000,
the Government of Quebec wrote Minister Manley to say “Listen,
we have not met, and the bill has been passed. We have a problem.
You are telling us someone is looking into this issue at the
federal level and the officials should be meeting soon to
discuss exemptions and the Quebec organizations to which the law
will not apply”.
That is where we stand now. I heard a Liberal member mention
earlier that, in Quebec, they will be exempt. Such is the
flexibility of the act. Since we have our own legislation in
Quebec, the federal legislation will not apply. This is false
and I hope the member who said that did not say it knowingly. I
dare hope he was misinformed.
As of now, the ministers concerned, both in Quebec and Ottawa,
have not come to an agreement, they have not even met, because
the arrogant minister across the way refused to meet the Quebec
ministers to discuss the matter.
Consequently, the federal legislation will apply in Quebec. Only
by order in council will some Quebec organizations be able to
obtain an exemption.
We will have to negotiate on a piecemeal basis for every
organization. The minister, the big cheese, will have total
control. He will say yes or no to individual organizations, as
he pleases. This is what this government calls flexibility.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case.
At the industry department, this so-called but non-existent
flexibility is not an isolated case. I see it in the department
for which I am my party critic, namely the justice department.
Currently we are reviewing a bill on youth criminal justice to
replace the Young Offenders Act. Here again, the minister told
us repeatedly in the House “The flexibility is there for Quebec
to keep on doing what it has been doing for the past 30 years.
The Quebec model is not in danger; there is flexibility”. This
is not true either. It is not true when we examine bills,
whether in the case of the Department of Industry, the
Department of Justice, or other departments. Flexibility is a
word catchword, these days.
It is not true that there is flexibility or, if there is, it is
always one-sided. Flexibility always works to the advantage of
the federal government. I think this needs to be noted and, had
they wanted to do something useful, the senators could have set
this government straight and told it that the flexibility it
refers to does not exist. But they let the opportunity pass.
What is the point? What sort of work are they doing in the other
place? The amendments they have submitted to us change
absolutely nothing in the application of the bill.
I mentioned earlier that many people had spoken to us and I
suppose they also spoke to the senators. Their comments were
very revealing, and very carefully thought through as well. They
had taken the time to examine the bill in depth. I have been
here since 1993 and I have great admiration for those who testify
before committees.
1540
Some people are disturbed by the fact that we have been here
since 1993, but we will be here for a few more years, that is
until Quebecers say yes to sovereignty, particularly since we
will have a clear mandate from them.
An hon. member: You will need a lot of votes.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: As a member of parliament from Quebec
who won with some 60% of the votes at the last federal election,
I feel much more legitimate than the hon. member, who got elected
by the skin of his teeth.
So, I have a great deal of admiration for the witnesses who,
after thoroughly examining an issue or a bill, come to tell us
about the impact of that bill. In this case they told the
government “You are headed the wrong way”. They all said it one
after the other, but the federal government turned a deaf ear,
did as it pleased and passed the bill without taking into
consideration anything these witnesses said. Indeed, I have a
great deal of admiration for them because they keep coming back
in the hope that, this time, the government will listen to them.
The Quebec Interprofessional Council, which includes 43
professional groups regulated by Quebec's Professional Code, came
and told the government “We are opposed to this bill. Do not do
that”. We also heard the Conseil du patronat. We had the Barreau
du Québec, which said “You are headed the wrong way with such a
bill”. We also heard the Chambre des notaires and various
associations.
But the government did as it pleased anyway. I find it very
deplorable that this government is not listening to the public,
and particularly that, once again, is trampling on Quebec's
jurisdictions and the Quebec model.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm to tell us whether this
is the first time he has seen the federal government totally
thumbing its nose at a Quebec consensus, in all his experience
here since 1993?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty easy
question, because we encounter the same thing on a regular
basis, just about daily. One has only to listen to oral
question period to see clearly that the government over there is
a very arrogant government, one that refuses to answer our
questions.
I see the Minister for International Trade laughing. If I were
him, I would not be too quick to laugh, considering everything
that is going on at Human Resources Development Canada, since he
is in large part responsible for it, even though he is now in
hiding. In your place, Mr. Minister, I would not be laughing.
That said, yes, the government over there is indeed arrogant.
It does pretty well as it pleases, despite a consensus against
it, sometimes even across Canada.
I will give an example that very much involves Quebec: the Young
Offenders Act. I see two Quebec MPs and I am sure they are not
going to contradict me.
There is a very broad consensus on that bill. I have not to
date seen a single organization in Quebec calling for changes to
the legislation on young offenders, yet the government over
there is preparing to make some extremely significant changes in
order to totally alter the nature of the Quebec approach and the
Quebec model we have had for the past 30 years.
Comments have come from defence lawyers or crown attorneys, the
Institut Pinel, legal commissions, even judges—magistrates have
abandoned their usual reserve to tell the government “Hands off
the Young Offenders Act”. But it carries on regardless.
This is a government which is not listening to the population,
and I am really anxious for the next federal election. At some
point they are going to get what is coming to them, just like
their predecessors did.
Before there is an election, there will certainly be some
changes at the top. We know how much discussion is going on
among the Liberals at present. I am dying to see the Quebec MPs
doing the rounds in their ridings to tell people how they have
defended Quebec in certain matters, while they have hidden out
when asked to intervene. I am dying to see how they will defend
their great record in Quebec.
1545
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to speak to this bill and to say that, in my
opinion, members of the Bloc have made a great contribution to
this very important debate. I congratulate them on that.
[English]
I do not think many of the fears the Bloc Quebecois have raised
in terms of the sovereignty of Quebec in this particular issue
are fears we have to worry about to a great degree. Where their
contribution has been best is in analysing the shortcomings of
this bill as a bill that purports to protect personal
information.
Myself, I come to this bill at this stage with the point of view
that it is an interim measure. I do not think it has even begun
to address the vast problems of privacy in a world where so many
thousands of households are connected through the Internet to
other sites that they have little knowledge of.
Just to give you an example, Mr. Speaker, you can do this
yourself on your own computer. You can be surfing the net, Mr.
Speaker, going to sites in Canada, the U.S. and abroad. You can
do whatever kind of net surfing you like. I have a program on my
computer at home that is not a Windows program. It is a computer
search program. What I am able to do with the program is, after
having surfed the net, I can go into the deep files of the
computer and I can get a readout, to some degree, only a limited
degree, of the so-called cookies that have been left behind
wherever I have visited sites, and also something called
preferences.
I have a classic example of what happens. I was using a search
engine. You know how you are just searching around for this,
that and the other thing. I saw a site that said redheads so I
called up the site. It was just a picture of pretty women with
red hair. It was not a porn site, Mr. Speaker, I have to assure
you.
I went back after and found that topics pertaining to redheads
kept on coming up whenever I used the various search engines for
some weeks following. I used the search program and went into
the data bank. What I found was, it was not a cookie because
cookies are something quite different, but it was still data that
had been deposited in my computer that biased my computer for
searching topics that had to do with redheads.
When I further analysed this particular data bank of information
in my computer, I found that it had an extensive list of my
tastes in terms of what I had been calling up on the Internet. In
fact, I call up a lot of science subjects because I have a
particular interest in certain fields of science. These were
reflected in the list of these so-called preferences.
There are other things. If you go to a stock site, or to a porn
site for heaven's sake, all these things are recorded on your
machine. They are recorded to tell your machine to bring certain
types of data forward when you use a search engine.
Mr. Speaker, if these so-called preferences are recorded on your
machine, they are recorded on other machines. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest to you that when you use your search
engines in your home computer, what in effect you are doing is
you are creating an intimate profile of yourself that is
available not just in Canada but internationally.
1550
Mr. Speaker, the problem with this legislation as I see it is it
does not go deeply into this whole issue of how we put a filter
on this type of information. As far as I can see, the
legislation does not actually deal with this problem of
distributing personal information that goes abroad and is
obviously used commercially.
Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the legislation as I see it does try to
put controls when you take out a newspaper subscription for
example or when you buy certain products like automobiles and so
on and so forth. This legislation provides for certain controls
on the use of that kind of data, but it does nothing as far as I
can see to address the larger problem of controlling personal
information that is going out on the Internet worldwide. Mr.
Speaker, I think this is a fundamental problem that I am not sure
there is any solution to.
Yet we have legislation before us that I think was created with
the very best of intentions. I have studied it actually at some
length. I felt that basically it spins out of the existing
Privacy Act which pertains to the documents held by government
agencies chiefly about government civil servants and anyone who
has had anything to do with the government or worked for the
government.
Mr. Speaker, that is a pity because that legislation desperately
needs an overhaul. It does not reflect the changing world where
we have the possibility of knowing a great deal about one
another. I would have been much happier if this legislation had
directed itself toward putting controls on Internet service
providers and those who stand at the various stages at which they
can intercept personal information and sell it.
Mr. Speaker, what it does instead is it basically uses a
commercial standard, I believe it is called. Organizations which
are handling commercial personal information are supposed to
conform to these standards. Basically the principal one is if
they have collected the information, they are not to distribute
the information without your consent. But, Mr. Speaker, I still
do not see how this is going to be addressed when it comes to
international service providers collecting information every time
you go outside the country or even within the country when you
are using your computer at home or your laptop in the office. It
is very difficult to control these things.
On the other hand, and this is why I do not agree with the
opposition, particularly the Bloc Quebecois' opposition to this
bill, it does do some very positive things. It advances the
desire for openness. I know that sounds odd when we are talking
about privacy legislation, but it advances the cause of openness
in government agencies very significantly. Mr. Speaker, it does
this because for the first time it brings crown corporations
under legislation that determines how they should use
information.
Mr. Speaker, crown agencies currently are exempt from the Access
to Information Act. You cannot find out what crown agencies are
doing. Canada Post, AECL, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
and many other organizations are exempt under the current Access
to Information Act. You cannot find out the details of their
budget. You cannot find out what the salaries are. You cannot
find out whether they have a problem with nepotism, that they are
bringing people in as a result of who is a friend of whom. You
cannot find out that kind of thing. I think the Access to
Information Act desperately needs to be reformed in that area.
The nice thing about Bill C-6 is what it does do is that for the
first time it brings some of these crown corporations under
privacy regulation. It includes Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the new port corporations
that were created by the recent port authority bill, Maritime
Atlantic and VIA Rail. The theme being is it is looking at
broadcasting, financial and transportation industries that exist
as parent corporations.
1555
Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly positive step in the right
direction. We can no longer tolerate arm's length government
agencies that use taxpayers' money and are not in any way
accountable to the taxpayer. You cannot find out information on
these various organizations if you want to examine their books
because their books are not available to you.
This bill puts them under certain requirements of the Privacy
Act in terms of the type of personal information they may
collect. The irony there of course is because they are protected
under the Access to Information Act, I am not quite sure whether
we have the other side of the equation to make sure that they are
actually implementing the Privacy Act, as explained in the notes
we have before us.
On the one hand, symbolically, it is a wonderful thing for the
government to do but it does not go sufficiently far enough. I
suspect as I regard this entire bill, we should take it as the
government's intent to try to find a way not only to open up
government documents of all kinds, but to also build a proper
regime of protecting personal information. But we still have a
long way to go and I think this is only a very first step.
I should talk a little about the amendments that have come back
from the Senate. These amendments pertain to defining personal
information. There was concern expressed in the Senate that the
definition of personal information was far too broad.
The various representations before the Senate were seeking
better clarification of what is meant by personal information in
terms of health related information. The problem is that in the
existing act the definition of personal information is very
broad, Mr. Speaker. It does not specify anything more than your
name and address. It is not personal information, and just about
anything else you disclose is.
I see you yawning, Mr. Speaker. Do I need to pick up the pace a
little? I will do my very best. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
forgive me. There must be a House rule against drawing the
attention of the country to the Speaker. I am going to get
myself into terrible trouble. I will get control of the debate
again.
The personal information clause that comes from the Senate was
originally a very important clause in this bill. I think the
senators were right to challenge this particular clause and to
demand that it be defined more clearly. The definition that has
come to us from the Senate is a definition that expands the idea
of personal information in terms of health related information.
When you go to a doctor and give information, that should be
personal information and should be specifically protected in this
legislation.
I would suggest, and I do not want the Senate to send the bill
back after we send it up there, but I think it put its finger on
something very important. My problem with personal information
is when you make it too broad. The reality is that there is a
lot of personal information that we divulge that we do not care
about. I come back to the whole idea of commercial information.
When you purchase something at Radio Shack it asks us for our
name and address. Obviously, it is going into a data bank that is
building up a personal profile. Most people are not bothered by
that.
This legislation is directed precisely toward that sort of thing
and says that this should be regulated and that information
should not be distributed without your prior consent. I suggest
to you, Mr. Speaker, that nobody cares about that kind of
information. Nobody cares about what kind of automobile you buy
because when you buy a brand new Buick or a Volvo or an Audi or a
cheap Ford, if you will, you advertise your purchase every time
you drive that car.
It is no secret. So why that data should be subject to this
legislation I do not know.
1600
On the other hand, where the senators are correct, there is a
type of personal information that we do guard. One of the types
of information that we do want to guard and protect is medical
information. Hence, I believe this amendment is apropos, but I
would have pursued it further. I would have suggested that
another type of information that we would have like to have
safeguarded and we should specify in legislation like this is
financial information.
The problem is that we are not very certain. There is a huge
difference between people knowing how much is in your bank
account or how much is on your credit card or what your
indebtedness is than what purchases you make. I would have
thought this bill would have been far stronger if it had
specified that financial information is something that should be
specifically protected.
Again, I would have thought in terms of personal information
what a religion is should be specified as something that should
be protected. It is no one's business knowing what religion,
what denomination or whether you have a religion in terms of what
is available in terms of personal information that can be bought
and sold.
I will switch back to my suggestion about the Internet. I see
there are some members from the Reform Party who are watching
this.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Canadian Alliance.
Mr. John Bryden: There are quite a few members and I am
very pleased. I know that they have a particular type of
constituency, not 100% this type. I do not want to characterize
them too specifically, but there are a lot of people who support
the Reform Party who are associated with Christian fundamentalist
organizations. They would be appalled to know that their
religious association is easily identified by the way they use
the Internet.
For instance, as I was saying before, Mr. Speaker, where you go
on the Internet leaves a trail that is recorded not only on your
machine but on parent machines elsewhere. It can be in the
United States or anywhere else. I have noticed, Mr. Speaker,
that the religious denomination, be it Christian, Muslim, be it
whatever, by the way you actually search the Internet becomes
part of your profile. Suddenly people in the United States,
people anywhere in the world who are the masters of this
information can profile you wherever you are because you have
used your computer to go to various sites that are related to
your particular religious interest.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that I have been doing a lot of work
on the Internet. Similarly you can do the same thing if you are
an ethnic Canadian and you are interested in, say, India. You go
to various sites that are either in India or are related to
people who are from India who have been in the country for some
time, organizations that may exist in Canada or wherever. You go
to those sites, Mr. Speaker, and you build a profile so someone
can tell who you are.
The thing about this legislation, the fact that it does not aim
at this type of personal information and it does not specifically
protect this type of personal information I think is an
inadequacy. It does not go far enough.
I got interested in this in the second reading debate. I have
to say that the minister was very receptive to this type of
criticism. One of the things that happens in a debate in the
House of Commons is that we do not all get our way because of
course it takes time to make an amendment and you do not know the
impact. Sometimes, even if the minister likes an amendment or
something is proposed from the opposition, you cannot implement
it immediately simply because you do not know the full
ramifications.
I was able to persuade the minister to accept an amendment that
I put forward. That amendment was actually to the definition of
commercial activity. What it did was it expanded the definition
of commercial activity to include non-profit organizations and
political parties. The reason I did that was because I am aware,
as so many members are and other people, that many charitable
organizations and even political parties collect fundraising
lists.
When you donate to them they collect that information and they
give that information to central suppliers, central information
moguls in the United States, who then send out direct mail
advertising missives usually to senior citizens and the
vulnerable. A lot of people have lost a lot of money as a result
of this program.
1605
The minister accepted an amendment that brings that type of
activity under this legislation. I think that is very positive,
but it does not go anywhere in addressing the problem of people
using the Internet and these information czars in who knows
where, in some hyperland that may be hovering somewhere over
southern California. They collect that information and they
know, Mr. Speaker, about you, about you, about you and about me.
That is a very dangerous thing. This legislation moves in the
right direction, but we have a long way to go.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I caught only portions of the speech
of the hon. member to whom I always enjoy listening. I just want
to correct him. We have a new name. It is the Canadian
Alliance. We are quite proud of it. I might even make the same
mistake too because we kind of get used to one thing.
I appreciate what the member has said. I have been a consensus
commissioner. Members already know what a commissioner has to do
for those who have failed to file their forms, saying that it was
confidential information. In some cases I agreed with them, but
it was on the census form. I have done other surveys too.
Would the hon. member not agree that the government should
always consider the information it seeks from an individual and
apply it to the act, which will undoubtedly be passed, to make
sure the information it is seeking is in total accord with the
bill?
The reason I mention that is that recently people in
Saskatchewan are in hard times and they have filed AIDA forms.
One of their fears was the bottom of the form where it is
indicated that if they file the form incorrectly they are subject
to the usual fines. They went ahead and filed the forms and then
by coincidence or otherwise they were at the same time or within
a few months being audited by Revenue Canada.
Does the member see what I am getting at? Did that one
government form fall into the hands of Revenue Canada? We will
never know. How do we guarantee that information is not shared
when statistics about the number of cattle a farmer has on hand
is collected?
I know these forms are valuable. They are of help to Canada.
They are of help to the government. However, how do we guarantee
to Canadians that when such forms are filled out they will not be
shared with other departments and will be kept strictly in the
department of statistics or whatever? That is the key. I am
worried about that because I have not fully convinced myself that
there is not cross-government sharing. I would like the hon.
member to comment on that.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware,
Statistics Canada is covered by the Statistics Act. That act
provides for absolute confidentiality. It is actually quite an
interesting piece of legislation because that confidentiality is
supposed to go indefinitely.
The member is probably aware that there is quite a movement in
Canada right now to try to open some of the very old census
records. Contemporary Statistics Canada data are absolutely
protected. He should certainly assure his constituents that they
do not have to worry. It is protected from other departments.
Otherwise, I would have to say, if it is not protected when
collected by Statistics Canada there would be a serious breach. I
think we have to take it at face value.
The member raises another issue that is related to that, and
that is this whole question of when a farmer, say in the
Saskatoon area, has to sign on to a government program, the
disaster relief program or whatever other program. He has to
disclose by the very act of signing on to a program that he has
financial difficulty. This is the kind of financial information
that I was talking about.
It is very, very clear that when information is collected that
reflects on the financial status of individuals it needs to be
protected.
1610
I am sure this kind of information is protected under Canada's
Privacy Act as it pertains to this kind of program, but remember
Bill C-6 actually goes beyond the government and goes into the
general community. It is really talking about corporations and
private enterprises.
That is where we have the problem, or at least I have the
problem. I think that is where the member raises a very, very
serious point, because you can be a small entrepreneur, a farmer
or whatever else, and as a result of running on hard times you
may be making purchases or not making purchases. Not making
purchases is a form of information. Not buying seed grain in a
particular year is an indication of what you are doing. It is
that kind of financial information that may be moving around
there that would enable people commercially to create a profile.
Then you know what happens, Mr. Speaker. They cannot borrow.
Then they are stuck.
I just think the member raised a really important issue. Again
I believe this bill is an interim bill. I know the minister is
listening. I think this is a point that needs to be examined,
because we all know the trouble that is happening out on the
prairies and I think these people need the protection of a good
privacy law.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that there is a
need for the protection of privacy act laws with regard to
agriculture and individual people, but the protection we need to
a certain extent is protection from big government collecting
ever more information on the activities of average Canadians.
Many farmers in my riding have called me saying that they have
received phone calls. A strange person on the phone wanted to
know how many cows and how many calves they had, whether they had
grain in the bin and what they had for breakfast that morning. A
lot of people do not know who is calling them and resent that
type of information gathering.
When we hear resentment in the west toward the government we
find that one of the biggest most recent causes is somebody
phoning from some unknown source in Canada, the United States or
wherever, representing who knows whom. Statistics Canada and the
whole operation of the Liberal government have to be examined and
seen for what they really are.
I also resent some of the activities of the member for
Wentworth—Burlington. He makes a point of trying to put the new
Canadian Alliance into a pigeon hole on which to further base the
deception that the Liberal government will continue with over the
course of time.
Does member support the government legislation with regard to
same sex benefits? Does he support the Liberal government that
is continuing to promote and advance abortions in the country? Is
he in fact saying anything on behalf of Canadian farmers with
regard to rail transportation?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This has nothing to do with the piece of legislation we
are discussing. Where is this member coming from? I think you
should bring him to order, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the member for
Wentworth—Burlington needed someone to be a defender, I
certainly would have intervened. Knowing the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington as I do and being assured that he can keep
me awake at all times, I did not think that he needed anybody to
defend him. He is quite able to look after himself so we will
let the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake finish.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, my final point is that
the statistics that are gathered enable the government to advance
its social agenda, which to a lot of Canadians is extremist in
nature, and I would like him to answer that.
1615
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite
complains about government collecting data before it agrees to
award grants to organizations. That is precisely the Canadian
Alliance's complaint with respect to the HRDC file. It is
because the HRDC bureaucrats failed to do their homework in some
instances, failed to get enough data about who was receiving
money and failed to examine the credentials of those people
receiving the money, that we have some problems in HRDC right
now. If the government is going to give money to anyone it has
to find out who that person is and whether they are entitled to
the money. So it has to ask close, probing questions.
The problem is that we have passed through a terrible age of
political correctness in which too many bureaucrats have failed
to ask the questions they should have asked. If people go to
borrow money from a bank they darn well have to answer certain
questions about how much acreage they have under cultivation and
what are their basic assets.
What Bill C-6 is all about is that the existing privacy act
protects this kind of information when the government collects it
but when private corporations collect it there has not been
adequate protection. The member is quite right. If the people in
his community are answering phone calls from someone that they do
not know, maybe someone from the United States, that is precisely
the problem and that is precisely the problem that Bill C-6
addresses, except, in my view, it does not address it quite
specifically enough. I think it has to be much harsher, much
more direct and much more specific than what currently exists.
At least this party on this side of the House does want the
government to ask those probing questions of any organization or
any person it is going to give money to because it is taxpayer
money. We are entitled to know how that money is being spent. If
people want money from the government they darn well had better
show some evidence as to why they deserve that money.
I would argue that, except in cases where a person's real
personal financial information will adversely impact on the
person's future, then of course it should be protected. I wish
this legislation protected that kind of information more
specifically. Nevertheless, it is going in the right direction.
As far as the member's other remarks, they are a little off
topic. However, I have to say that I think Bill C-23 is an
excellent piece of legislation, particularly because finally it
defines marriage in law as a union of one man and one woman to
the exclusion of all others. I think that is a very fine thing
that the government did.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-6. I would
like to begin my remarks by reminding members of a terrible
reality.
This bill found virtually no support in Quebec because Quebec
already has legislation dealing with the protection of personal
information. It came into force five years ago and it goes a lot
further that the bill before us.
Earlier, I listened to the exchange between my two colleagues
from the Canadian Alliance and from the Liberal Party. I could
see all the difference there is between Quebec and the rest of
Canada.
Quebec, having reached a consensus, passed legislation on the
protection of personal information that strikes a balance
between supporting trade and ensuring that individuals are
protected with regard to personal information pertaining to
them. That legislation is used as a model throughout the world.
It is one of the first acts of this kind ever to come into force
and it is the most balanced.
At the same time, here, in the House, members of the Canadian
Alliance say that it is government interference. Now we
understand better why the bill proposed by the federal
government is so bland. It proposed a bill that deals with the
issue of electronic commerce without dealing directly with the
protection of personal information.
That is probably why the Conseil du patronat du Québec and the
Confédération des syndicats nationaux or CSN—employers and
unions, and that says a lot—all expressed their opposition to
this bill.
1620
The Quebec bar and the Chambre des notaires du Québec, those who
deal daily with information and contracts, whose job it is to
advise employers, business people and industrialists on how to
manage information are saying this is a bad bill, and we already
have our own legislation in Quebec.
Why such duplication? A few years down the road, we will
probably have two court cases to try to decide which one
prevails, and to find out what to do in such or such a situation.
Even if the federal government decided the Quebec legislation
applied in Quebec, not the federal one, nothing would prevent an
employer or an individual who felt unfairly treated by the act,
to claim that the federal government's decision was not valid. It
would be a terrible legal mess.
Action Réseau Consommateur is another opponent to the act. It
got the picture right away. The federal act will protect people
involved in e-commerce, but it does not protect them the same way
the Quebec act protects every citizen. Today, people who look at
consumer issues know the importance of telemarketing and the way
the new technologies are being used, and abused, to reach people.
Also, the Conseil interprofessionnel du Québec and the Quebec
access to information commission are opposed to the bill. The
members of the commission are experts who, in the past, developed
an interesting approach to dealing with personal information.
They analyzed the situation and testified before the committee
that, in their opinion, the bill was not acceptable.
Several years after the Quebec government acted responsibly and
passed legislation which has been well received across Quebec,
the federal government is stepping in. Quebec can see the legal
and administrative complications that will stem from such
duplication.
Not surprisingly, Bill C-6, which was formerly known as Bill-54,
was hardly changed at all at that stage. Today, the bill is
being amended by the Senate. This is why it has come back to the
House of Commons. The Senate has proposed amendments to exempt
for an additional year the health sector from the provisions of
the bill dealing with the protection of personal information.
In a way, this is proof that the bill was hastily thought out
and has not been fine-tuned. Even after C-54 and after C-6, we are
now seeing amendments being tabled by the Senate to exempt the
health sector when this problem was resolved a long time ago in
the Quebec legislation.
We are a bit surprised that the federal government did not use
it as a model from the start. This was all covered in the Quebec
act. If the federal government wanted appropriate legislation
for the rest of Canada, this was the way to go.
The Quebec act applies to all sectors. It applies to the health
sector. It is very clear on the matter of consent. Section 21
states that, with the permission of the Commission d'accès à
l'information, organizations may disclose without consent
information from which personal information has been removed.
If the minister had used the Quebec legislation as a model for
his bill on the protection of personal information in the
private sector, we would not be in the mess we are in right now.
The Bloc Quebecois will oppose the Senate's amendments, because
they do not change the principle of the bill, which the Bloc
vigorously opposed in order to protect Quebec's jurisdiction in
the area.
These amendments could result in one of three things: they may
change nothing because there is no consensus and the boondoggle,
as described to the senatorial committee, will continue; future
amendments will be consistent with Quebec's legislation and will
not cause any particular problems in Quebec; in the worst case
scenario, the proposed amendments contradict Quebec's
legislation, and once again the federal government will
establish national standards in a strictly provincial area,
which will create duplication and confusion.
1625
We realized, when reading the proceedings of the Standing Senate
Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, that the
most reputed experts give totally different interpretations of
the legislation. This bill was drafted initially for consumers,
to give them confidence in e-commerce, but reputed Canadian
lawyers have diametrically opposite interpretations of the bill.
How will consumers figure it out?
Also, the Senate's discussions raised a number of problem areas
that had already been identified by the Bloc Quebecois:
jurisdictional duplication, confusion, and contradiction.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois notes that the minister has agreed
to bring forward, at the report stage, amendments to satisfy the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service and announced that he
approved the amendments recommended by the Senate to deal with
the concerns expressed by the health sector.
But he dismissed out of hand numerous requests from the Quebec
government and the civil society, asking unanimously that Quebec
be exempt from the application of the legislation in order to
avoid constitutional problems and duplication of regulations. In
so doing, the Minister of Industry, like his government, is
taking a hard line against Quebec.
We are faced with the evidence. This bill was put through by
closure. The government made a decision. For Quebecers, this is
a good example of the kind of country they live in.
A decision was made by the federal government to build the kind
of Canada it wanted for all of Canada, to the detriment of any
other form of development. While the Quebec society gives itself
its own tools and is ahead in many areas of social policy, the
federal government fails to take an approach flexible enough to
give Quebec the breathing room it needs to reach its goals and
put in place its policies, and Bill C-6 is an example of that.
I refer to a paper prepared by the hon. member for Mercier,
entitled “Bill C-6 Promoting E-Commerce at the Expense of
Privacy”. That is really the spirit that we found in the bill.
It is best illustrated by the fact that it emanated from the
Department of Industry.
It is quite normal for that department to adopt a commercial
approach, but nowhere do we see the balance found in Quebec's
legislation, which has been in effect for several years and has
made the protection of privacy one of the highlights of
government action in Quebec. It has allowed for proper
decisions that have led to adequate jurisprudence and
interesting results.
Bill C-6 is another case of the federal government deciding to
impose its perspective and to refuse to confirm in its
legislation that Quebec's legislation will take precedence in
Quebec.
A clause of this bill deals with equivalent legislation, and
there is probably one in Quebec which could be recognized as
such.
However, during debate in the Senate, it was realized that even
if Quebec's legislation is substantially similar to Bill C-6 and
will probably be designated as such, since it is set out in a
different scheme than Bill C-6, it would be helpful to know on
what basis the decision was made, although, in the absence of
any criteria set out in the legislation we are, in a sense,
operating in a bit of a vacuum. This is what Anita Finnberg,
Counsel, Legal Services Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health,
pointed out.
Senator Murray added that this was a very good point, and wanted
to know on what basis the department, or perhaps the minister
himself, could indicate that Quebec's legislation met the
criteria of the clause dealing with “substantially similar”
provincial legislation.
Even if the federal government were to say “It has been decided
that the Quebec legislation was sufficiently similar and that it
is to be considered the legislation that will apply within
Quebec”, a lawyer might well defend the interests of his client
by saying “There was even discussion in the Senate, when the
bill was passed, to the effect that it was very difficult to
identify whether a statute could be considered similar. It
appears to me that, in the present case, the federal government
has erred and the Quebec legislation ought not to have been
considered similar, and consequently I choose to take this to
all levels of the court system”. This would cost a considerable
amount.
1630
This is probably the situation the Conseil du patronat had in
mind when it expressed opposition to the bill, saying “If there
is one thing we at the Conseil do not need, it is more
duplication, more ways of doing things so that we cannot operate
properly and are stuck dealing with an inadequate bureaucracy”.
If the only thing involved had been facilitating e-commerce, we
would, of course, all have been in favour.
The other side of the coin, protection of privacy, would,
however, have had to be well developed, would have had to be
working properly, and we would have needed the assurance that
the legislation will be well balanced and will offer sufficient
protection, both to consumers and to business operators.
In conclusion, we are dealing with a bill much debated in the
House of Commons, first as Bill C-54 and now as Bill C-5. Yet
never have we had the impression that it was a bill that had
been properly fine-tuned, one that would achieve the desired
results.
The hon. member who spoke before me concluded by describing this
as an interim bill—and this was a member of the Liberal majority.
He called it an interim bill, and thus one that would need
considerable improvement.
I think that, at this stage, we should say to people in Quebec
and in Canada that we have not completed our work, that we
should look at this again and find a more balanced solution,
instead of passing an interim bill that will have to be reviewed
in two, three, four or five years.
The legislation on electronic commerce must be flexible and, at
the same time, it must send clear messages. The bill before us
does the opposite. Here is an example where the federal
government is intruding in an area where the provinces could
easily have taken action, as Quebec did.
If it is true that, elsewhere in Canada, people want the same
legislation enforced across the country, why was it not
mentioned in the bill that a province can, if it so wishes, be
exempted from the application of the act.
Then all the organizations opposed to this bill—the Conseil du
patronat du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux,
the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires, Action réseau
consommateur, the Interprofessional Council, the Commission
d'accès à l'information or the Government of Quebec—would have
supported it.
Members can imagine how different things would have been if the
federal government had just admitted in this bill that, because
Quebec already had its own legislation and because this is a
matter under its jurisdiction, its choice would be respected and
that Quebec would be allowed to enforce its own legislation.
It also could have taken from the Quebec legislation everything
it found beneficial. We would have avoided debate on amendments
by the other Chamber to exempt health, when Quebec has already
provided in its legislation a practical way that has been in
effect for several years.
Possibly in view of its disproportionate taxation capacity and
bureaucracy compared to its mandate, the federal government
feels obliged to draft this type of bills, when we do not really
need them. In particular, it tries to ram them in the House,
forgetting that the Canadian mosaic contains an important
element, Quebec, which has its own personality, its own
approach, its own Civil Code.
Instead of taking this into account, it decided to impose
federal legislation on Quebecers within an area of jurisdiction
already well covered by Quebec.
For all those reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against
Bill C-6.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I have
the honour to inform the House that a communication has been
received as follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa
March 30
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Ian Binnie,
Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as
Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber
today, the 30th day of March, 2000, at 5.00 p.m. for the purpose
of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1635
[Translation]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, Justice.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot
pass this one up.
This bill conflicts with legislation that already exists in
Quebec and which received unanimous support. Not too long ago,
another bill received unanimous support in Quebec, which the
federal government tried to undermine by imposing its own view.
I am referring to the young offenders bill.
All of Quebec, all those involved with young offenders were
unanimous in saying that the existing legislation in Quebec is
working because it is well enforced and that it can usefully
contribute to the rehabilitation of young offenders.
Yet, the federal government introduced in the House a bill
designed to standardize the way young offenders are dealt with.
They want to deal with them differently, based on some unproven
philosophy. It would have been advisable to include in this bill
a provision stating that Quebec may continue to implement its
own legislation, which has proven to be effective.
Today, we have another bill that is reminiscent of how Ottawa
reacted to Quebec's young offenders legislation. Bill C-6 does
not suit Quebec, because we already have legislation that
protects our citizens well.
We have suggested that the federal government use Quebec's
legislation as a model, that it draw what was good from it and
apply it to other provinces willing to use it. Quebec would be
able to use this act for its own benefit, without any
discrimination, without prejudice to the other provinces. But
things did not turn out that way.
I would like to ask a question to the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Why does he think
the federal government always tries to force on Quebec
legislation that is different from legislation that already
exists in Quebec and which works well?
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
comment and his question.
It is a good question, particularly if one thinks about what is
now going on at the federal government level with respect to
access to information. The access to information commissioner
testified before the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities that the
federal government's management of information was in a state of
crisis. Those were his words.
We also heard the privacy commissioner. I brought forward a
motion that received unanimous approval in the House proposing
that all crown corporations be subject to the Privacy Act. This
motion received unanimous approval here a few years ago. Since
then, the federal government has been dragging its feet and has
done nothing about making crown corporations subject to the
Privacy Act, despite the unanimous approval the motion received.
This situation has to be looked at in the broader context.
There is also the way in which the federal government handled
the social insurance number issue. Things had reached the point
where there were more people over the age of one hundred in
Canada than in China or in the United States, because of the
very poor monitoring of social insurance numbers.
1640
The bottom line is that it is not a very good idea for the
federal government to be legislating in this sector where its
own track record is not very good.
The member for Joliette was asking me what this situation tells
us.
I think that it tells us that we are dealing with a central
government that wants to control how things are seen in Canada.
There is only one way to see things and it is the one imposed by
the concerns and wishes of the top federal bureaucrats, who have
their own vision of Canada and of the way things should be done,
and who definitely do not want to stop, because other people
have already developed approaches as efficient as theirs.
We have a perfect example of that attitude in this case. The
Government of Quebec has a good legislation on personal
information protection. It has been adapted, revised and it
works. It is one of Quebec's finest piece of legislation. It is
cited as an example world-wide.
In spite of representations made by all stakeholders in Quebec,
organizations such as the Canadian Bar, the Conseil du patronat
du Québec, labour unions, consumer advocacy organizations, the
Quebec government and the Commission d'accès à l'information,
which are familiar with the information protection sector, the
federal government could not make a decision.
All those people came to tell us “We do not mind you passing a
law for the rest of Canada, which will meet your expectations.
If what you want is to provide greater protection for e-commerce
than for consumers, that is your business, but leave our
legislation be”.
The federal government would not, that is why the Bloc Quebecois
will vote against the bill.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques
talked about duplication.
For the benefit of those watching us, I would like to ask him
this: Could such duplication place extra costs on taxpayers in
Quebec, where there is already an act on personal information
protection, now that the federal government has decided to
interfere in its jurisdiction?
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, two situations can occur: either it
will be recognized as similar by the federal government or it
will not.
In both cases, it could happen that an individual or an
entrepreneur, someone involved in electronic commerce for
example, would go to court and say “The fact that the federal
government has make its legislation similar to the Quebec
legislation seems unacceptable to me. The criteria are not clear
and well defined. Therefore, I do not accept this recognition by
the federal government and want the federal legislation to apply
in my case because the Quebec legislation is more restrictive
for me”. We could see this kind of situation, and it would
create duplication.
There is also the other situation where this bill will probably
be passed. The Liberal majority seems intent on imposing it on
us.
Well, there will be a period where it will apply and where the
Quebec legislation will not necessarily have been recognized as
similar. During that period where both acts apply, we could have
very serious legal complications.
In today's society, most people do business through the
Internet. We do not know what kind of situation will occur.
Which legislation will apply to an electronic commerce
transaction between a client from a Quebec-based business dealing
with an Alberta-based business, or between a resident of New
Brunswick and a Quebec-based business?
It is not very clear, unless there is explicit recognition by
the federal government, which should have been included in the
bill.
It would have been clear and would not have been open to
interpretation. We are now left with a bill that is too vague
and that will be open to interpretation and will lead to
considerable legal costs and perhaps, ultimately, to people
being hurt by an interpretation that does not guarantee adequate
protection of personal information, like the legislation passed
by the Quebec National Assembly, contrary to the one this
parliament is about to pass.
1645
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak again today to this important legislation, Bill C-6. Once
again, this bill shows that the federal government is not
minding its own business.
Since 1993, when the Liberal government took power in this
House, we have seen that they stepped up their invasion of
provincial areas of jurisdiction. But before going any further,
I would like to say how abused I feel once again today, in this
parliament, how I figure there is less and less democracy, as
yet another gag was imposed this morning.
Time allocation motions limit debate for all members of the
House. We feel more and more that this government has a
centralization agenda designed to invade practically all the
powers of the provinces, since the Canadian Constitution is not
enforced anymore.
When one looks at all series of bills that have been passed
since 1993, one realizes that the situation is becoming
dangerous. One wonders how far this government will go to attain
its goal.
This project dates back to the time when Pierre Elliott Trudeau
was elected, in 1968. The present Prime Minister was one of his
loyal henchmen. They started a process to make this country a
centralized one, a country taking over provincial powers. I will
not recall the dark moments that marked democracy in Quebec. But
the same thing is happening with Bill C-6.
When the history of that party is being written, it will be said
that it has constantly applied itself to invading areas of
provincial responsibility.
What is more, if only Bloc Quebecois members were denouncing
this situation in today's debate on Bill C-6, it could be said
that this is because of our specific character, our specific
nature as a party. But no, I have here a list of all those who
are opposed to this bill.
There is an increasing realization that there is a consensus in
Quebec from all communities. They are joining forces in
opposition to this bill. I will give a few examples.
There is the Conseil du patronat, the Confédération des
syndicats nationaux, better known as the CSN, the Barreau du
Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Conseil
interprovincial du Québec, the Commission de l'accès à
l'information du Québec, and finally the Government of Quebec.
It can be seen that employers, labour unions, professional
associations and the Government of Quebec all oppose this bill,
now known as Bill C-6.
Once again, why create a precedent, when Quebec already has the
necessary tools to do this? Why create one more tool, when
Quebec has what is necessary, and what is more it is more
efficient than what is being proposed in this bill today?
We realize the government never takes the time to consult its
associates or its potential partners. That too has been a
trademark of this government since 1993.
1650
One only has to look at how the current Minister of Health is
about to try to impose his national vision. There again, the
provincial health ministers and premiers will have to get
together and create a consensus to try to prevent this intrusion
into the health sector.
The same goes in the case of Bill C-6. Some might say that every
time Bloc Quebecois members rise they raise such issues. I often
think I should make copies of the Canadian constitution and
distribute them to all the Liberal members opposite. They would
learn that this constitution, their constitution, gives
exclusive rights to the provinces.
But these rights have been ignored and the federal government is
increasingly trying to dismiss the constitution. This leads to
friction and disputes with Quebec and with the other provinces.
I would like to discuss some of the amendments made to Bill C-6,
formerly Bill C-54, which died on the order paper when the first
session of this Parliament was prorogued. Members will remember
that my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, had worked very
hard to prevent passage of that bill. Now, Bill C-6 is back with
the amendments proposed by the Senate.
As members know, the Senate proposes the following amendments:
Because the health sector is unanimously opposed to Bill C-6 in
its present form, sometimes for totally contradictory reasons;
because it feels that, in its present form, the bill does not
adequately protect medical information, which it deems more
sensitive than other types of information, and because the
notion of commercial activities in the context in which the bill
applies is almost impossible to define in the health sector.
This means that the senators in the Upper House were made aware
of the fact that the bill does not at all respect the Canadian
and Quebec reality.
In a motion that he brought forward in the
House on February 7, the Minister of Industry indicated that he
would accept certain amendments from the Senate. We then thought
that the minister would follow up on the concerns expressed by
the various stakeholders who will have to live with the
consequences of Bill C-6.
Bill C-6 is a fundamental piece of legislation. With the changes
happening in the multimedia area, the issue of personal
information is one that must be looked at. We do not have the
necessary tools to protect privacy because information is being
transmitted at such a high speed.
Around 20 years ago, the fax machine was introduced. Today we
have digital radio. We can receive radio and TV programs
anywhere in the world thanks to satellite dishes. Then there is
the whole issue of Internet.
Sure, people are increasingly concerned when they have to deal
with these new media and these new ways of communicating such as
Internet. They wonder whether all the information they have will
be protected.
Recently, more and more people have been shunning traditional
ways of doing business. They use the Internet. When they see a
bill taking away things that are guaranteed by the current
legislation in Quebec, there are worried.
1655
Its very difficult to understand the attitude of the Liberal
government who, month after month, has been multiplying its
efforts to centralize and just about take away the powers of the
provinces.
What is this government looking for? There is not one piece of
legislation currently before the House that reflects the reality
in Quebec or in Canada. Where do they get their ideas, all these
ministers, their officials, their researchers, all those who
gravitate around government circles, all those who gravitate
around the Liberal government? Why do they not consult the
provinces and the people concerned more often?
We are always having to fight in this House to correct the
injustices that are increasingly flagrant in this government.
Recently, it again imposed a bill on us, Bill C-20. The
government also tried, in its effort to meddle in health matters
with Bill C-13 and today with Bill C-6, to redo what Quebec has
done.
Another law dear to my heart is the one on young offenders, the
one that once again everyone in Quebec unanimously opposes.
Basically, all the government is trying to do is substantially
amend the Young Offenders Act.
Quebec truly gives effect to this law, and the Liberal
government will try with these amendments to meddle and change
the rules. Basically Quebec and English Canada are very
different, and this becomes clear with this legislation on young
offenders.
The situation is the same with Bill C-6. Why penalize Quebec,
which is out in the lead? Why penalize the Government of
Quebec, which always puts forward more realistic and appropriate
laws that truly meet the needs of the people of the 21st
century? Why does the federal government insist on taking away
the rights of the people of Quebec and the National Assembly?
For the past two years in this House, whether with Bill C-54 or
with the current Bill C-6, the members who have opposed it since
it was introduced have not budged. They have continued to
oppose Bill C-6 openly, while across the way, they continue their
bulldozing and their desire to have the bill passed quickly.
We realize that this government never takes time to consult.
If there is a consultation, and I am again thinking of the
famous consultations in which I participated, which were least
two cross-Canada prebudget consultations—one realizes, when one
listens to the Minister of Finance reading the budget, that the
Minister of Finance himself has strongly advised those at the
head of the Standing Committee on Finance to have a strong hand
in writing the report, which then has nothing to do with what
members heard or what the public, groups, citizens and
organizations want.
In addition to becoming increasingly anti-democratic, this
government is no longer listening to the public. The gulf
between Quebec and English Canada continues to widen, and
passing a bill such as Bill C-6 is not going to close the gap
between the needs of Quebec and those of the rest of English
Canada.
1700
Once again, I urge the Minister of Industry, his cabinet
colleagues and all federal Liberal members from Quebec, those
who should normally understand what is going on in Quebec, but
who do not, to think about what they are doing.
Normally, they should be on their feet in the House speaking out
against the federal government's frequent intrusions in Quebec's
jurisdictions. But they are silent; there is not a peep out of
them. The only members rising in the House to defend the
interests of Quebec are Bloc Quebecois members.
In the coming months, I think that Quebecers will realize that
Bloc Quebecois members are the only ones capable of defending
Quebec's interests.
Since my election to this House, in June 1997, I can recall no
event, no legislation nor any action which demonstrated that
this government is listening to Quebec.
When one runs a country like Canada and is no longer responsive
to the true needs of the population, this is a dangerous
situation. It is dangerous for democracy. Besides being no
longer responsive, this government has been resorting to closure
increasingly to all kinds of procedural means in the House of
Commons. It is trying to prevent people from expressing their
views.
Again, the Quebec National Assembly is increasingly aware that
there is not much to be expected from the House of Commons. This
Liberal government continuously takes powers and jurisdictions
away from Quebec.
I would like to come back to Bill C-6, which is not different
from other legislation introduced in this House. This bill will
directly encroach on legislation which is normally enforced by
Quebec.
As far as information and privacy are concerned, given the
constant evolution in computer technology, protection measures
become necessary to prevent dramatic situations. The system
could create information problems and leaks. Anyone and any
organization using computer systems must be protected against
all those nets, which are invading society more and more.
In conclusion, since there are only a few hours left before the
bill is passed, I ask the Liberal government to be, for once,
responsive in its undertakings.
I ask it to be responsive to Quebec but also to admit that it
was wrong in introducing a legislation like Bill C-6. It would
show courage if it withdrew this bill today.
Despite our constant appeals to our colleagues across the way,
we get no answers. The people of Quebec are increasingly aware
that when they talk to the federal government, they get no
answers.
1705
Not only do the 26 federal Liberal members from Quebec give no
answer, they remain mute.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Translation]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General
desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the
chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1720
[English]
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy
Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the
royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend
another act in consequence—Chapter 1.
Bill C-202, an act to amend the Criminal Code (flight)—Chapter 2.
Bill C-29, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 2000—Chapter 3.
Bill C-30, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 2001—Chapter 4.
Bill S-14, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the Board
of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in
America.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, 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 Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this
day the question to dispose of the Senate amendments to Bill C-6
is deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and
deferred until Tuesday, April 4, 2000, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
[Translation]
It being 5.20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-205, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in
employment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-205 introduced by my
colleague, the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
When my colleague introduced his bill last February, we were a
few weeks away from the day the Minister of Finance was
scheduled to bring down his budget.
At that time my colleague was hoping the minister would respond
to his concerns, but he did not make the commitment to amend the
Income Tax Act to allow auto mechanics to deduct from their
taxable income the cost of the tools they have to buy, update
and maintain as a condition of their employment.
I must emphasize the fact that auto mechanics are the victims of
an unfair situation that has been going on for too long. In that
context, on February 17 of this year, the Automotive Industries
Association of Canada sent to the 301 members of this House a
letter asking the government to correct this injustice done to
Canadian mechanics.
Since the finance minister failed to deal with this issue in his
last budget, I doubt very much whether he took the trouble to
read this group's recommendations. For his information, I will
read some very interesting quotes from their letter which I hope
will enlighten the finance minister, and I quote:.
I am not saying this; a Canadian association representing
140,000 mechanics across Canada is saying this.
According to the association, young people are shunning this
trade because the job conditions are not attractive.
Indeed a basic set of tools costs at least $4,000, while an
apprentice makes less than $25,000 a year. During their first
four years at work technicians will invest around 15% of their
net income, in tools.
I would like the finance minister, but I believe it is asking
too much of him, to put himself in their shoes. I believe he is
above all that, but I appeal to his nobler sentiments, and I
hope he will listen carefully to what I have to say.
1725
An apprentice earns only $25,000 gross. Gross means before
taxes, before paying for his rent, his food, his student loan if
he has one. Once all this has been deducted, he has very little
money left. And on top of that, he has to find $4,000 to pay for
his tools.
Members can see how unjust and unacceptable it is for this
category of workers. I believe it is a question of common sense,
and I appeal to the common sense of all members. The minister
should look at this issue with an open mind, especially since he
has known about this injustice for several years.
These people have been the victims of this injustice for a long
time, and the finance minister, who has been in that portfolio
for seven years, is familiar with the problem, but he has not
done anything yet.
Could anybody give me another profession where workers have
similar problems? I would like to know. But there is none, of
course. Chainsaw operators, musicians and artists may claim a
deduction for the cost of their tools or instruments.
Let me quote the same letter again:
Year in and year out, the demand for automotive technicians goes
up, as consumers keep their cars longer because of increased
durability and other factors. Modern vehicles are also more
complex than ever, and their maintenance requires qualified
technicians.
We should realize that these technicians do not need just a
couple of screwdrivers. As I said earlier, those who want to
specialize could spend between $4,000 and $30,000 on their
tools.
This is the second hour of debate on this bill. I have been
listening intently to the objections of members opposite.
Objections have only been raised on the government side. There
is a consensus on this bill on opposition benches. Four parties
out of five support my hon. colleague's bill, a support that
translates into a 60% support in the population, if we refer to
the 1997 election results.
In our system, a party can win a majority of seats without
getting the plurality of votes.
The government should be sensitive to this, but when we look at
how it rammed Bill C-20 through, its sense of democracy is all
too apparent. The rules of the House were stretched to the limit
to get this bill tabled in December. The work of the legislative
committee studying the bill was abruptly curtailed and a gag was
imposed to speed the bill through. Democratic this government
is not.
But I am straying from today's topic. I was saying that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance had said that
the bill could not be passed because allowing mechanics such a
deduction would be unfair, since other workers would not receive
the same treatment.
At the risk of repeating myself, I wish to remind him that the
situation of mechanics is completely different, given the huge
amounts they must spend compared to what they earn.
Furthermore, I find this argument completely unfounded because
musicians, chain saw operators and some office workers are
allowed certain tax deductions. The government should realize
that it is contradicting itself on this issue.
In addition, I know that one of the government's big fears is
that mechanics will put some of their tools to personal use.
This is naturally something that deserves our attention. All
the same, I would like to point out that even though musicians
are entitled to deductions for the purchase of their musical
instruments, I would be very surprised if they did not use them
outside the work context, just like chain saw operators, or
office workers who must do the odd bit of personal business on
their laptop.
1730
There is no way to guarantee that mechanics will limit use of
their tools to job-related work. This is perfectly normal. I
still think that hiding behind this sort of argument to reject
the bill is sticking one's head in the sand.
In conclusion, I wish to mention that over 35,000 post cards
have been sent to the Minister of Finance. Since there are
140,000 mechanics in Canada, I think the message is clear. They
want action. I hope that the government will listen to reason
on this issue and I really hope the government will support the
bill introduced by the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Îles-d'Orléans.
[English]
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am always pleased to have any opportunity to discuss tax
relief. It is a subject that is very important to me and tax
relief for all Canadians is a cause that I care passionately
about.
The proposed legislation must not be considered in isolation
since it will no doubt set a precedent for other groups that
follow. When we discuss tax relief, we must ensure that it is
tax relief that is practical and that will benefit all Canadians,
particularly low and middle income Canadians and those raising
families. To suggest anything else would be less effective and
lack any sense of priority.
[Translation]
Even if we now have balanced budgets or surpluses and a strong
economy, our financial resources are not unlimited. This
government is committed to ensuring a rational and conscientious
use of these resources, in the interests of the greatest number
of Canadians possible.
[English]
That is why in last fall's fiscal and economic update the
Minister of Finance set out clear and concrete principles that
set the priorities for federal tax relief.
First, tax reductions must be fair and give priority to those
who need them most, middle and low income Canadians, especially
families with children.
Second, broad based tax relief should focus first on personal
income taxes.
Third, the business tax system must be internationally
competitive.
Finally, broad based relief should not be funded with borrowed
money.
In other words, the type and size of any tax action we take must
be managed so as to never endanger our continuing commitments to
balanced budgets. These are the principles that have governed
our actions.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. With great respect to you, as a very knowledgeable
Speaker, there is an old and ancient rule in the House of
Commons, of which I am sure you are fully aware, that when an
hon. member is speaking he or she is not supposed to read a
speech but to only refer to notes from time to time. I wonder if
you could inform the hon. member of that ancient practice. I
know you have a lot of experience and can cite the particular
rule.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marceau): I thank the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle for what he said, but I believe the hon. member
for Windsor—St. Clair is referring to his notes in a proper
manner. I think he deserves to continue his speech, and I hope
the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle will listen to him very
attentively.
[English]
Mr. Rick Limoges: These are principles that have governed
our actions, highlighted by the multi-year tax cutting plan
announced in the February budget.
However, even before that, in the update itself, we announced
steps that provide concrete benefits to every Canadian employee,
not just a single group like mechanics. We announced that for
the sixth year in a row employment insurance premiums would be
reduced from $2.55 to $2.40 for the year 2000. This means that
employees and employers will save an additional $1.2 billion this
year, bringing total annual savings relative to the rate that
prevailed in 1994 to $5.2 billion.
We then followed up with budget 2000 and its proposed five year
tax reduction plan. This is a plan to provide real and lasting
tax relief for all Canadians, providing accumulative savings of
at least $58 billion over the next five years with a particular
emphasis on families with children.
1735
[Translation]
The plan is based on two measures that break with the past to
implement the two most important structural changes made to the
tax system in more than 10 years.
First, the plan provides for full re-indexation of personal
income tax, retroactive to January 1, 2000. This measure will
benefit all Canadians, particularly low and middle income
earners.
[English]
Second, the plan will reduce the middle income tax rate to 23%
from 26%, beginning with a two point drop to 24% on July 1, 2000.
This will cut taxes for nine million Canadians. I would expect
that many mechanics would fall into this category.
These changes anchor a range of other actions to help reduce
working Canadians' tax burden.
Personal income taxes will be further reduced within five years
by increasing to at least $8,000 the amount Canadians can earn
tax free and by raising the income amounts at which the middle
and upper tax rates begin to apply to at least $35,000 and
$75,000 respectively, again, to the lasting benefits of all
Canadians.
To assist families with children, the Canada child tax benefit,
CCTB, will be enriched by $2.5 million a year by 2004 to more
than $9 billion annually. Maximum benefits will reach $2,400 for
the first child and $2,200 for the second child.
Personal tax cuts alone will not deliver new jobs and growing
incomes over the long term. A growing economy centred on
innovation is an important part of the equation. That is why
budget 2000's five year tax plan takes additional measures to
help Canadian businesses become more competitive internationally
by making the tax system more conducive to investment and
innovation. This will help to ensure continued growth and job
creation in a global economy that is increasingly knowledge
based.
To that end, the plan proposes to reduce the corporate tax rate
to 21% from 28% within five years for the highest taxed
businesses, such as high technology, with a one point drop to 27%
effective January 1, 2001.
To assist small businesses the corporate tax rate will be
reduced to 21% from 28% on small business income between $200,000
and $300,000 effective January 1, 2001.
The net effect of these measures will be to create jobs and
improve the lives of Canadians from coast to coast.
As members can see, the goal of the five year tax reduction plan
is clear and concrete: more money in the pockets of Canadians,
stronger economic growth and enhanced job creation.
Taxes will be reduced by a cumulative amount of at least $58
billion, with personal income taxes being reduced by an average
of 15% by 2004.
While all Canadians will benefit from the tax plan, it
recognizes the needs of low and middle income Canadians who will
see their personal income taxes reduced by an average of at least
18%. In particular, relief will be provided to families with
children. Including the enriched benefits under the CCTB,
families with children will see their personal income taxes
reduced by an average of 21%.
Accordingly, the immediate tax relief under the plan will grow
over time. Consider, for example, that in 2001 a typical one
earner family of four with about $32,000 in income will receive
more benefits from government, thanks to the CCTB and the GST tax
credit, than they will pay in personal income taxes. What this
really means is that this family will pay no net tax. By 2004,
that family could earn up to $35,000, or $3,000 more, and still
pay no net tax.
Here are two more examples of the tax plan at work. In the
first full year of the plan, a typical one earner family of four
with $40,000 in income will see its net federal income taxes
reduced by at least 17%. In 2004 their taxes will be cut by at
least 48%, a savings of over $1,600 compared to what they would
pay without the plan.
A typical two earner family of four with an income of $60,000
will see their taxes reduced by almost 9% in 2001, and by $1,546
in 2004. That is a 27% savings relative to what they would have
paid had the plan never been established.
1740
[Translation]
Full indexation of personal income tax will put an end to
automatic and hidden tax increases that result from what is
called bracket creep and to the erosion of tax benefits that has
characterized Canada's tax system since the middle of the 1980s.
This means that salary increases that simply correspond to the
inflation rate will no longer automatically put many taxpayers
in a higher tax bracket. In other words, taxpayers will no
longer see their taxes raise when their real buying power has
not increased.
[English]
Moreover, benefits, such as the Canada child tax benefit and the
GST credit, will automatically increase to offset inflation.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like a ruling from the Chair on the relevance of
talking about the child tax benefit when we are talking about a
tax break for mechanic's tools. Could the member possibly be a
little more relevant to the topic at hand?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marceau): I think the hon. member for
Windsor—St. Clair was making an analogy. Given the time allocated
to the member, I believe this is a totally acceptable analogy.
The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair. He has 45 seconds to
finish his speech.
[English]
Mr. Rick Limoges: Under the leadership of this Prime
Minister and Minister of Finance, we have a fiscal situation in
this country today that allows this government to build on the
foundation secured by the many sacrifices of Canadians in my
riding and across the country. We must avoid the temptation, no
matter how well-intentioned, to advocate tax cuts that depart
from the plan which set out principles for tax action, principles
that were acted on in budget 2000.
I recommend to all hon. members that we vote against any
proposed legislation that is not based on these principles.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill on
mechanics tools. I do appreciate the Bloc member bringing this
forward.
Bill C-205 is a carbon copy of the private member's bill that I
put forth in the last parliament, Bill C-366. During that
process, I received over 7,000 letters from mechanics across the
country on that bill. I am sure the Bloc member has no doubt
received thousands of letters from people across the country in
response to his bill.
The only difference in the Bloc bill from the bill that I
presented in the last parliament is the price for individual
tools that are purchased by the mechanic. The amount has been
increased from the $200 that I had recommended. If the
mechanic's tool is below $200 the full cost can be deducted. If
it is above $200 it will be depreciated and a capital cost
allowance will be deducted for income taxes purposes. That is
the only change. It is an excellent bill and I sincerely thank
the Bloc member for bringing it forward again.
I was very pleased that this time the bill has been made
votable. When I presented the same bill to the committee, it
unfortunately did not allow the bill to be voted on in the House.
I believe that every private member's bill that comes before the
House should be votable, particularly a practical bill like this.
The purpose of this bill is to allow mechanics to deduct the
cost of their tools on the condition that the tools are a
requirement of their employment.
1745
The mechanic has to buy his own tools and then bring them to his
place of employment. If tools are lost or damaged, he has to
replace them from his own pocketbook.
At the present time mechanics have an incredibly large cost,
often $15,000 to $30,000 in tools, which they have to pay for
with after tax dollars, and yet it is a requirement of employment
that the mechanics have those tools to use them on the job.
It is very important that this issue be dealt with. I would
assume that this time it will have the full support of every
party in the House.
The costs I am talking about are the costs of maintaining the
tools, renting the tools, in cases where the mechanic chooses to
rent, and insurance costs, because of course with the high value
involved the loss of the tools would be devastating. It would
be quite devastating to lose $30,000 worth of tools.
The mechanic could also deduct the cost of the insurance. The
mechanic would be allowed to claim capital cost allowance on
tools over $250 and, therefore, over time deduct the full cost of
the tools for income tax purposes. That is the purpose of the
bill.
When I introduced Bill C-366 I received over 7,000 letters from
mechanics across the country. On this bill, in spite of the fact
that it is not my bill, I have received hundreds and hundreds
more letters. We have not even counted them yet, although I do
appreciate the mechanics and the owners of the businesses for
sending the letters to me. I know that copies of the letters
have been sent to the finance minister. The finance minister has
to understand how important it is that he deal with the
situation.
During the debate on Bill C-366 members of all political parties
supported the bill except the Liberals. The parliamentary
secretary to the minister of finance at that time came up with a
whole list of excuses for not supporting the bill. I would
suggest that they were excuses.
I will go through what the parliamentary secretary said and I
will respond to what I consider to be excuses in most cases.
First, I want to say a little about what some MPs from all of the
political parties said about this bill and what they are saying
about the Bloc member's bill which is now before the House.
A Bloc MP said “I think this bill is good for the economy and
for the creation of jobs. The Bloc Quebecois and myself support
the measures proposed in this bill”.
A member of the NDP from Saskatchewan said “I want to
congratulate the member for Lakeland for bringing this
legislation forward and tell him and members of the House that
the New Democratic Party fully supports this concept and we will
be supporting this bill”.
A member of the Progressive Conservative Party from Manitoba
said “I would like to pass my thanks on to the member for
Lakeland who has once again brought forward a private member's
bill to deal with what I consider to be an injustice and an
inequality that has been around for too long”. I think it is a
fair comment that this injustice has been around for too long.
Reform MPs fully supported the bill. The member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster and the member for Elk Island indicated
that the bill was long overdue.
Then we come to the government side, the Liberals. The
parliamentary secretary came up with numerous
excuses, and I want to go through some of the key ones. He said
“Mechanics are not the only occupation that incur substantial
expenses as a requirement of employment”. I agree with that.
That statement is correct. Farmers and other businessmen, as
well as artists, musicians and chainsaw operators incur
substantial expenses as a requirement of employment.
Farmers, of course, are business people and they are handled
differently, but artists, musicians, chainsaw operators and
others are employees in many cases who are allowed to deduct the
cost of the tools of their trade. I believe that is a bogus
issue which the parliamentary secretary brought forward.
The parliamentary secretary also said “This private member's
bill would also provide tax relief to all mechanics, irrespective
of the size of their expenditures, instead of targeting relief to
those incurring extraordinary expenses”.
1750
I would suggest that, indeed, that is an odd statement. Farmers
and other business people, as well as the others I have
mentioned, can claim their expenses no matter how large they are.
That is not a criterion that is used to judge whether any of
these other people can write something off for tax purposes.
That was a very odd statement.
He also said “Provisions would need to be developed to ensure
that tax relief was provided only for those items genuinely
required as a condition of employment and not for those purchased
for personal use”. That is true. That is a fair enough
statement, but throughout all our tax system, for anyone
claiming, the same is true. In other words, the onus is on the
person making the claim to ensure that he or she is only claiming
expenses which are allowed under the act. Taxpayers are trusted
to do that. We have routine audits and we have special audits to
check to ensure that people are being honest. Again, this was
another bogus excuse.
The parliamentary secretary made several other, what I would
consider to be, excuses and I do not believe that any one of them
could not be dealt with by the government if it believed it was
something that should be done.
The parliamentary secretary at the time, and I hear the same
thing again from across the floor, said that somehow, and for
different reasons, the deduction of the cost of purchasing,
owning and maintaining a line of tools could not be done for
several reasons. It is interesting that this government, which
has raised taxes every year over the past seven years, since
1993—
Mr. Roy Cullen: It never raised them once.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, maybe not this year.
That is a close call. But every year up until this year the
government has raised taxes, and always it declares that the
reason is tax fairness. Often we hear the Liberals say “We are
increasing taxes to this group of people by $1 billion because it
makes it fair”. Why is it that tax fairness cannot also lead to
a lowering of taxes? In this case, that is exactly what would be
done. We would lower taxes, allowing mechanics to deduct the
cost of tools used for business in the name of tax fairness. Why
is it that the government cannot understand the concept that tax
fairness can also mean lowering taxes to a particular group of
people?
I would encourage the government to understand that that is
exactly what would happen. This is a fair measure. In the
information I have received under access to information as to why
the finance department will not go along with this, it indicated
that it would cost the department somewhere around $60 million a
year. In the name of tax fairness, why can we not have this
reduction of $60 million a year? It is money that really should
be left in the pockets of mechanics. This is long overdue.
The member across the floor may think it is funny, but with more
than 7,000 letters from mechanics saying “We want tax
fairness”, the government should listen. I would encourage the
government to support the bill, as it is a votable bill.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few words in support of Bill C-205.
I would say at the outset that I have put a very similar motion
on the order paper which would allow mechanics who are working on
their own to deduct their tools as a legitimate expense.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
across the way and I am sure he will be in agreement with the
bill before the House because I see him nodding his head.
1755
Under the present income tax law there is a fair amount of
discrimination. Mechanics, tradespeople, technicians, automotive
technicians and carpenters who are in business for themselves can
deduct their tools, but those same people who are working for
someone else cannot deduct their tools.
There is a considerable expense to becoming a carpenter or a
mechanic. Buying a whole set of tools is a very expensive
proposition.
For almost any other business endeavour in the country one can
deduct legitimate expenses. Whether people are consultants in a
small business or in a larger business, they can deduct the
expenses which are incurred in running the business. The
mechanics and carpenters are saying that they should have the
same right as anyone else. They are buying tool kits and tools
in order to be involved in a business, in order to be an employee
at a garage, a carpenter or whatever.
A lot of us do not realize how expensive it is for someone to
get the basic tool kit. One often has to pay a minimum of $5,000
to $10,000. They tell me it can even be as high as $50,000 or
$60,000 for a complete tool kit in some of the occupations which
many people are going into today.
The Ottawa Citizen did a survey of the costs of getting
into business. The reporter talked to Gene Myers, who is an
Algonquin College student and an apprentice. He was asked how
much it would cost to get the basic start-up kit to be a
mechanic. He had spent $17,000 and he said that was the bare
minimum for tools an apprentice would require when starting full
time work.
These prices are approximate, but I thought I should read some
of them into the record to give members an idea of what some
young people are required to pay in order to get into business.
For wrenches, the cost was $2,020. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that
even you are startled by that number. It is a shocking number
and it is a very difficult expense for people getting into
business. The wrenches are categorized in this way. Two
standard size sets cost $405 each, amounting to $810. Two metric
size sets are $405 each, for a total cost of $810.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Who gave us the metric system?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The metric system came into being in
this country because of pressure from some conservative-minded
people who sat in the Trudeau cabinet a number of years ago.
That is why we have the metric system response from the hon.
member from the Canadian Alliance. At least I think it is the
Canadian Alliance and not the conservative alliance. In any
event, that is how the metric system arrived.
Two minimum specialized wrench sets cost $200 each, totalling
$400. Torque wrenches are $885. A 3/8 inch wrench costs $295; a
1/4 inch wrench, $295; and a 1/2 inch wrench, $295. Sockets cost
$2,000 in total. He said there is a minimum of ten sets of
different sized sockets at $200 each. Socket extension sets cost
$450; 3/8 inch sets, $150; 1/4 inch, $150; 1/2 inch, $150; wheel
nut sockets, $420; five sizes of sockets at $60 each, another
$300; four sizes at $30 each, $120; and six ratchets at $125
each, totalling $750.
He went on and on with the list that he gave in terms of the
start-up costs of getting a decent tool kit.
When an auto mechanic or a carpenter spends that kind of money
to get into business we can make a fair argument for deducting
the cost of these tools of trade from income tax.
I think that is only fair treatment. It is only just treatment.
I hope members of the government would agree with this perfectly
reasonable proposal that is before the House today.
1800
Many mechanics and carpenters have lobbied me over the years on
this kind of proposal. About two years ago I circulated a
petition among a number of the garages in and around the city of
Regina. I got many hundreds of signatures on petitions calling
upon the federal government to make such a move in terms of
amending the Income Tax Act.
The time is long overdue for the House of Commons to listen to
the people. They are saying that this is only a fair move and a
just move that we should be making as the House of Commons. I am
glad to see that we have some solidarity here among all political
parties that this is the right thing to do.
I assume the Progressive Conservative Party will also be
supporting this. We will be hearing from its distinguished House
leader in a few minutes. I am not 100% sure he will be doing
that but I think he will. His former hero, Brian Mulroney, did
not do this when he was prime minister of the country, despite
all kinds of lobbying that was done. I hope the Progressive
Conservative Party has now seen the light and will support this
private member's bill before the House today.
I commend the member for introducing the private member's bill.
Let us get on with this. Let us hear from the Progressive
Conservative Party. Let us make this a five party effort and
change the law, which will make it a more fair and just system
for a lot of people right across the country.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very
important private member's bill.
I appreciate the introduction by the illustrious member from the
New Democratic Party. He has been a long time member of the
House and has been around for many, many years. He is a very
useful tool in reminding us of things that have taken place in
the past. Certainly the sins of the father are sometimes
revisited on the son.
This is a very important piece of legislation because it brings
about a very positive change in an industry that is very much in
need of attention at this time. That is not unlike other
industries and other Canadians generally who are suffering from
the high cost of tax that is taken from their income. Mechanics
are no exception.
This bill, which has garnered a great deal of support, in a very
non-partisan way I hasten to add, has also gathered a great deal
of support around the country. I commend the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans for the
work he has done, and the member for Lakeland who brought forward
a similar private member's bill. There is a sense that the
government may in fact be listening but that remains to be seen.
This legislation is very much a common sense approach to a
problem that has existed for a long time, namely that mechanics
are faced with an incredible startup cost when it comes to
beginning in their profession. As has been alluded to,
indications are that the average startup cost is anywhere from
$15,000 to $40,000 to break into an industry that, like other
industries, is moving toward a more technological and highly
advanced profession. The tools themselves, the power tools and
the basic tools, are extremely costly and often the power tools
are in need of a great deal of ongoing maintenance.
The bill is aimed at giving an industry in need tax relief that
is brought about in a very straightforward way and, I would
suggest, in a common sense fashion. This is uncommon in this
place when it comes to legislation.
In many ways my initial reaction when we started talking about
amending the Income Tax Act was to be a little concerned that
once again we would be making a more convoluted attempt than was
necessary. Short of the Revenue Canada Act or perhaps the new
youth criminal justice act, the bill is aimed at streamlining as
opposed to adding layers of legislation and layers of bureaucracy
on top of one another, as is far too often the case.
The government members who have spoken to the bill would lead
Canadians to believe that significant tax relief has already been
brought about by this administration. We know that nothing could
be further from the truth. In fact the most recent budget is
rear end loaded; that is to say, much of the benefits of the
budget will not be felt for a number of years, in fact years that
go far beyond the government's current mandate.
1805
This bill is aimed at assisting mechanics in a very real and
tangible fashion. There is a great deal of need in this area.
There is a great deal of need when it comes to the tools
themselves being considered very much a part of the profession,
which they are. They are an integral part of any mechanic's
existence and profession. The proportionate investment that is
made by mechanics and the reliance on their tools highlights that
very fact.
The cost as I alluded to is extremely high. Sometimes that
cost, being as high as $40,000, may be more than the annual
income of a mechanic who is starting up in that profession.
There is a need for standardization across the board. For
example, chainsaw operators and musicians are permitted to deduct
the cost of their chainsaws and musical instruments. Why then
should there not be a similar tax deductible mechanism in place
for mechanics? There has to be some uniformity and fairness with
respect to industries and eligibility for tax deductions. Not
unlike other industries such as fishing and farming, there is an
intrinsic connection between the individual and the tools and
machinery that are required to provide the service in the
profession.
The other important issue with respect to this bill is that
there is a labour aspect, an element of employment, attached.
Currently with such high initial costs, many young Canadians who
have the possibility to get work after receiving training, be it
at a community college or through a mentoring program, are faced
with a monumental startup cost that they simply cannot afford.
Therefore it continues this trend that we have seen in other
professions which has become colloquially known as the brain
drain.
Mechanics are no exception. Indications are that many mechanics
are facing the very gut wrenching decision of whether to stay in
their hometown, their community, their country or to go to the
United States or other countries where they are given greater tax
relief and perhaps a better life by virtue of being able to keep
what they earn.
An element of this bill talks about maximizing job potential
which we in the Progressive Conservative Party are very
supportive of to say the least. Studies have shown that the
mechanics industry has experienced a serious decline with respect
to enrolment in technical institutions. I think this good faith
initiative that has been brought forward addresses in some
measure that exact problem.
The Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and other national
organizations have embraced this legislation as a good idea. They
have lobbied not only opposition members but presumably
government members. They have reminded them that this is
something that has been in the works, has been in the hopper, for
some time. There is a great deal of support and demand that the
government adopt such an initiative.
Time and time again the government has demonstrated that it is
quite devoid of new ideas and this is quite sad. It trundles
along in mediocrity. We are seeing more and more that the real
initiatives are coming from the opposition benches. Therefore, we
are faced with the difficulty of it becoming a partisan effort
which is unfortunate because this does not benefit Canadians. I
see that Mr. Speaker is nodding in agreement with that
suggestion. The government is not listening to Canadians and is
not responding with the initiatives and the legislative change
that is required.
With regard to tax deductibility for technicians, this idea was
established in response to the industry itself and the growing
concerns over the unfair treatment of automobile technicians.
Working groups consisting of automobile industry associations
from across the country have all banded together and spoken in
support of this type of initiative.
The mechanics, like other Canadians, cannot be denied access to
some form of tax relief. This is a very straightforward and
common sense approach. Mechanics singularly are hardworking
Canadians who want to take part in the new economy and be able to
keep their hard earned working dollars. There is no reason
whatsoever that they should not be afforded access to the same
types of tax breaks that are prevalent in other industries.
1810
Competition, increasing attention to detail, and the increasing
bureaucracy that small businesses are faced with are other drags
on the economy and on the mechanics industry itself. Insurance
and the cost of maintenance when it comes to maintaining a garage
and the tools of the trade are burdens for which mechanics, like
others, are looking for some form of assistance. That could be
brought about through the adoption of this type of legislation.
In November 1998 the Canadian automobile industry appeared
before the finance committee in various capacities and
organizations and made specific recommendations very much akin to
this legislation. Since 1992 all of these groups representing
mechanics and organizations across the country have been urging
the government to move in this direction.
I have met personally with individuals like Brad Smith of
Westville's Radco Enterprises and Dan McDonald of Scotia Diesel
in Antigonish. Both of them were very open and frank in their
support for this type of legislation which would allow them to
keep their hard earned tax dollars. That we know will generate
further growth through spinoffs in the economy.
Allowing mechanics to write off their expenses in relation to
the cost and maintenance of their tools and their workshops is
something that the Progressive Conservative Party very much
embraces and supports.
We support the hon. member who has moved this bill through the
Commons. We are hoping that the government members will try to
break away from the tired and arrogant approach that we have
become far too accustomed to, with no ideas coming forward, no
innovation and no constructive moves. We on the opposition side
are urging the government to support this legislation.
Again I congratulate all previous speakers who have brought
forward their support. I encourage other members to do likewise.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
situation that exists throughout Quebec is of great concern to
me. I hear about it particularly in my riding, because I often
come across mechanics in restaurants or garages and they tell me
about this injustice done to them. They are not allowed any
deductions from their taxable income for the tools they are
required to buy to practice their trade.
Knowing that other tradesmen have access to such a deduction, we
can see that the government encourages inequities and has
tremendous difficulty taking action to contribute to the
advancement of Quebec society.
In the report that was prepared following the December 1997
prebudget consultations in which I took part, it was recognized
that the need was there. The public was asking that legislation
be passed quickly to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of the
tools they are required to buy.
Today is March 30, 2000, almost three years later, and yet
nothing has been done. This goes to show once again that this
government waits and then waits some more, and drags its feet on
issues that penalize people. In this case, it is mechanics.
I am very pleased to support the bill introduced by my
colleague, the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. I also thank all
the members of the opposition who listened carefully to the
demands of the Bloc Quebecois and who support this bill, which
will hopefully find some support among federal Liberals.
This is the second time that I speak to this important bill.
When we made similar demands in June 1999, there was talk about
a government surplus of several billion dollars. That was what
the Minister of Finance was hinting at.
1815
Now that the Minister of Finance has a budget surplus of tens of
thousands of dollars, although it is still hard to find out the
real figures, hard to be really informed about the Canadian
economic reality, he ought to accede to what is being called for
in Bill C-205.
This bill defends principles in which I believe strongly. I
will tell hon. members what the objectives and principles are
that must be obtained in this legislation.
First of all, mechanics must be given fair treatment as far as
taxation is concerned, on an equal footing with farmers, and in
harmony with that already afforded to chain saw operators,
artists and musicians.
Secondly, this bill is aimed at lessening the financial burden
on mechanics imposed by the requirement to purchase their own
tools, and very costly ones.
Just think of the young mechanic, fresh out of school, and often
with a student loan, having to purchase thousands of dollars
worth of tools in order to get a job. After working for a year,
he is not even entitled to a tax deduction for the new tools he
has acquired. As far as I am concerned, this is social
injustice.
Now, moving on to another of the objectives I support. This
bill offers a remedy for the serious shortage of workers in
automobile-related fields. We know that it is getting harder and
harder to recruit mechanics, electricians, plumbers, carpenters
and the like.
In my region, in the RCM de l'Érable, the LDB is doing a lot of
promotion to try to find 300 people who could immediately get
work in business in Plessisville, Princeville and Lyster.
I also learned that the same situation prevails at the other end
of my riding, namely in Laurier-Station and Saint-Apollinaire,
where plants are also looking for people who are able to work.
If the government does not make the necessary efforts to prepare
for the future, to help our young people, how can we ensure the
viability of a region such as Lotbinière and that of all the
regions of Quebec?
The problem described in Bill C-205 is one of a number of
factors which, year after year, significantly affect our
regions. Unfortunately, people are constantly leaving the
regions.
Think of all the efforts made by our ancestors, by the pioneers,
all their collective achievements, all their hard work. Because
of actions such as those of the federal government, the
foundations that helped build the Quebec society are being
eroded.
It is time to wake up and take charge. Each of Quebec's region
has its own wealth, its own beauty, its own features. In each of
these regions, there are motorists, people who use their cars or
their trucks. There is pride in having local mechanics in each
municipality.
I do not want to wax nostalgic, but 25 years ago, in rural
villages, there were essential elements that promoted mutual
support and supported the local economy.
There was the general store, the local mechanic, a small
restaurant, the caisse populaire, the elementary and secondary
schools and the church.
1820
Today we realize that most of the small garages in each of the
towns have disappeared. Why? Because no measures or laws have
been established to ensure some sort of continuity. What does
this situation lead to? Gradually, people leave these villages
to go and live in larger centres and must give up the heritage
that is important to them.
It is high time that the federal government, through its rural
and regional development policies, paid attention to this ever
more desperate situation throughout Quebec. Today, it is the
mechanics. Tomorrow it will be the electricians.
Unfortunately, unless something is done, we will see that the
major centres in each region and riding will be only ones to
have survived.
I encourage all federal Liberals in Quebec and across Canada to
join with my colleague, to be part of the support given us by
the opposition parties—the Progressive Conservatives, the
Canadian Alliance and the NDP—in recognizing that there is a
desperate need.
It is urgent that the situation be resolved, in order to correct
once and for all this injustice, which is befalling important
people, the mechanics. We are proud of them and must keep them.
We must support their efforts to work and continue to build
with us the rural and regional communities of Quebec.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The time for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
JUSTICE
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this short speech comes as a result of a question I posed several
weeks ago to the Minister of Justice. The question revolved
around whether it was the intent of the 1997 child support
guidelines to create a class of adult students who are supported,
by court order, as children of the marriage.
In her response, the minister stated that such orders are not
automatic. I am certain that the parliamentary secretary, who is
here this evening to speak for her, will echo the idea that it is
all about judicial discretion and that under the 1997 guidelines
an order is not automatic when one goes to the court seeking
support for an adult. Although the adult is called a child there
is no right to this support.
If that is correct then I am inviting the parliamentary
secretary, the Department of Justice or anybody watching this
show to produce or to offer just one example of a case where a
judge exercised that discretion and said “No, you are applying
for support for a child at university and I am not going to give
it to you. You are applying for tuition expenses and I am not
going to give it to you”. I am looking for one case.
I can tell the members that there are some very basic and
fundamental questions surrounding these orders and this law which
concern a broad cross-section of Canadians. First, when is a
child no longer a child, or when does a child become an adult?
As we know, generally in this country the age of majority is 19,
and in some provinces 18, but it is in that range. We know that
a 19 year old can marry without a parent's permission. We know
that a 19 year old can enter into contracts and be bound by them.
They can buy real estate and all sorts of things. They are
adults and anything an adult can do they can do.
However, here we have, in a 1997 law passed in this place, the
federal support guidelines which state that a child of divorce is
entitled to support under circumstances which are widely applied
to be post-secondary education.
Three years later what do we see? First, we see that an order
is automatic. That is, if the custodial parent applies to the
court and says that this child is in university, then the
non-custodial parent must pay for those expenses.
More importantly, we are seeing many recorded cases of so-called
children who are 30 years of age whose non-custodial parent is in
fact paying for their post-secondary education. We have Ph.D.
students and MA students, some approaching middle age, who are
still children as declared by a judge exercising his so-called
discretion.
1825
I have to ask how this can be. If we look at the law in this
country we want it both ways. We know that under the Young
Offenders Act a 14 year old can be declared to be an adult for
the purposes of the law. We also know that for the purposes of
the Divorce Act a 30 year old can be a child for the purposes of
the law. How can this possibly be?
Second, I want to talk about fairness and equality because that
is a big topic around this place. How can it be fair for a
divorced parent to be compelled to pay but parents who are still
married do not have to do anything? Even if the parents are
millionaires, as long as their marriage is intact when the child
is 19 they can say that they are not paying, and parents do that.
However, a divorced parent does not have this choice. The court
orders that parent to pay for the child up to age 30. We are
waiting to hear whether the age will up any further.
I have one final point. Is the Divorce Act a law that is
applied to create a social policy? That is exactly what is
happening in this circumstance.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while there
are a number of elements to the member's question, I think it is
useful to review what the government has done, which started his
question in the first place.
In 1997 the government introduced child support guidelines to
make the calculation of child support fair, predictable and
consistent in the best interest of children. The Divorce Act
does not automatically require parents to continue to support a
child who has reached the age of majority but rather enables the
courts to make an order for support if it is reasonable, given
the circumstances of that family.
It needs to be said that this is not new policy. The courts
have been ordering support for children over the age of majority
well before the child support reforms of 1997.
The department is monitoring the federal child support
guidelines closely and research to date indicates the guidelines
are meeting their objectives.
The minister will be reporting to parliament on the guidelines
by May 2002, and perhaps that is the time to have a more fulsome
review of this to see whether in fact some of the issues that the
member has raised are continuing to be an issue.
It is also important to note that most provinces and territories
have legislation enabling the courts to make such orders where
parents are separated. In fact some allow it where the families
are intact.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.)