36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 6
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| NISGA'A NATION
|
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of Motion
|
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-245. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION ACT
|
| Bill C-246. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-247. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
1010
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-248. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
|
| Bill C-249. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1015
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-250. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-251. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1020
| PETITIONS
|
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| The Snowbirds
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| The Constitution
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Nisga'a Treaty
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| The Snowbirds
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1025
| Genetically Modified Food Products
|
| Ms. Marlene Jennings |
| Food Labelling
|
| Ms. Marlene Jennings |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1030
1035
| Mr. Ted White |
1040
1045
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1050
1055
| Mr. John Solomon |
1100
1105
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1110
1115
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1120
1125
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1130
1135
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1140
1145
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1150
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1155
1200
| Mr. John Harvard |
1205
1210
| Mr. André Harvey |
1215
1220
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1225
1230
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1235
1240
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1245
1250
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1255
1300
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1320
1325
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Division on motion deferred
|
1330
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
|
| Bill C-6. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 27 to 33, 36 to 43, 47 to 49,
57, 59 to 97, 100 to 157.
|
1335
1340
1345
1350
1355
| PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
|
| The Speaker |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ALEXINA LOUIE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| ORGAN DONATIONS
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1400
| WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| INTERNATIONAL NETWORK ON CULTURAL POLICY
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| ROBERT MUNDELL
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1405
| ENDICOTT PEABODY HUMANITARIAN AWARD
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| TRUCKING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos |
| THE LATE FERNAND DUBÉ
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1410
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| MEMBER FOR DARTMOUTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1425
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1430
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1435
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1440
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| SOMMET DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Raymond Bonin |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1445
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| MERCHANT MARINES
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1450
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Ms. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1455
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| SIERRA LEONE
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1500
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Report Stage
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1510
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1515
1520
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1525
1530
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1535
1540
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1545
1550
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1555
1600
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Transport
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
|
| Bill C-6. Report stage
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1605
1610
| Bill C-6—Notice of time allocation motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1615
| Report stage
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1620
1625
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1630
1635
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1640
1645
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1650
1655
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1700
1705
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1710
1715
1720
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1725
1730
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1735
1740
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1745
1750
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1755
1800
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1805
1810
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1815
1820
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1825
1830
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Consideration resumed of motion
|
1900
(Division 5)
| (Bill referred to a committee)
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Child Care
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1905
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1910
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 6
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
NISGA'A NATION
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the Nisga'a
final agreement and the Nisga'a nation taxation agreement.
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to
table a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain
provisions of the Nisga'a final agreement and the Nisga'a nation
taxation agreement, and I ask that an order of the day be
designated for consideration of this motion.
* * *
1005
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the second report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
and the associate membership of committees of the House. If the
House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the
second report later this day.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(mandatory counselling for certain assaults).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce what was in
the last session Bill C-418, an act to amend the Criminal Code to
require mandatory counselling as a condition of probation for
those convicted of the crime of domestic violence.
The cycle of violence in our society can only be dealt with if
there is intervention. This bill calls for Canadians to step
forward, say no to domestic violence and require mandatory
counselling for those convicted of criminal assault.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-246, an act respecting the provision of
compensation to public safety officers who lost their lives while
on duty.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce what was in
the last session Bill C-246.
Police officers and firefighters risk their lives on a daily
basis to protect all Canadians. When one of them loses their
life we all mourn that loss. This bill would seek to create a
charitable foundation to receive gifts and bequests for the
benefit of families of police officers, firefighters and other
public safety officers who lose their lives in the line of duty.
I hope to earn all hon. members' support for this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative
sentences).
She said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill
C-251 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the
36th Parliament.
This bill would end automatic volume discounts for Canada's
multiple murderers and rapists. It seeks to give judges greater
ability to achieve justice in the interest of all Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that this bill
is in the same form as Bill C-251 was at the time of prorogation
of the first session, 36th Parliament.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1), the bill is deemed
to have been adopted at all stages and passed by the House.
(Bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee,
reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.)
* * *
1010
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-248, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and
the Canada Pension Plan (transfer of income to spouse).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resubmit to the House
what was in the first session Bill C-244, which seeks to amend
the Income Tax Act to permit one spouse to split a portion of
their income with a spouse who provides direct parental care in
the family home.
The income split with the stay at home spouse or parent would
entitle them to qualify for RRSPs and would also make the spouse
eligible for Canada pension plan benefits.
This is just one way in which we could give real recognition to
parents who provide direct parental care to children, and I seek
the support of all members.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I was intending to introduce my private member's bill tomorrow,
but it is on the order paper today. Therefore I would seek the
unanimous consent of the House to introduce it today.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to
proceed with the introduction of his bill today?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an act to
prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very timely. There is a
great interest in the country in terms of bulk water exports and
the bill is very specific.
There are various requests on various order papers, in a sense,
of firms wishing to divert rivers into other basins in order to
export water to the United States and northern Mexico. This bill
would prohibit such interbasin transfers of water for export
purposes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was notified that I would be up today to present two
bills under Private Members' Business. I have them prepared and
ready and I would seek consent to do that at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wild Rose has four
bills on notice on today's order paper, Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25.
It would assist the Chair to know which ones he would like to
introduce today.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the
numbers mean, but I can describe the bills. One deals with
release on bail and the other is in regard to special
consideration for aboriginal offenders.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could proceed with other
routine proceedings and the hon. member could clarify which two
of the four he would like to introduce and we could come back to
this a little later. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier
this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
1015
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I would move:
That the associate membership of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs be as follows: Mr. Adams, Mr.
Bellehumeur, Mr. Blaikie, Mrs. Dockrill, Mr. Doyle, Miss Grey,
Mr. Hill, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Laurin, Mr. Lowther, Mr. Nystrom, Mr.
McCormick, Mr. Ménard, Ms. Tremblay, Mr. White.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Parliamentary Secretary
have unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
relation to one of our standing committees I think you would find
consent for me to move the following motion:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 106(1) the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be permitted to meet
for the purposes of electing a chair on Wednesday, October 20,
1999.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Parliamentary Secretary
have unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: We will now revert to the
introduction of private members' bills.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bail in
cases of assault with weapon or a criminal harassment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill is an act to
amend the Criminal Code to prevent a person accused of sexual
assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, sexual assault or
criminal harassment who has been identified by the victim or by a
witness to the offence from being released until the charge is
withdrawn or the accused is acquitted at a trial.
Section 522, which currently allows a judge of a court of a
superior or criminal jurisdiction the discretion to allow bail in
these very serious offences, would be repealed.
This would be one major way of providing a great deal of safety
to a number of Canadians who are injured annually by people who
commit violent crimes while released on bail.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce this
private member's bill. The concept for it began when Craig
Powell, Amber Keuben, Brandy Keuben and Stephanie Smith were all
instantly killed by a drunk driver on June 23, 1996, near Morley,
Alberta, as they returned from a camping trip.
The drunk driver in this case was Christopher Goodstoney and he
was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death
and one count of criminal negligence causing injury. At his
sentencing hearing last April the judge referred to section
718.2(2) of the Criminal Code.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is out of order.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is permitted to give
a succinct explanation of the purpose of the bill and we have not
heard anything yet about the bill. I know he has interesting
facts, but I think he should save those for the debate at second
reading and perhaps give the House the pith and substance of the
bill.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry. I
hate to offend my little friend across the way. I will see if I
can do a better job.
The bill is to prevent a judge having to take into consideration
the race of a criminal when he is convicted of a crime.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1020
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
honoured to stand in my place today to represent my constituents
by presenting two petitions.
The first one has to do with discrimination under the Income Tax
Act against families that choose to have one parent stay at home.
They ask that the tax benefits be the same for single income
families as they are for double income families. There are 229
names on this petition and we have had a number before.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition I am honoured to present today adds to the 300,000 names
already presented in the House on the issue of child pornography.
I am very pleased with the people in my riding who to this date
have submitted 4,311 names on this petition requesting that the
government should immediately take steps to re-enact the
provisions of the criminal code which make the possession of
child pornography illegal in Canada.
THE SNOWBIRDS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour and obligation to present a petition regarding the
Snowbirds signed by several hundred folks mostly in my
constituency, but I note names from Alberta and British Columbia.
The petition notes that the Snowbirds are a national symbol and
a Canadian institution. It reverts to subject matter of this
summer wherein the Department of National Defence was suggesting
that the Snowbirds 431 air demonstration squadron could be and
should be scrapped for financial reasons.
The petition also notes that the mission of the Snowbirds is to
demonstrate the skill, professionalism and teamwork of the
Canadian forces and that these magnificent pilots and their
flying machines should remain airborne for the foreseeable
future.
The petitioners call upon parliament to take the action
necessary to ensure that continued and stable funding for the
Snowbirds 431 air demonstration squadron remains a priority.
THE CONSTITUTION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of some of the events that happened this summer, I am
also pleased to present a petition in conformity with Standing
Order 36.
It is signed by a whole number of people who have concerns.
These undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the
House to the following, that the laws of our country have always
been based on Judeo-Christian morals and values which have been
passed down through the centuries via western civilization.
They are concerned about the preamble to the charter of rights
and freedoms as a foundation upon which the subsequent sections
are based. They are concerned about the majority of Canadians.
They believe in God who created heaven and earth and are not
offended by the mention of His name in the preamble of the
charter of rights and freedom. They are proud to name Him and
they present this petition to parliament.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first
one is on the subject of nuclear weapons.
It notes that there continue to exist over 30,000 nuclear
weapons on the earth and that the continuing existence of nuclear
weapons poses a threat to the health and survival of human
civilization and the global environment. It also notes the
concerns of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on this
subject.
The petitioners therefore pray and request that parliament
support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000
of an international convention which will set out a binding
timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
THE SENATE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a second petition on the
subject of the abolition of the Senate.
The petitioners from my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas and
elsewhere note that the Senate of Canada is an undemocratic
institution composed of unelected members who are unaccountable
to the people, that it costs taxpayers some $50 million per year,
that its role is redundant given the roles played by the supreme
court and the provinces, that it undermines the role of MPs in
the House of Commons, and that there is a need to modernize our
parliamentary institutions.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to undertake
measures aimed at the abolition of the Senate.
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition signed by 237
persons in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.
They are asking for the rejection of the Nisga'a treaty that
will serve to entrench inequality and may divide Canadians
forever.
THE SNOWBIRDS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present this petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of western
Canadians who are concerned about the Snowbirds as a national
symbol and a Canadian institution.
1025
They make a number of points, one being that 85 million North
American spectators have been enthralled by the Snowbirds over
the past 28 years.
They ask parliament to take whatever action is necessary to
ensure that continued and stable funding for the Snowbirds 431
air demonstration squadron remains a priority for our country.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD PRODUCTS
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first petition that I am tabling in the House today
is asking for the mandatory labeling and thorough checking of
genetically modified food products.
This issue concerns many Canadians. The petitioners are calling
upon parliament to adopt an act on the labeling of genetically
modified food items.
FOOD LABELLING
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is calling upon parliament to pass
legislation to make it compulsory for companies importing food
products into Canada to ensure that these products are properly
labelled as to the ingredients they contain.
[English]
They are asking that all companies importing food products into
Canada ensure that those products are properly and thoroughly
labelled as to the ingredients they contain and the ingredients
they contain by virtue of the environment in which they have been
prepared.
* * *
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 all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Bill C-2. On the Order: Government Orders
October 14 1999—The Leader of the Government in the House-Second
Reading and Referral to Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs of Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of
members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts and making
consequential amendments to other acts.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the
House of Commons, repealing other acts and making consequential
amendments to other acts, be immediately referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to introduce to
the House the new Canada Elections Act. The Canada Elections
Act constitutes the operational basis of our democratic
electoral system. Our elections act is based on three essential
principles: equity, transparency and accessibility.
For close to 30 years now, the Canada Elections Act has been the
focal point of an electoral system that has been an inspiration
to democracies the world over. Our Elections Act is based on
solid principles and orientations.
Nevertheless, administrative inconsistencies have developed over
those 30 years, and we need to eliminate them and to amend
sections of the Act the courts have chosen to strike down.
First of all, I would like to thank the members of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for preparing the
excellent report on which this legislation is based,
particularly the hon. member for Peterborough who chaired its
work.
The amendments we propose today are based on the committee's
findings and recommendations. The bill also reflects the
recommendations contained in the 1991 report of the Royal
Commission on Electoral Reform, the Lortie Commission, the
proposals submitted in 1993 by the special House committee, and
the Chief Electoral Officer's reports to parliament in 1996 and
1997.
As well, the bill reflects discussions between myself and my
counterparts in the United Kingdom, as well as the ideas,
concerns and initiatives shared with us by large numbers of MPs,
senators, members of all political parties, academics, interest
groups and ordinary citizens.
1030
Our government is determined to see this bill passed and to
implement amendments which reflect the wisdom and collective
vision of the hon. members.
[English]
Reference to a committee before second reading will permit
broader amendments, provided of course that these amendments
amend the same statute as is the subject of the bill. Allow me to
take some time to describe some of the administrative changes
proposed in this bill.
We have proposed that the chief electoral officer be empowered
to adjust voting hours for areas that do not switch to daylight
saving time. This will address the problem Saskatchewan voters
experienced in the last election.
We are also offsetting the impact of inflation since the act was
introduced in 1974, increasing the threshold for the disclosure
of the names and addresses of campaign contributors for donations
and the threshold for receiving the 75% political tax credit from
$100 to $200. The voucher expense limit would be increased from
$25 to $50. The audit fee expense limit, because it is getting
very difficult to hire auditors for $750, would be increased to
$1,500.
We have proposed extending voting rights to all returning
officers in Canada. We have included amendments to ensure the
right to campaign canvassing and the posting of signs in
apartment buildings. We have proposed that the enforcement
capabilities of the commissioner of Canada elections be
strengthened.
In recent years, court decisions have called on the Government
of Canada to take a second look at some sections of the Canada
Elections Act. We believe that amendments in this legislation
are consistent with both the spirit and the letter of those
decisions. Our amendments regarding third party spending are a
perfect case in point.
We looked closely at the 1996 decision of the Alberta Court of
Appeal which threw out the previous spending limits, but we also
examined the 1997 Libman decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
which said:
With respect...we cannot accept the Alberta Court of Appeal's
point of view because we disagree with its conclusion regarding
the legitimacy of the objective of the provisions.
The court further stated: “While we recognize their
right”—third parties—“to participate in the electoral
process, independent individuals and groups cannot be subject to
the same financial rules as candidates or political parties and
be allowed the same spending limits. Although what they have to
say is important, it is the candidates and political parties that
are running for election. Limits on independent spending must
therefore be lower than those imposed on candidates or political
parties”.
We have also placed fairness at the heart of the proposed
changes to the rules governing blackouts. Recently the Supreme
Court of Canada struck down the 72 hour election blackout on
election polls. However, the court did not close the door on
giving voters the means and the time to assess polls. Consistent
with the guidance of the court, we have required publication of
polling methodologies and we have shortened the blackout period.
We have also addressed the issue of blackouts on political
advertising. As a result of the decision of the Alberta courts,
political parties now remain subject to blackouts on advertising
while at the same time there is no such blackout on candidates
and third parties. Obviously it is wrong and the same rule
should apply to everyone.
We have proposed a new 48 hour blackout period prior to election
day on political ads; no ads on election day and the day before
for anybody. We want to make sure that the only group to get the
last word in a campaign is Canadian voters.
Most recently the Figueroa decision of the Ontario court struck
down another provision in the elections act under which a
political party that loses its status as a registered party must
deregister and liquidate all its assets and turn them over to the
receiver general.
1035
We took note of that decision and we responded by allowing third
parties that fail to field the required number of candidates
during an election to retain their assets subject to certain
conditions. The government is however, and most members will
know this, appealing that part of the court order holding that a
party need only nominate two candidates to become a registered
party. The government believes strongly that the existing
requirements should be defended.
Every single one of the amendments proposed in the bill, the
ones that we have put forward, have put the values and principles
of the elections act and Canadians first. In every single case
we have asked the questions that are the foundations of the
Canada Elections Act. Is it fair? Does it promote accessibility?
Does it keep our electoral system open and transparent? I
believe that in every case the answer is yes.
Of course this is going to be a non-partisan effort. I look
forward to sending the bill to committee and listening to the
constructive suggestions of all members of parliament that would
permit us to improve the bill, providing that the amendments
amend the same acts as those referred to in the bill.
I urge all members of the House to join in support of the bill
and to send it to committee. I believe that together we will
make it such to maintain one of Canada's most important pieces of
legislation as our country and our democracy moves into the 21st
century.
I thank hon. members for all the work they have done thus far on
improving the Canada Elections Act. I look forward to appearing
before the committee, answering all questions from hon. members
and working together with them to make this bill better for all
Canadians.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In the spirit that has been shown by the government House leader,
I wonder if the House would give unanimous consent to question
the minister for five minutes.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to that,
but we are only limited to three hours and I would be taking away
other members' time. I am appearing before the committee in a
few days. I can do it either way, it is the same for me. I just
do not want to take up other members' time.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we can clarify it. Is there
unanimous consent to proceed with questions to the minister at
this time for five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I did not hear any nos. Is someone
saying no to the proposal? No one is saying no.
[Translation]
We will therefore have a five minute question period.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of
my hon. colleague, the government House leader, and I must say
that, up to a certain point, I share them.
If question and comment period is limited to only five minutes,
it is obvious that all political parties will lose out. If we
were to agree on, say, five minutes for each party, then I could
agree but otherwise not.
The Deputy Speaker: Five minutes each. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a shame that we would not get the chance right at the beginning
of this debate to ask the minister a few questions. It would
help clarify the issues. Even if we all had to give up a half
minute of our time, it would have helped to focus the debate.
The practice of referring bills to committee prior to second
reading frankly is nothing more than a way for the government to
fast track legislation that it really does not want the public
and the media to get a good handle on.
I know that I am not allowed to use props, but we are looking at
a bill that is 253 pages thick. This bill was introduced last
Thursday in the House by the minister and just a few days later
he wants to ram it into committee behind closed doors where the
public and the media cannot see it. It is so full of
objectionable stuff that he does not want anyone in the real
world to catch on to what is happening.
The government House leader is denying the public and the media
the opportunity to hear a meaningful debate of the extensive
provisions in the bill before it goes to committee.
How are the public and interested parties going to get enough
information about this bill to come to committee and make
meaningful comments, answer questions and suggest amendments when
they are not going to know the bill is here?
1040
The reality of the situation is that when this bill disappears
later today after the vote into committee, nobody except a few
special interest groups—and if they can get a few talk show
hosts or media commentators to talk about it—will know it even
exists. That is an absolutely appalling situation for such a
comprehensive piece of legislation.
In the six years I have been in the House I have seen very few
pieces of legislation that have been this thick. One of them
would be the gun control bill, Bill C-68, some years ago. Look
how long that bill took to move through the House. Here we have
something that is going through in a flash.
If I had had the opportunity a few minutes ago, I would have
asked the minister a couple of questions in connection with the
Communist Party of Canada challenge to the elections act and the
number of members that constitute a party. Why is it that the
government House leader is so concerned that the Communist Party
of Canada or the Green Party of Canada might actually have its
party name on the ballot? What is the minister so afraid of that
he wants to reinstate a rule that requires 50 candidates for a
group to be labelled as a party? Why on earth is there anything
wrong with two, three or 10 people getting together and saying
they would like to be the such and such party and have their name
printed on the ballot? Is the House leader so afraid of
competition that he cannot stand the thought that some other
credible group might actually be on the ballot?
If we look at Germany or New Zealand, both of which have mixed
member proportional systems in their elections, or any other
country that has a proportional element in its electoral system,
there are up to 35 parties on the ballot. Yet the voters in
those countries seem perfectly capable of making sensible
decisions about which parties to elect and which to reject.
Why would the government House leader believe that Canadian
voters are too stupid to make those same decisions? Surely when
he stood there and argued that the final decision should be that
of the Canadian voter, why does he not let them make that
decision? Put anybody's name on the ballot, anybody who wants to
apply under the rules and pay the candidate deposit. Let them
put whatever name they want on the ballot and let the voters
decide. I certainly believe that voters are sensible and smart
enough to make that decision themselves.
Another question I would have asked the minister is in
connection with patronage which riddles like a web the field
operations of Elections Canada. Elections Canada has begged the
government for years to remove the patronage provisions from the
elections act. When Elections Canada advises third world
governments and emerging democracies how to set up their
electoral systems, it never recommends the system that is used
here in Canada of political patronage in all of the field
positions of Elections Canada.
The registered parties get to appoint returning officers, deputy
returning officers and polling clerks. A whole host of people
get paid positions as rewards for supporting the government or
other parties. Elections Canada has begged for the right to hire
and fire on merit. The government will not give it the right
because it suits the government to reward political supporters.
The government House leader mentioned that he is going to give
ROs the right to vote. We all know right now because of the
patronage appointments that the ROs are all Liberals. I guess
they must be afraid they do not have enough votes already so they
have to claw in every single vote they can get.
In terms of third party spending, I heard the government House
leader quote extensively from a decision of the court in Quebec
because he really did not want to take any notice of the
decisions in Alberta. It amuses and puzzles me that the
government is prepared to ignore court decisions in B.C. that
allow child pornography to run rampant.
The government is quite prepared to ignore court decisions that
endorse race based fisheries, but it rushes quickly to block any
tiny little court decision that might diminish its advantage in
elections, such as the 50 candidate rule and the third party
expenses. It wants to retain the patronage. It pays lip service
to democracy but its actions speak a lot louder than its words.
1045
I mentioned the size of the bill. We have already started to
contact a few parties, groups and individuals who have shown
interest in the bill. We have not even been able to send them
copies of the bill until yesterday by courier.
The minister wants to appear before committee as early as this
Thursday. How can we expect it to be reasonable for interested
people in the country, who may or may not have legal training, to
go through 253 pages of a complicated bill, work out the
implications for their group or part of society, prepare
submissions, apply to come to Ottawa and transport themselves
here by Thursday or maybe next week?
When the committee begins discussions on the timetable for the
bill, I hope it will show some reasonable consideration for those
outside this place who are interested and who would like to come
here as witnesses and talk about the provisions in the bill. I
hope the committee will have a realistic timetable that will
perhaps extend into the spring of next year. I do not see why we
should rush through on something as complicated as this bill.
An hon. member: Maybe there is a snap election coming.
Mr. Ted White: One of my colleagues on this side says
that there may be is a snap election election coming. It is
interesting that he says that because I notice Bill C-2, which is
pretty much a replacement for Bill C-83, which was introduced
just before we broke for the summer and ended the first session,
contains an extra couple of clauses that were not in Bill C-83.
Those clauses deal with the registration of and reporting of
parties prior to June 2000 if the bill is passed before then.
When I read those clauses, I just wondered if some sort of quick
election was being planned and the government wants to make sure
that certain things are in place by June of next year. It is
interesting that my colleague mentioned that. I am not sure if
he read those clauses but that was certainly there.
Even the debate we are having this morning is an affront to
democracy. The House leader stood and talked about the
democratic process and how he supports it. However the debate we
are having now is an affront to democracy. We do not get to ask
any questions of any speaker on the government side. We get the
opportunity to put up four people, 10 minutes each, no questions
and comments, have a vote that the government side will win and
it is rammed into committee.
We have all been here long enough to know exactly what will
happen behind closed doors. We are all adults. The bill will be
rammed through clause by clause with no meaningful input. It
will be back here in the House again in its final form. That is
just not good enough.
I would urge the minister, if he truly believes in what he said
this morning, to permit the bill to have a thorough investigation
in committee and to permit meaningful amendments. The one which
I will propose will surely not be too controversial. It is
simply to build in the opportunity for the chief electoral
officer to investigate and experiment with electronic voting.
Since that has been in the Elections Act in Ontario for three
years there is no reason it should not be in the federal act.
I look forward to being in committee. I also look forward to a
meaningful debate once the bill is back in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pleasure that I rise today to take part in the
preliminary debate on Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of
members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating
to elections and making consequential amendments to other acts.
I would like to point out that, in preparation for this bill, no
fewer than 14 sittings of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs were spent considering the present Canada
Elections Act during this parliament.
Given our detailed and careful study, we were entitled to expect
that the government would pay particular attention to the
various recommendations formulated by the standing committee,
but this did not seem to be entirely the case.
Certain unanimous recommendations of the committee are nowhere
to be found in the bill. I will come back to this a little
later in my speech.
1050
To begin with, when we considered the Canada Elections Act, I
was struck by two things in particular: funding of political
parties, and the corollary issue of trust funds established to
support candidates. No less important, I would say that the
partisan process for appointing electoral officers also leaves
me confused.
Under the Canada Elections Act, small and large corporations
have always been able to contribute to the funding of federal
political parties. This practice allows the various parties to
amass huge sums, while making it less necessary to approach
individual voters for money.
As they do not have to keep to a contribution limit, corporations
may contribute huge sums to the federal political parties of
their choice, and, need I point out, these contributions
certainly do not go to political parties for purely
philanthropic purposes.
The funding of political parties, as practised federally,
necessarily implies preferential treatment for the most
generous, and God knows just how generous they can be under the
law.
I simply want to say that, with a simple contribution of a few
dollars, the ordinary voter runs the risk of not having the ear
of his political representatives to the same extent as a bank,
which, for example, may make substantial contributions of up to
several tens of thousands of dollars.
The situation creates different categories of contributors, and,
unfortunately, different levels of attention to the many
requests and expectations political leaders must address.
Today, we are considering a bill, which, according to the
government, aims at, and I quote: “equity, transparency and
accessibility”. I might question that. How can the government
claim that this process is equitable, when the provisions of the
bill do not establish any sort of limit for contributions?
Who could claim, without raising an eyebrow, that this system is
truly equitable, transparent and accessible, a system that
allows corporations, which do not have the right to vote, to
meddle in the electoral process by making contributions far
beyond the capability of the ordinary voter, and thus unduly
influencing the political policy of the parties and the
candidates seeking votes?
This bill runs counter to a narrow concept of the rules of
democracy that should govern our society, since it still gives
its wealthier members a more attentive ear and a greater voice
with those representing the public.
As I mentioned in the introduction, having a trust fund to
support candidates seems to be nebulous at the very
least.
Another financial matter, you will say. This point was
unanimously recommended by the members of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs when the federal electoral
legislation was studied.
The members of the committee wanted the government to clarify
the rules governing this practice, which may make it possible to
circumvent the already lax provisions of the election act on
funding of political parties. Well, not a word; nothing we
recommended on the subject appears in the bill we are now
considering.
So what is the point of in depth examination in preparation for
bills such as this one, if the government merely nods and takes
from our deliberations only those elements that suit it and
which it had already in all likelihood decided to legislate?
Does this mean that the work and recommendations of the
committees are only recognized and implemented when they meet
cabinet's expectations?
Large amounts of money may be deposited through trust funds in
the election fund of a candidate, with no one being able to
identify the source of that money. This directly contravenes the
spirit and even the letter of the Canada Elections Act.
Monitoring, through a legislative framework, the source of a
candidate's trust funds would definitely have added greater
transparency to the electoral system, to use a term so dear to
this government. But the Liberals decided not to endorse that
recommendation and one wonders why.
I will now address the appointment process of electoral
officers, which is another example of transparency that is
opaque, to say the least.
1055
How can the government claim to have a transparent electoral
process when returning officers are all appointed by the
governor in council, that is by the party in office?
The Bloc Quebecois can only deplore the partisan nature of these
appointments, something which is unacceptable in a process as
democratic as an election.
The government preferred to keep this eminently partisan
instrument, which it can use to its advantage, instead of
leaving the electoral process in the hands of qualified,
non-partisan and objective people. Can one truly believe that a
returning officer appointed by the party in office will be
unbiased? I have doubts about that in many cases.
And what about the provisions dealing with third party
interventions, which set a spending limit only for costs related
to advertising?
When it considered issues such as the ones I mentioned earlier,
my party came to the conclusion that the expressions “reform”
and “in-depth review of the elections act” were somewhat
exaggerated. It has been over 30 years since the Canada
Elections Act last underwent any serious overhaul. The
government claims to have put forth the so-called principles of
equity, transparency and accessibility, when in fact it did
nothing more than indulge in a primarily self-serving exercise at
the expense of the voters that it should be serving.
Government members missed a good opportunity to demonstrate that
they really had democratization of the electoral process at
heart. It seemed to those of us in the Bloc Quebecois that,
after thirty years of elections under this legislation, a
serious reform could, and should, be undertaken. Having
experienced, in this last year of the millennium, the Liberal
regime and its twenty-five gags imposed in the first session of
the 36th Parliament alone, it would be daydreaming o believe
that the government truly intended to carry out any real
modernization of the electoral system.
I will take this opportunity to express the wish that, despite
the somewhat singular character of the legislative process in
which we are currently engaged in order to pass bill C-2, the
government will truly pay attention to the concerns expressed by
the witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, that it will be open to proposed
amendments it might receive from the various parties in this
House, and that it will be prepared to truly make this process,
this operation to revise the federal election legislation, a
process devoted to truly democratizing the electoral system in
Canada.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-2 which is the first
major overhaul of the Canada Elections Act since 1970. MPs are
very interested in the minute details of the bill because it is
one of the key rule books for the sport of politics and the
business of politics.
I will put the bill's importance into some kind of context. The
biggest single difference between Canadian rules in elections and
U.S. rules in elections is the fact that we have reasonable
campaign spending limits in Canada. In the U.S. spending limits
are stratospheric. One does not have to be a billionaire like
Donald Trump, Ross Perot, Steven Forbes or Oprah Winfrey to run
an election campaign in Canada as one would have to be in the
U.S. We do not have to spend most of our time as elected members
of parliament sucking up to the political action committees of
various lobby groups that have the power to raise money for our
campaigns or to spend millions of dollars to defeat us over some
narrow issue.
It is true that we are seeing a few Americanisms entering our
process on a small scale. If the National Citizens' Coalition
and the Reform Party had their way we would have even more. They
want American style health care and American style politics to
help them get it.
Let us be proud of the following point. It cost Barbara Boxer
$22 million U.S. to win her senate seat in California. That
amount and more will be spent by both Hillary Clinton and Rudy
Giuliani as they run for the vacant New York senate seat.
In comparison, I just received a letter from the Chief Electoral
Officer of Canada saying that the spending limit in my riding for
the next election will be around $61,000. With a few more golf
tournaments and potluck suppers by the hundreds of supporters we
have in my district we can raise that money easily over a four
year period.
We have these spending limits in part because David Lewis and
the NDP were foresighted enough make them part of their price for
supporting the minority Liberal government in 1974.
1100
U.S. style campaign financing makes running for office an
impossibility for ordinary citizens like most of us in the House.
It turns election volunteers into full time, paid professionals,
running round-the-clock, round-the-calendar election campaigns.
It reduces interest groups and social movements to buying and
selling votes instead of trying to influence public policy with
the strength of their research and the moral weight of their
arguments.
One benchmark to assess change in the elections act should be
whether a certain provision helps more ordinary citizens get
involved in the electoral system. Then it is worthy of support.
Another benchmark is if the provision encourages us to
concentrate in the public interest and the public good, rather
than endless fundraising from special interests. Then it is
worthy of our support.
There are many changes in the act that the NDP supports. We
support the national riding limits on third party advertising and
the requirement to identify their sponsors. We believe
uncontrolled advertising would distort elections in favour of
those groups which can afford million dollar ad campaigns at the
expense of democracy. Without this clause we would have the U.S.
style financing to which I referred.
We also support polling blackouts during the last 48 hours of
the campaign. Poll results are capable of being manipulated and
the parties involved need to be given sufficient time to respond
to published findings so the public can get the whole story.
We support changing the voting hours in Saskatchewan. I guess
folks in central Canada who never heard of my province do not
know that we observe only central standard time throughout the
year, but at least now we will not be voting later than B.C. as
we did in the last federal election campaign.
We support the changes which do not automatically deregister
parties and thereby force the sale of assets if that political
party for one election could not muster a slate of at least 50
candidates.
We strongly support the increases in the federal political
contribution tax credit limits for individuals. This is an
inclusionary policy. It involves more people and is the first
change since the NDP obtained these credits as part of a package
to democratize election financing in Canada back in 1974, fully
25 years ago.
Another positive change is the fact that all candidates are now
eligible for the return of the $1,000 nomination deposit once the
appropriate election expense returns are filed with Elections
Canada. Previously candidates needed to get 15% of the vote or
they would lose their deposit.
Official agents can be fired and replaced if necessary during a
campaign and nomination papers can now be filed electronically or
by fax. My colleagues from Yukon, Churchill River, Saskatchewan
and Churchill, Manitoba will certainly appreciate this change as
their ridings are bigger than most European countries. Of course
they do not have the roads to match, at least not until we have a
national highway program.
For our urban friends, the right of access for candidates and
their volunteers to campaign in condos and apartments is
strengthened.
We also support the changes which make it administratively
easier for political parties to merge. Unfortunately, for the
Leader of the Opposition, it cannot be made politically any
easier for him, at least not in this piece of legislation.
However, there are two changes which we oppose, and there are
some glaring omissions. We cannot support the elimination of
so-called “rural vouching”. People who live in the city often
do not know their neighbours. We know that. However, folks who
live in the country all know one another. They grew up together,
went to school together, farm together, do business together and
are usually related to one another.
If Georgina says that Kaye got left off the list because she
does not live on the farm any more, then everyone will take her
word for it because that is the way things are. Some people can
tell a lie to a stranger, some people cannot, but it is just
about impossible to get away with telling a fib to a DRO, a poll
clerk and three or four party scrutineers from your home town;
any or all of whom could easily catch you out.
The Ontario election used the federal permanent voters list
instead of their own enumeration and advertised for revisions.
Almost every voter in certain polls in Toronto had moved during
the intervening two year period. I know we will find the same
thing next time in places like downtown Vancouver and, in
particular, Vancouver East. If we do not reintroduce some
mandatory enumeration of polls with a high proportion of renters
or tenants we may wind up with the American situation where only
rich people and homeowners get around to registering and voting.
That would be a shame, unfair and undemocratic.
The other provision I cannot support and my party cannot support
relates to returning officers. They are now able to vote, which
is okay, but they are still appointed by the government. This is
significant because they hold the job until they die or the
riding boundaries change. These positions should be awarded
after a competition on the basis of merit. A whole new merit
system would be quite a refreshing change in the House of
Commons. It is the only way to maintain the appearance of
neutrality, as well as the practice.
1105
What is missing? There were several issues omitted from this
review of the elections act, a number of which are very important
to the New Democratic Party.
At our recent policy convention we adopted a paper on democratic
reform which made a number of recommendations, including
promoting a form of proportional representation as appropriate
for our country. A system of proportional representation would
contribute to the Canadian sense that the House of Commons
belonged to them and would reduce regional frictions, resulting
in a more dynamic and equitable democracy in Canada, which is
another refreshing suggestion.
The government and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs decided not to examine proportional representation, or PR
as we call it, in spite of a very thorough presentation by my
colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and a lot of
interest around the table. Given the level of cynicism about
politics these days it is a pretty grave omission.
People feel their vote does not count when the allocation of
seats in parliament does not fairly reflect the distribution of
the popular vote. A modified system of PR, where most of the
seats in the commons were still constituency based but a portion
were allocated under a regional or percentage basis under a PR
system, could go some way toward relieving this imbalance. PR
would overcome some of the arguments about regional or provincial
representation made by some defenders of the unelected,
undemocratic Senate.
We would like to see the idea of fixed election dates reviewed
as well. Our convention and our party supports this. This would
remove one of the advantages that an incumbent political party
has over every other political party in the country.
Finally, the voting age has not been lowered in this version of
the act. The Liberals have been trumpeting their so-called
children's agenda. In my view, let the young people vote on the
children's agenda. In fact, it would be interesting to see how
often all party leaders volunteered to campaign in high schools
if these students could actually vote.
Young people are thought responsible enough to drive at age 16.
They can be held responsible for committing violent criminal acts
in adult court. More than that, they will have to live with the
long term implications of decisions taken by the parliament of
today.
Unfortunately, they are taken seriously enough by other parties
in the House, some of which have been known to offer kids a free
bus trip, pizza and a bit of booze to skip school and wave the
flag. I believe that young people will live up to the
expectations we have of them and will not disappoint us.
Many support lowering the voting age to 16, including my
colleague, the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys, as well as the New Democratic Youth of Canada, the Nova
Scotia NDP and many other organizations around the country.
Finally, one thing we would like to see addressed, which was
raised by my colleague from Palliser, is the use of a private
person's likeness without permission in an advertisement during a
campaign. This should not be allowed. We will work to see that
this happens.
I am glad to hear the government House leader say that he is
prepared to co-operate on these issues. This week we are
celebrating co-operatives week and I am pleased to see that the
government House leader will co-operate with all parties to make
some changes to this very important act.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to follow my hon. colleague. He
has hit a very important tone; that is, on an issue such as this
there should certainly be an element of co-operation
I also appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill C-2,
formerly Bill C-83, an act to replace the Canada Elections Act.
As has been pointed out by previous speakers, this is the first
attempt in over 30 years to address this problem. The way in
which this country elects its representatives is the cornerstone
of democracy. It is important to examine closely all of the ways
in which those changes would impact on our system.
To repeat what has been said earlier, this attempt, although
perhaps the bill itself may appear at first blush as being rather
cumbersome and lengthy, is a very important exercise as we engage
in looking at some of these changes. Such legislation is
required to update the language, add new provisions and recognize
the content to reflect changes in the political landscape.
Roger Gibbons, a noted and highly respected political scientist
and author, said that in most instances there is very little
incentive to change a system that is on the government's side, a
system that was responsible for electing it. I give the
government some credit for having taken this bold initiative.
Time will tell as to whether some of these suggested changes
toward making the process more democratic will actually come to
fruition.
Canada's electoral laws in their current form, while still very
effective, do require updating. All Canadians, not just
politicians, are affected very directly by our electoral laws, as
voters, political party volunteers, as well as those who work as
election officials on voting days have a very unique stake in
what this legislation entails.
We know that just 38% of the Canada population elected the
current government, which resulted in this very precarious
majority government system that we now have.
1110
I will not take the time of the House to review the bill in
great depth that we are sending off to committee because it is at
committee where this study will really get down to the nuts and
bolts. However, I will point out a number of the positive
elements as well as some of the areas of the bill that the
Progressive Conservative Party takes issue with.
First, we are pleased to see that third party spending limits
have been reintroduced to the $150,000 maximum, with no more than
$3,000 against the individual candidate.
The PC Party is also pleased to see that measures have been
taken to control Internet advertising. There is no ignoring the
advances that are being made technologically in the country and
while the Internet is a remarkable tool of communication for
millions of Canadians we are still fine tuning its appropriate
use. One needs only to mention the issue of child pornography
and other particular broadcasts that are taking place on the
Internet to highlight the fact that this is an area that has to
be examined very carefully. The potential for abuse is very
real.
Bill C-2 would eliminate the possibility of adding or deleting
content from political parties' election websites after a
blackout period, which is 72 to 48 hours. This is a positive
step. Given the fact that someone could elevate confusion just
prior to an election, this is something we have to take very
seriously.
Just as with the Internet, the emergence of polls as an
important communication tool is another element that cannot be
ignored. The release of polls in relation to the proximity of
election day has been an ongoing source of concern and
frustration both for the elector and the electorate.
I am very pleased therefore to see that the provisions in the
bill would require an individual or polling company who releases
a poll during a writ period to provide an in-depth analysis of the
poll itself, speaking to the voracity, I suggest, and the
importance of the accuracy of the information being relayed. One
can only hope that this measure would dramatically reduce the
number of polls that are perhaps based on inaccurate or
inadequate data. I also believe that it is important that the
media take greater responsibility in clearly outlining the poll's
methodology and how the findings were reported.
Another very positive change that has been alluded to is the
changing of the voting hours, particularly in the province of
Saskatchewan, but I suggest it is as important in Chicoutimi as
it is in Antigonish or anywhere in the country.
An interesting addition to the legislation that is not contained
in Bill C-2 would be to require the chief electoral officer to
notify the leader of a political party of any outstanding filings
from candidates. This, I believe, would be consistent with the
efforts to be more transparent and open as to how all financial
matters are being conducted.
The Conservative Party supports the initiative of the chief
electoral officer to provide candidates with an estimation of the
spending limits in their respective ridings. Greater clarity and
understanding of the rules of engagement are extremely important
to running efficient, effective and honest elections. This is
certainly a tool that would assist candidates as they undertake
their election preparedness.
An examination of the finances that takes place in Bill C-2 is
an extremely important part of the legislation. Increased
accountability, increased accessibility, transparency and all of
those fine watch words that we hear have to be more than just
words.
To quote the previous speaker, there is a high degree of
cynicism that exists about the process that of course flows into
a degree of cynicism about politics in general. If we can
address this at the outset, early in the process, the process
that is responsible for each and every member of the House
arriving here in Ottawa as a representative, it will perhaps help
to stem, to a degree, the cynicism that does exist.
Being able to identify how much money is given to parties will
allow for scrutiny. There is some concern as to how this might
act as a disincentive to some, but it is certainly an important
area to look at and it is one of the specific areas that we in
the Conservative Party very much look forward to examining in
greater detail at the committee.
It is perhaps important as well to look at the raising of the
thresholds for 75% of political tax credits from $100 to $200. We
have some concerns with respect to the publishing of
contributor's names and specific information about where they are
doing business, their location and the ways in which they may be
contacted. This may be a disincentive for some and if we want to
encourage people to participate on a financial level in the
process I think there has to be some respect for confidentiality.
However, this will be dealt with in greater detail at the
committee.
1115
The return of the $1,000 candidate's deposit also encourages
people to participate in the actual process because this is the
basic threshold that a person has to cross to enter into the
fray. The return of the $1,000 deposit is an important change.
The current legislation simply requires that a name be provided
when a donation is made. Bill C-2, just to hearken back to my
earlier point, now requires that an individual must provide
addresses for publication. This may raise real concerns for
individuals who do not wish to have this information made public.
The committee will be delving into that in greater detail.
Another area of concern that the Conservative Party has, and it
is a rather vague concept, deals with the issue of party mergers.
I will not get into this particular debate today. There has been
a lot of debate outside of the House in a different context, and
it is not something that the Conservative Party has pursued.
My initial interpretation of the section in Bill C-2 dealing
with mergers requires simply that two political parties wishing
to merge obtain a signature of two leaders in respective parties.
I can think of a personal example where that will not happen. A
30-day waiting period is then imposed.
However, there is some concern that when an election is called,
that the merger itself would be nullified. So there is some
nebulous content in the bill respecting mergers. I believe we
may be heading down a slippery slope if we were to accept carte
blanche what is currently in the legislation.
There is one other concern I would just like to put on the
record. Our party has some difficulty with the role of the
registered district agents or auditors. While the principle
behind this is sound, it is imperative that the mandate and the
position of this particular person be clarified in the
legislation. The role of the registered district agent or
auditor has far-reaching powers and it is something that must be
clarified.
We are also aware of the seriousness of electoral fraud. We
know it can be a problem. We must therefore empower those
auditors and individuals entrusted with the role of overseeing
elections with the ability to act and act with clarity and force.
However, those powers must be carefully examined before they are
laid down.
I think there was mention of the difference between rural and
the vouching for individuals. We recognize that there is in some
instances in rural communities the ability of a neighbour to come
and vouch for a person but there should be some clarity and
perhaps a method for doing so.
I am encouraged that the government has recognized this as an
area for change to produce a more democratic, better functioning
electoral system. I look forward to taking part in the debate at
the committee and look forward to waiting to see how the
government will react to the input that it will receive no doubt
from all members of the opposition.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
particularly pleased to be able to speak in the debate on the new
Canada elections bill. I was the chair of procedure and House
affairs last year when we dealt with this matter on a preliminary
basis.
It has already been mentioned by some members of the opposition
that this is a large bill. The fact of the matter is that this
is one of the underpinnings of our democracy. Our legislation
and Elections Canada are a model to the world. People come to
Ottawa regularly from other countries to examine how we do
things.
It has been 30 years since there was a comprehensive review of
this important piece of legislation. Over those years, of course,
given the changes in technology and in communications across the
country, all sorts of smaller changes have been made to it,
trying to keep it up to date and so on.
I am particularly pleased at this time that the government has
seen fit not just to fix parts of it but to take this very basic
piece of legislation and develop what is essentially a new act.
The time is right for that given the changes of the last three
decades.
The process on how this was done has been mentioned. It was
unusual, and I realize that it may be difficult for some
opposition members to understand.
1120
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is
the committee responsible in the House for the Canada Elections
Act, conducted an elaborate review of this last year. I
recommend the report that resulted from that review to all
members of the House and to anybody watching this on television.
I recommend it not because it provides all the answers or that it
provides a sort of complete blueprint from which this new
legislation was taken, but because it presents all the views of
registered parties, members of parliament, members of the House
and others who appeared before the committee.
The report does not say one way or the other how it should be
done. It says what particular issue is at stake, what the views
are that were presented to us and whether or not the committee
had a consensus view. The report, which involved very wide
consultation in the House and beyond, provided the basis for the
drafters of the legislation, which was very useful to them.
During the committee's consultations, we did not start with a
blank space. We had before us the work of our predecessors over
the last 30 years in the House of Commons, for example the Lortie
commission which the minister mentioned. We considered the
recommendations of the Lortie commission, many of which have not
been acted upon, with great care and included them in the
committee's report.
We also considered the recommendations of the special committee
of the House which dealt with electoral matters only a few years
ago. We considered those and they are also referenced in the
report. The drafters had the Lortie commission, the
recommendations of the special committee of the House and the
general framework laid out based on the consultations of last
year's Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Now, continuing the process, the minister wants the bill to go
directly to committee for further consultation not only with
members of the House but, as usual, by holding public hearings
with people across the country. There will be further input. I
commend the minister for that. It is very courageous and
appropriate to get the bill into committee now so it can be
debated by all members of the House.
We have now heard from the minister and a number of members of
the opposition parties. There was criticism of course from the
opposition parties but it was constructive criticism.
Because it is a very thick document, I would like to point out
the sorts of things the bill is trying to deal with. In doing
that I underestimate the bill in some ways. It is not a bill
that simply fixes bits and pieces of the legislation. It is a
bill that rewrites the legislation to fit with the modern era.
Nevertheless, I will mention some of the specific points.
Let me give some examples of the way people as voters will
benefit from the legislation. Canadian voters temporarily abroad
will be able to submit their ballots at embassies and consulates.
The legislation has not been revised for 30 years. Thirty years
ago it would have been very difficult to administer a system like
this. One can well imagine people in remote embassies trying to
get a valid vote back into Canada. It could have been quite
difficult and could have delayed the process. We now need
something easier so that is being done.
The minister made the point about signs in multiple dwelling
units. We know we can canvass in buildings which are like small
communities in some of our cities. People live in those
communities. They walk the corridors, ride the elevators and so
on. The legislation, with respect to signage from political
parties, has been different inside these dwellings than it was
outside. The modern reality is that many of us live in multiple
dwellings. It is very appropriate that those of us who do live
in those dwellings have the same chance to advertise and show our
political affiliation as the people who live in single or small
units.
If members think about the changes over the last 30 years, they
think about the role of polls.
Polls are now part of modern life like so many other things.
Maybe in the backs of our minds we would like to turn the clock
back to when polls did not exist but they do exist. It is now
possible to sample thousands of people in a very short time and
very quickly put the results of that sampling in front of people
as they are watching TV at night. This is now recognized in the
legislation today.
1125
The legislation does not ban polls or anything of that sort.
Among other things, it states that during an election campaign
when a poll first appears, the first time it is mentioned in the
campaign, the methodology, that is the exact way in which the
poll was conducted, will have to be given to the public. We will
know if is a straw poll and it is somebody selling hamburgers and
counting the hamburgers that are red or blue or whatever the
methodology may be, or if it truly is a statistically based
sampling of people in all regions, people of all ages, people of
different income groups and those types of thing. I think it is
very appropriate nowadays because the general public is well
informed about such things. Now, when a poll first appears in an
election, the methodology will be described and it will allow us
all to judge the reliability of the results of that polls.
Because we have so much information and it is so easy to get
information out, it is very appropriate that the legislation
provide us with more complete information on the registered
parties, what they stand for and what their organizational basis
is, more information on the candidates who run, whether they run
for main line parties or some local issue of that sort, and more
information on what we in the House now know as third parties.
Third parties are groups that are not registered and have no
running candidates in an election, but want to be able to
advertise on a particular issue in a certain constituency. Again,
it is very appropriate when that occurs. If it is a legitimate
activity, we need to know who those people are, where they are
coming from and, in this legislation, that there be information
about them and spending limits—in this case $3,000 per
constituency—on them in the same way as all candidates and all
parties have spending limits and have to provide information.
This is a fundamental piece of legislation. The process so far
has been very positive and open. It is my sense that when this
gets to committee it will create great interest and input from
all members. I look forward to the discussions. I urge all
members to move forward so that at the end of this process we
will have a new, even stronger Canada Elections Act.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have to admit that this is one of those days when I am actually
sick to my stomach to be a member of parliament. It is obscene
and unconscionable that the government brings through, to serve
its own ends, some of the restrictions on the freedom of speech
that it is doing today.
The idea that a ruling party seeks to restrict the ability of
any other person or group to counter government propaganda during
an election is frankly evil. The government currently uses its
advertising to an unfair advantage. It uses unbridled partisan
activities. I could come up with numerous examples but I do not
think I need to. The population of the country knows them well.
I do not understand why a government is allowed to use taxpayer
funding to get themselves re-elected. I think that is wrong.
1130
Citizens should be able to enforce provisions by filing
complaints with Elections Canada to prevent governments from
doing those types of things with taxpayer funds.
Another aspect I would like to touch on is the whole idea of
patronage. Elections Canada as an instrument of democracy is
rife with people who are chosen by the government to do its
bidding during elections. I cannot think of a better example in
government of a totally patronage ridden system. Other countries
would be wise never to copy such a thing.
With regard to spending limits, two separate court decisions in
Alberta have struck down spending limits as unconstitutional. It
is not the place of the government to limit the right of an
individual Canadian or a group of Canadians to spend their own
money in support of an idea. There is a saying that nothing is
so important as an idea whose time has come, but you can bet that
this government will toss as many roadblocks and obstacles at the
success of an idea as it possibly can.
I cite just one example among many, the Charlottetown accord.
Those people who call others enemies of Canada outspent the other
side by a ratio of 13:1, yet the people's voice still came
through.
Spending limits only really serve the interests of the governing
party. I will elaborate on that later.
Regarding registered party status, in March an Ontario court
struck down requirements that would force a party to run 50
candidates in order to have its candidates listed with party
affiliation on the ballot. By what rationale are two candidates
or more not sufficient to be recognized as a political party?
This is why. It is because the governing party likes big
parties.
The Liberals like the idea that you cannot start up small and
expand and it does not like competition. That is the reason
these rules have been put in. It goes so far as to require the
liquidation of a party's assets and to send the money to the
receiver general for failure to run 50 candidates in an election.
How dare they. Why not let the voters rather than the
government decide who they want to represent them?
It is nothing but a clear attempt to stifle the formation and
growth of new parties and to limit competition on the ballot. In
other countries that have proportionate representation they make
selections between 35 parties or more on a given ballot, yet the
Liberals, the ruling party across the way, tell Canadians by this
legislation that they are too stupid to make the same types of
distinctions on ballots. That is exactly what the Liberals are
saying by this legislation.
A small issue which one of the other members touched on is the
idea of party mergers. This legislation will disallow local
decisions for parties to run a single candidate between them.
Instead it centralizes power and requires the signature of party
leaders in order to perform some sort of local merger. It
disallows the idea of local decisions and local
self-determination.
On the idea of voter identification, currently an electoral
official may ask for proof of identification but a voter can take
an oath instead. Imagine the strange and bizarre scenario where
a homeless friend of the prime minister could arrive at a voting
station and say “I do not have any proof of my eligibility to
vote or proof of residence”. “What is your name, sir?” “John
Crouton”. “Where do you live, sir?” “24 Sucks Us Drive,
Ottawa, Ontario”. And that person may be eligible to vote. That
is a travesty in our democracy.
That type of abuse could go on at our polling stations.
Identification should be shown to prove eligibility and
residence. That is only fair. It substantiates our right to
vote and gives it some validity.
1135
I will talk about taxpayer subsidies. We should oppose any
assistance to political parties and political lobbies from public
funds. Taxpayers should not be expected to fund activities
designed to persuade them how to vote. There should be no
reimbursement for those types of things.
On the issue of byelections, the legislation reads now that
byelections must be called within six months but not held within
six months. The distinction is it allows the ruling party to
time byelections according to its own circumstances which it does
all too well. With new computerized voters lists there is no
problem with holding elections within six months and indeed that
has been done.
I will quote a few different sources which I think eloquently
back up some of the things I have been talking about today, some
of the travesties which I think are being done to our elections
act and to democracy.
Dave Rutherford writes a column in the province of Alberta and
also runs a local talk radio show. He pointed out that one of
our former prime ministers actually once said during an election
campaign that it was not the time nor the place to discuss
complex issues. A person who says that kind of thing is probably
the type of person who wants to bring forward legislation that
would restrict freedom of speech and restrict competition on the
ballot. I do not doubt that for a second.
These people want to control the election agenda. They want to
ensure that political parties themselves, particularly the
government party, can establish the agenda of an election.
Unfortunately I note that I only have one minute left in my
time. I would like to quickly read into the record the type of
subsidies that go on and who they benefit.
The upshot of this is that the Liberals had a spending limit of
over $30 million in 1997 but surprise, $22 million of that was in
direct and indirect subsidies from the Canadian taxpayer in terms
of spending rebates and political tax credits.
I think it is wrong. People should do what they can to fight
this legislation. I urge those who challenge it in the courts to
please do so. I hope that even though legislation like this was
brought forward by Trudeau in 1983, again by the Conservative
government when it was in office and by the NDP in British
Columbia, that it once again will be thrown out as
unconstitutional by the courts of this land.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is always a privilege to take part in a debate as important as
the one we are conducting today.
The vast majority of the measures in the bill are as a result of
a long broad based, painstaking consultation process. Today we
are referring this bill, the new Canada Elections Act, to
committee before second reading. The results of the consultation
were subjected to careful analysis by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. The proposed amendments to the
current Canada Elections Act stem directly from that analysis
which was performed by members of all parties represented in this
Chamber.
Our first responsibility as parliamentarians is therefore to
pass those improvements into law and give Canada an elections act
which is suited to the society of today and more important still,
to the society of tomorrow. We should bear in mind that the new
elections act we pass will govern the election of the first
government of the next millennium.
Our second responsibility and no less important, far from it, is
to uphold Canada's role in the eyes of the whole world as a
leader in democracy. The virtues of our democratic system are
known and recognized the world over. In this area as others,
Canada has served as a model, one which is acclaimed at home and
indeed abroad.
1140
Although we have a firmly established reputation for democracy,
we must always work continually to maintain it. Our whole
democratic system in its fullest and most noble expression rests
first and foremost on our electoral process, the very process
which is our task to perfect here today. We must work to perfect
it. We must ever strive for perfection knowing however we will
never fully achieve it.
No matter how strong our collective commitment as members of
parliament to the shared cause of serving Canadians may be, there
will always be new circumstances, special situations, unforeseen
snags and impediments along the way. Simply the process of
social change, the pace of which has increased exponentially as a
right of technological explosion, makes a periodic review
necessary.
The amendments before us today are in keeping with the existing
act's three hallmarks: fairness, transparency and accessibility.
They relate chiefly to the three distinctive areas of
administrative adjustments, publication bans and spending by
third parties during election campaigns.
On the last point, the courts have found some aspects of the act
to be too restrictive and incompatible with the charter of rights
and freedoms. However while that decision settled one problem,
it has created another. The result is while the official parties
and candidates must abide by stringent spending rules, the third
parties remain exempt. We believe this is fundamentally unfair.
In view of the broad public support in the regulation of
election expenses, especially as we look to our neighbours to the
south and see that it seems that now only the rich may run, there
has been demonstrated public support for extending this rule to
third parties. To make these rules fair for everyone, Bill C-2
will raise the spending limit for third parties to $150,000
nationally and $3,000 per riding.
The second main issue of the bill deals with the matter of
publication bans which have also been contested in the courts.
The regulations concerning partisan advertising and the
publication of public opinion polls have been the subject of
various court challenges. On this point too the new measures are
based on the principles of fairness but also accessibility. They
would limit publication bans to the 48 hours before the vote and
require that the methodology used in opinion polls be released at
the same time as the poll results.
As I have mentioned, the first major component of the bill
relates to various changes of a basically administrative nature.
Here more than anywhere else the three great principles of
fairness, transparency and accessibility apply and are in
evidence.
We had previously settled the problems relating to the release
of election results and closing of polling stations given the
existence of different time zones in Canada. However, we had not
dealt with the special case of Saskatchewan which, unlike the
other western provinces, does not move its clocks forward in
summer. The bill provides for this adjustment.
Another inequity had cropped up under the current act which was
with returning officers not having the right to vote except in
the event of a tie. This did not appear consistent with the
provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms. This bill will
give the returning officers the right to vote like all Canadians.
If there is a tie, there will simply be another vote.
The third point relates to urban concentration. Multi-unit
buildings, condominiums and homes for the aged are proliferating
in some towns and are home to a growing number of voters. We are
proposing in Bill C-2 to let candidates campaign in dwellings of
that type and to let tenants or owners, as the case may be, put
up posters and signs.
It has been my experience that certain boards of condominiums
have instituted private bylaws prohibiting canvassing which then
is enforced by security guards. I was involved in one situation
where the security guard was fired for having let canvassers into
the building.
Our existing Canada Elections Act is an exceptional, remarkably
effective document which has served Canadians well for many
years. Many other countries in the world would like to be able
to say the same. It remains however, like many other laws, that
it needs to be updated periodically. Some of its provisions are
30 years old.
As I have pointed out, the changes before us are based on a
thorough analysis of the situation performed by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, an analysis which I
think we can all agree is untainted by partisanship. That
analysis yielded a number of suggestions and in some cases,
conclusions which were included in the committee's nearly
unanimous report. Based on that report the government framed the
new measures that are being proposed to improve the Canada
Elections Act.
Personally, I believe these new measure will achieve their
purpose. I am convinced that in the medium term and the long
term the new provisions will raise the quality of our democratic
system to a still higher level.
1145
The main purpose of a new elections act is to build democratic
respect for the rights and freedoms of a country's citizens and
let all citizens freely choose the people who will represent
them, defend their rights and ultimately ensure their quality of
life. I wholeheartedly recommend passage of the bill in its
entirety.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker,
after the Constitution Act, the Canada Elections Act is, without
a doubt, the cornerstone of our democracy.
The purpose of this act, which encompasses the entire electoral
process, is to ensure that the rules of democracy are respected
so that the House of Commons reflects, as faithfully as
possible, the wishes expressed by voters.
This act has not been overhauled in over 30 years.
It was time, and we might have expected Bill C-2 to opt clearly
for transparency. On reading it, however, we are forced to
admit that, for this government, there is many a slip twixt the
cup and the lip. The transparency is still veiled; I would even
go so far as to say that the veils number at least seven.
There are 577 clauses in the present bill. For the initial
consideration of some 250 pages of text, before Bill C-2 is
referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, 301 parliamentarians will have a total of 180 minutes:
three hours of debate. This will allow a mere 6% of elected
members to speak. Given that nine of 18 opportunities to speak
go to the government party, that leaves nine for the four
opposition parties.
Already, the decision to go with this entirely parliamentary
rule might suggest that the government is not too inclined to
hear what the opposition might have to say on this subject.
During the few minutes allotted to me, I would like to draw
particular attention to two points that we feel are fundamental
but which are striking by their very absence: democratic funding
of political parties, and the method of appointing returning
officers.
For over 20 years, Quebec has been able to take just pride in
having had the courage to clean up party funding by allowing
only individual voters to contribute to party coffers.
The contribution limit is set at $3,000 per voter.
The Quebec legislation, which has been in effect for over 20
years, has been proven effective and we are sorry that Bill C-2
shows not even the hint of a desire to take a similar approach.
However, not a month goes by that events do not make us think
that perhaps the influence of contributors to the government's
electoral fund is directly proportional to the size of their
cheque. Is it simply by chance that the Minister of Transport
is on good terms with the president of Onex? The question is
put; it is up to you to come up with hypotheses.
Clearly, the bill before us today will not increase the public's
confidence in the political parties. The old adage “Them that
has gets” has not lost its meaning entirely.
So long as corporations, both large and small, can contribute to
the electoral coffers as they like, with no restriction,
democracy will be at risk.
For a country that wants to be the best and prides itself on
being so, the federal approach to funding in this bill is an
obvious blight on democracy.
1150
In 75 days or so, we will be in the next millennium. How can we
not regret the fact that this government prefers the status quo
to clearly opting for transparency? Not only is the ordinary
individual's perception of elected officials not improved, but,
more importantly, democracy would come out ahead with
legislation that recognized the vital need to give back to
voters and to them alone the responsibility for the vitality of
the political parties.
The second matter I would like to draw your attention to is that
of the selection of returning officers.
Far be it from me to cast any doubt whatsoever on the ability of
the governor in council to make valid recommendations in this
connection. Moreover, making the number of appointments of all
kinds that fall under its jurisdiction must be a full time job.
Yet the fact that appointments of returning officers are
perceived as political appointments in itself casts some doubt
on the impartiality of these appointments.
The role of returning officer is key to the entire electoral
process. He is responsible for applying the legislation and for
settling any conflicts. As everyone is aware, a decision can
satisfy some and stir up controversy with others. Just how wise
is it to maintain a controversial system of appointment rather
than assigning this responsibility to a committee which would
examine applications for the position submitted in a
competition?
Could a candidate defeated in a previous federal election be
appointed returning officer? There have already been
appointments as surprising as this within the present selection
process. It is not unreasonable to believe that a committee
would select from among the candidates the person best fitting
the requirements of ability plus impartiality. And if, by
chance, a former Bloc Quebecois candidate were to become a
returning officer, there is a good chance that he or she would
make an excellent one.
Here again, the government had a choice of transparency, but
once again it has chosen the status quo. That is a choice that
we regret.
On the 18th century, Montesquieu wrote “The love of democracy is
a love of equality”. Canada is a democratic country, but
democracy is as fragile as fine china, and the lawmakers have a
duty to protect it.
Not only to protect it, but to improve it.
By maintaining the present rules for political party funding and
the appointment of returning officers, Bill C-2 confirms our
suspicions that the democratic discourse adopted by the
government does not necessarily have as its corollary any love
for equality.
We greatly regret this, and in the words of Châteaubriand, a
parliamentarian himself, we are forced to acknowledge that this
bill does not meet our legitimate expectations and that,
“despite the efforts of democracy to raise its standards with
its grand goals, its standards are lowered by its actions”.
What a pity that the democratic habits of the Liberal Party
will, instead of raising the standards of Canadian democracy,
remorselessly lower those standards.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, it is a delight to have an opportunity
to speak today to Bill C-2 to amend the elections act.
My presentation will be somewhat different from some of the
others we have heard so far, which I must say have all been quite
interesting.
1155
I will be very specific in my comments. I want to make clear
that I am not necessarily speaking in terms of advancing New
Democratic Party policy. It is a policy in a number of our
sections. I know it is a policy also in a number of other party
sections, particularly the youth sections. I am referring in
particular to section 3 of the elections act which states that
every person who is a Canadian citizen and is 18 years of age or
older on polling day is qualified as an elector.
As we begin the 21st century, we hear more and more from all
political parties about the concern of young people. The way
society and the economy are going there will be a future for
them. The younger generation will be taking on major leadership
roles very quickly and at very young ages.
We should listen to the words of the government House leader
today when he said that we should work to make the act better for
all Canadians. This is the first time we have had a chance for
some major overhaul for the past almost 30 years and we should
consider lowering the voting age from age 18 as it currently is
to age 16.
Probably most MPs like myself spend a lot of time in high
schools talking to young people. If there is one point that
stands out clearly it is that young people today are very
informed, very serious, and very hard working. We do not often
hear about them. We often hear about the ones that are the small
minority, but overwhelmingly young people today are incredibly
bright, hard working and dedicated to their studies.
It becomes very clear that they are very well informed about
political, economic and societal issues. When it comes to
elections in some cases I am prepared to say that many of
Canada's young people aged 16 or 17 are probably more informed
than their parents on some issues.
I wonder if it is not time for us now to be as bold in our
thinking as members of parliament as others in the past were bold
and said against incredible opposition that it was time for women
to have the vote. To think anything other than that now is
absolute folly. Also it was suggested a few years ago that first
nations people should have a chance to vote. To think back that
we as a country only allowed first nations people to vote in the
1960 general elections is almost incredible.
Today I am suggesting that young people aged 16 and 17 should be
given the opportunity to participate in Canada's electoral
process.
Section 215 of the criminal code says that everyone is under a
legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian, or head of a
family to provide the necessities of life for a child under the
age of 16 years.
At age 16 a whole number of things change for young people. At
age 16, for example, they can drive any kind of vehicle on our
highways. They can join and serve in the armed forces of Canada.
They are eligible for adult court consideration in our justice
system. They can use a firearm and go hunting. They can leave
school if that is their wish. They are no longer under their
parents' legal obligation to care for children. They have the
legal right to get married and to raise children. They can be
eligible to receive social assistance but they cannot participate
in Canada's electoral process.
They are not permitted to vote. They can go hunting, drive
cars, get married and join the armed forces, but we do not permit
young people who wish to vote the opportunity to cast their
ballots in terms of the party of their choice and of the policies
of their choice. After all, people who are aged 16 and 17
probably have the most to lose or gain by policies that parties
and governments put forward compared to others in society.
Let us look at what happens in other jurisdictions that have
given the vote to young people aged 16 and 17. There are
countries which for a number of years have said that they want
our young people to participate in the electoral process, to get
involved. We do it for a particular set. Young people of 16 and
17 years of age are welcome to join a political party and choose
the leader of that party. They are welcome to participate in
enumeration during election time. They are welcome to participate
and develop party policy for the New Democrats, the Reform Party,
the Conservatives or the Liberals.
They can choose leaders, develop policy and participate in the
electoral process, but they cannot vote. There seems to be some
inconsistency here, some slight hypocrisy in our positioning when
we say we want to involve young people in their country's
electoral process, we want them to participate but we will not
let them vote on voting day.
1200
Now there is a window of opportunity which we have not had for a
long time as members of parliament. We can say to young people
that not only do we want them to participate in the electoral
process to determine the future of their country but we certainly
want them to be able to cast a vote on election day by lowering
the voting age from 18 to 16. It would potentially add almost
700,000 young people to the voters list. They would not all want
to vote, just as their parents do not all want to vote. A lot of
adults do not vote today but the majority do.
There are jurisdictions that have permitted young people to
vote. A number of years ago Brazil said it wanted 16 and 17 year
olds to participate in the electoral process. There were a lot
of naysayers who said that they do not care about politics and
they will not participate, blah, blah, blah, but the reality is
quite the contrary. The participation rate of 16 and 17 year old
voters in Brazil is higher than the average. In other words,
given the opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful way
in their country's future, these young people rallied to the
cause, as do young people in Nicaragua. They also have the
opportunity to participate and vote at ages 16 and 17. They are
participating and showing interest in numbers beyond those of
their parents.
Knowing the young people I know and I suspect it is the same for
my colleagues in the House of Commons, when we go to high schools
and technical schools and we talk to these young people about the
future, they have ideas. They know the situation. They have
concerns. They would love to participate in the electoral
process if we gave them that opportunity. From the limited
information we have of those countries that permit this, not only
do young people participate but they participate
enthusiastically.
My understanding is that the youth wings of all the political
parties in the House have endorsed this concept, at least in
principle or in detail. Many of the provincial sections of our
parties have adopted the idea of considering lowering the voting
age from 18 to 16.
As we look through the various clauses of the elections act
before us, clause 3 says a person has to be 18. Let us go back
30, 40 or 50 years, or to where we changed the age from 21 to 18.
It was stated at that time that 18 year olds were much more
informed than they were previously.
We all know about the technological revolution that has taken
place in the last few years. Now young people are plugged into
the electronic world probably a whole lot more than we are. They
understand the issues. They know how to get the information.
Those who wish to be are tuned in to the web pages of political
parties. They are on the Internet. As a matter of fact some of
them spend half their life on the Internet becoming informed
about all kinds of issues.
For those young men and women who are 16 and 17 years old, let
us be bold as members of parliament as we approach the 21st
century and extend to them a welcoming hand. Let us say we want
them to participate in their country's electoral process. For
goodness sake let us give those who wish to vote the opportunity
to do so.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I find it
particularly satisfying and exciting to begin the new session of
parliament with the prime objective of improving our nation's
democratic process.
Bill C-2, the purpose of which is to replace the current Canada
Elections Act, was born of a great consensus here in parliament.
The measures that are being proposed are in fact the outcome of a
long and comprehensive consultation exercise, a process in which
all parties represented in the House took part through the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
That consultation, conducted with the highest regard for the
principles of parliamentary democracy, generated many suggestions
and even allowed us to draw certain conclusions. The bill we are
examining today is therefore not exclusively the creation of the
government; rather it reflects to a considerable extent the
opinions of all parties present in the House.
1205
Our electoral system has certainly made its mark throughout the
world. New democracies are taking inspiration from it and using
it as a model. True, this electoral system has evolved over the
years and up to now has generally served the Canadian people
well. But like anything else in the real world, an electoral
system is never perfect. Because the society it serves is
constantly changing, our electoral system must not only keep pace
with this evolution, but it should anticipate it to the greatest
extent possible.
When we come to think of it, an electoral system is never
intended to respond to the limited needs of the day. On the
contrary, an electoral system must anticipate tomorrow's
democratic society and prepare for it. To achieve this
objective, Canada has spared no effort. Over the past few years
there have been countless studies and reports.
The Lortie commission on electoral reform, to name one, made
numerous recommendations. Those recommendations brought about
the striking of a special House committee which in turn produced
five separate reports to the House of Commons.
More recently, Canada's chief electoral officer, Jean Pierre
Kingsley, submitted his own report following the 1997 election.
This towering mass of work bears witness to the interest
parliamentarians take in electoral reform. This new bill marks
its culmination.
In fact, our task is basically to improve a system that has made
our democracy a source of pride and international recognition. We
must correct a few imperfections, fill some gaps, update some
components of the existing act to better reflect today's reality,
but perhaps most important, adapt each measure to the
requirements of the charter of rights and freedoms.
This latter aspect relates to some of the financial measures
more specifically, the participation of third parties in election
campaigns, for example. To what extent should we accept this
participation and what restrictions are to be imposed on
spending? Those issues have already raised much controversy,
including legal action. In this regard, the new bill provides for
higher limits to allowable spending, $150,000 nationally and
$3,000 per riding.
In terms of administration, Bill C-2 includes a series of new
measures intended to facilitate many matters and here again to
better respect Canadians' rights and freedoms.
Among other measures, Bill C-2 provides that returning officers
will have the right to vote, which has not been the case in the
past.
The third important aspect of the bill concerns publication bans
on both advertising and polls. This is another aspect of the act
that has been contested before the courts. The elections act of
1974 banned all electoral advertising at the beginning of the
campaign and before voting day. This was the situation until
1996 when the Alberta Court of Appeal rejected this principle in
the Somerville case.
As far as publicizing the result of polls is concerned, the ban
applied for 72 hours before polling. Last year however, the
supreme court handed down a decision in the Thomson case
declaring this to be inconsistent with the exercise of rights and
freedoms. That decision of the supreme court also added an
important proviso in that it stipulated voters should be given
the opportunity to make up their own minds as to the credibility
of polls by analysing the methodology. Thus the court was saying
that parliament's restrictions might be more acceptable if they
included a requirement to make the polling methodology public
along with the results of each poll.
As a result, the government has opted for the best possible
compromise in the new measures being put forward. First, all bans
at the beginning of the electoral campaign are lifted.
Second, the bans before voting day are shortened from 72 hours to
48 hours. Third, the bill requires that the publication of all
public opinion polls during an election period include in the
first 24 hours of publication, full details of the polling method
applied. This decision first and foremost was intended to ensure
fairness toward all voters.
1210
Obviously some will cry censorship. They will argue that
Canadian voters are perfectly capable of separating the wheat
from the chaff and selecting the information that is meaningful
to them. That may very well be. However the 48 hour period is a
means of giving the voters a bit of a respite before they go to
the polls, allowing time for personal and individual reflection
without outside influence. I should note here that the supreme
court in the Thomson decision did not take this reflection period
into consideration. I believe this is a serious argument that
brings the new measures entirely within the intent of the charter
of rights and freedoms.
As to polling methodology, its publication will enable people to
get a better idea of whether the results are based on
professional polling or amateur surveys.
In closing, this electoral reform is yet another means of
preserving what is most precious to all the people of Canada, our
democracy. As we go about our day to day business we do not
often have to think of it and when we do, we often see our
democratic freedoms as an acquired right, perhaps even as our
due. Yet it takes only passing attention to international events
of late unfortunately to remind us of the richness of our
democracy. It is this richness that Bill C-2 seeks to preserve.
With Canada being a world leader in this area, there is no
standard to follow. We must learn as we go. We must learn from
our mistakes, our imperfections and our evolution. This is
exactly what electoral reform is aimed at, improving the
elections act equitably and transparently. Surely it is possible
in order to safeguard what we as Canadians most cherish, our
democratic freedoms.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, modernizing the
Canada Elections Act is of the utmost importance to update a
tool that is indispensable to the framing of our democracy.
I think it is not going too far to say that, after 30 years, we
must carefully look at every detail of this issue. It is a
start. Members of the House of Commons have done some
preliminary work that is very important. But this bill is far
from being perfect.
In this exercise, it is essential to keep in mind that the work
that has started and will continue over the next few weeks and
the next few months will serve Canadian democracy and also each
Canadian who must assume his or her responsibility to vote at
specific intervals.
It is important to consider certain elements which, to us, seem
indispensable. This is a very laborious exercise. We are
addressing issues on which it may be difficult to reach a
consensus. The numerous clauses and hundreds of pages setting
out the proposals to be submitted to the House at a later time
force us to recognize that it is almost a monk's job that will
be asked of parliamentarians.
It will be hard to agree on everything. Regarding the financing
of political parties, for example, policy issues will arise that
will need to be discussed. And these will be difficult issues.
1215
There is, for example, the issue of popular financing, which was
introduced in Quebec. In spite of the fact that the act marked a
huge improvement in the exercise of democratic rights, it is not
perfect either. Under the provincial act, a business or its
members may still contribute to the financing of political
parties.
For example, in a law firm, only personal contributions are
allowed. However, the firm itself could very well ask its
members to contribute to a political party with the promise of
being reimburse by the firm. A direct link between financing and
democracy is not as easy as it may seem to make.
These are nuances that will be important to address in debate or
in committee.
The selection of returning officers is also an issue that will
have to be addressed. We need to put in place a system where
returning officers at least appear to be beyond too direct
political influence. In debate, it will be very interesting to
hear suggestions from all political parties and all Canadians on
how to improve this procedure.
It will also be important to consider issues such as the voting
age. It is becoming almost unavoidable to change the legal
voting age given that, as one of my colleagues noted, young
people are increasingly well-informed, and from an earlier age,
about the problems and challenges they will have to face during
their life.
It will be important to consider changes in that respect.
Letting younger people take part in a democratic process, in an
election, would probably force the vast majority of Canadians to
be more attuned to the priorities that are of particular concern
to young people. Some of our debates, which have been going on
for over 15, 25 or 30 years, will have to be set aside, so that
we can deal with issues that concern young people.
In that context, we have to be open to the idea of lowering the
voting age. To allow young people to vote at age sixteen might
be appropriate. At that age, and even before, young people are
increasingly aware of the issues confronting them. Such a change
might bring some fresh air to the Canadian democracy.
Let us not forget that these amendments to the Canada Elections
Act concern all Canadian voters.
That is why we may have to try to go as far as we can in seeking
a consensus, so as to achieve near-unanimity in the House of
Commons regarding this legislation.
There will obviously be policy issues involved. Each party has
been adhering to certain principles for many years, even
decades. In undertaking a review of such an important act, we
should perhaps set aside the principles that have guided our
actions in the past and be more forward-looking instead. This is
important in order to give all Canadians an act that will
reflect a great deal of openness regarding several issues,
including financing.
Financing has always been a very divisive issue in Canada, where
we have the strict public financing process as we know it in
Quebec and the traditional financing system used elsewhere in
the country.
I think it is possible to reconcile the two and come to agree on
financing methods that are acceptable to all Canadians, without
contravening the principles of democracy.
We raised the issues of polls, electronic information, Internet,
etc., and we will raise them again.
1220
It is important to limit such action rationally, because it is
possible—democracy is important, we must protect it—to put it
to demagogic use even. Therefore, activity involving election
polls and electronic information that will be distributed
increasingly, both publicly and within our families, must be
given a framework.
I believe that the fact of having to publish the full
rationality behind polls conducted will prevent, obviously, in
the context of a regular election campaign, the publication of
certain polls intended strictly to serve partisan purposes and
to manipulate the very democratic action people are called on to
take from time to time, namely vote in all good conscience.
This is an important point that must be addressed.
The fact that the number of hours in which the publication of
polls both rational and less rational will be controlled is
surely good news and will enable all Canadians to cast their
vote in an objective and rational way that will benefit the
country as a whole. I believe that our role as politicians is
to do everything necessary to promote transparent democracy.
Among the various parties, everything must be done, in the
context of the revision of election legislation, so that the
periodic act of voting by the public may be governed by
objective and non partisan rules. I am sure that all the time
spent revising the Canadian election legislation will be
beneficial for decades to come.
I thank the House for having given me a few minutes to express
my thoughts.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to begin by expressing my support for the bill introduced by the
government leader and reminding members that the new measures in
this bill are the result of consultation by various parties over
a period of several years.
First, with respect to the time difference dilemma, we realized
that the situation of Saskatchewan called for special attention.
The minister has already covered this this morning. A special
amendment in the bill also applies to the various aspects of
publication during an electoral campaign. The problem of
blackouts arises, not just with respect to advertising per se,
but also with respect to the publication of opinion polls.
The minister has set out the government's reasoning very
clearly: in any democratic election, the electorate must have
the final word, without any interference or influence. Under
the 1974 legislation, third parties claiming to have no
political affiliation could intervene financially and however
they wished in an election campaign.
Obviously, partisan independence was quickly challenged and, in
1993, new legislation had to be introduced to limit their
spending to $1,000. And this was where the domino effect of the
Charter came into play, because the courts ruled that such a
limit was contrary to the exercise of rights and freedoms. The
solution thus led to a new problem.
1225
But there is public pressure on the government to do something
about this.
Polls have shown that eight out of ten Canadians approve the
imposition of third party spending limits. What is more, 79% of
those polled think that these third parties should not be
allowed to spend more than the candidates, as is now the case.
In this new bill, the government is therefore proposing that
third party spending be capped at $150,000 nationally, and
$3,000 per riding.
Still on the topic of funding, another factor called for
immediate attention and that was inflation. By keeping its
fiscal house in order, the present government has undoubtedly
managed to minimize inflation's impact in recent years.
Nonetheless, since the 1974 legislation, the need for
improvements at the electoral level has made itself felt. And
this is another of the provisions in Bill C-2.
[English]
As I indicated, the bill is a good step in the right direction.
I am certain there will be other desirable measures in the not
too distant future.
I would like to put on record a suggestion that was made by a
group of constituents in Davenport who some months ago suggested
the establishment of a declined vote ballot paper. In other
words, the option ought to be given to the elector to indicate
that he or she declines to vote as a form of rejection,
disapproval or malcontent with the candidates who are indicated
on the ballot paper, none of whom meet the expectations of the
elector. It is a novel idea. It is the subject of a private
member's bill which I put forth. I look forward to the
opportunity of explaining it in more detail at the appropriate
moment.
Before concluding I will comment on the financing of election
campaigns. Election campaigns need not be as expensive as they
are now. They can be run on much smaller budgets, with much less
publicity at the national and local levels, with perhaps more
debate and with particular discussions at the community level.
There is no doubt we have a good system in place. It is the
envy of many other electoral jurisdictions, but we have to make
progress on the question of maintaining the electoral process as
independent as possible from sectoral interests.
In that respect I urge the government to give serious
consideration to the elimination of contributions by sectoral
interests such as the corporate sector and organized labour and
trade unions and to increase the incentives for individual
contributions.
Under that kind of system which exists in some jurisdictions the
head of a corporation or union would make a personal
contribution. In other words, the contribution would be on a
personal basis rather than on the basis of a company or a union.
The person would make that contribution out of the funds
available to him or her as a private citizen and not as a
contribution in the name of a corporation that may pursue
specific interests in the legislation in the following parliament
with a specific bill under certain conditions, or may use the
threat of the withdrawal of contributions in future elections as
a means of obtaining the attention and bending, so to say, the
will of the government of the day.
1230
The ideal goal that we ought to be aiming for would be a system
in which individual contributions would become more and more in
number, thus enhancing the democratic quality of our system
because it would involve more people recognizing their civic duty
and their civic right to make contributions to the party of their
choice, but on a private, personal and individual basis. At the
same time this would be coupled with the goal of eliminating
corporate sector and organized labour contributions and any
contribution by a specific narrow interest in society.
One has to recognize that this is one of the issues that the
government has already tackled in Bill C-2, by way of its
amendments, which will deal with sectoral interests and specific
interests with respect to publicity and intervention during an
election period.
We are on the right path. We are moving in the right direction.
We now need to build on this measure contained in Bill C-2 and
move toward a system that will allow for the flourishing of
individual contributions and a gradual, if not determined,
elimination of contributions from the corporate and organized
labour sectors.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in
opposition to the government's scheme to torpedo Bill C-2 through
the House.
This bill proposes changes to the Canada Elections Act. It is a
very important bill for our democracy.
As my colleagues, the hon. members for North Vancouver and
Calgary West, have already pointed out, this bill was examined in
committee during the first session of this parliament. Yet, the
contents of the bill being introduced today prove that the
Liberals have ignored the witnesses who appeared before the
committee. It is as if there had been no committee hearings at
all with respect to this bill.
Normally bills before the House are sent to committee for study
after the debate at second reading has taken place. Because the
government could not get this bill passed in the first session,
is it reintroducing it and sending it to the committee
immediately, where it can secretly amend it? Or, is it to
prevent the bill from being amended as a result of having no
debate at second reading?
This bill maintains the most objectionable provisions of the
Canada Elections Act, especially those that benefit the ruling
party, in this case the Liberal Party. Our elections should be
democratic, free and fair, offering equal opportunity to all
candidates and all parties.
Canadians have been asking for changes to the way we elect our
federal government representatives. With this bill we see
clearly that the Liberals have once again failed to respond to
the wishes of Canadians. What a great way to start the second
session of parliament.
This week the Liberal government that lacks vision is being
particularly undemocratic with Bill C-2. The government has
wasted an opportunity to modernize and democratize the Canada
Elections Act. Specifically, it has failed to deliver changes to
a number of things; for example, patronage appointments, party
registration requirements, campaign financing, third party
spending issues, the reimbursement of election expenses, voter ID
and the timing of elections and byelections.
1235
In the short time I have to speak on this bill I will say a few
words about some of these areas.
Let us talk about patronage appointments. Under the current
elections act the system of patronage allows parties to appoint
people to positions. Returning officers are political
appointees. The returning officers appoint their own assistants,
poll clerks and others. This is a way of rewarding the party
faithful, which has no place in our electoral system. It is
outrageous in what is supposed to be a non-partisan, impartial
and neutral electoral organization.
Elections Canada always recommends against a patronage ridden
system when it helps developing nations set up their electoral
system. Yet, the Liberals are maintaining the system because it
benefits them. They go out to preach what they do not practise
at home.
Elections Canada has repeatedly asked the government to release
it from the patronage system and allow it to hire its own staff
for elections by advertising and interviewing based on ability,
merit and experience. Many Reform MPs have insisted in the past
that these appointed positions be advertised in newspapers for
staffing instead of filling these positions as patronage
appointments.
The chief electoral officer's report on the 36th general
election made the same recommendations as we have been proposing
on this side of the House. Opposition MPs on the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs supported this position,
but the Liberals opposed it, proving that the government's
position is politically motivated in what should be a
non-partisan situation.
The third party spending limit is proposed to be $150,000 during
a federal general election, of which no more than $3,000 may be
spent on any particular riding. We believe that it is not the
place of government to limit the rights of individual Canadians,
or group of Canadians, to spend their money in support of a cause
or a candidate in federal elections.
Far from levelling the playing field the Liberals are
challenging the hallmarks of our democracy. For example, the
ruling Liberal party has free broadcasting time based on the
number of members of parliament it has, far and beyond what any
other party is allowed to have. Have the Liberals changed that
situation with this bill? No, absolutely not. This would give a
huge advantage to the Liberals by restricting the ability of any
other person or group to counter government propaganda during an
election.
Let us talk about the requirements for registered party status.
The elections act requires a political party to run 50 candidates
in an election to remain a party on the ballot. The courts in
Ontario say that only two candidates are needed to form a party.
It is the voters, not the government, who should decide whether a
party or a candidate is worthy of their vote. It is up to the
voters, not the government. This is an attempt by the government
to hinder the formation and growth of new parties like the Reform
Party. The government is actually trying to limit competition on
the ballot. It is undemocratic. It is anti-democratic. The
government should be ashamed.
Regarding voter identification, currently, when there is doubt
about a voter's identity or right to vote, that person may be
asked for proof of identification, or the voter can be asked to
swear an oath. That is absolutely ridiculous. If someone is
evil enough to try to commit fraud in an election, surely we can
assume that the same person would have no problem swearing an
oath, lying to God or to himself.
Regarding electronic voting, the Liberal government is ignoring
the realities of the information age in denying us the use of
electronic voting methods that are more efficient, less costly
and more universally accessible voting systems. In Ontario
electronic council elections can be run for one-sixth of the
normal cost.
Let us talk about the reimbursement of a party's election
expenses. The Liberals allow reimbursement of campaign expenses
and then restrict eligibility for reimbursement to certain
parties. What is going on here?
There should be no reimbursement at all to any candidate or any
party.
1240
Bill C-2 retains the requirement for a candidate to deposit
$1,000. The candidate's deposit should be much lower, in the
interest of encouraging Canadians to participate regardless of
their financial position.
In conclusion, there are many other areas where the bill could
be criticized as undemocratic, including the lack of fixed dates
for federal elections, the timing of byelections, government
advertising or propaganda before an election, and others, but
time prevents me from commenting on these matters.
I would like to read an e-mail from one of my constituents.
Bill Lawton states: “All in all I feel this is just an affront
to democracy. This bill is really draconian and not relevant to
the democratic citizenry”. My constituents know all about the
bill. It is manipulation by the power hungry government in power.
It is nothing less than dictatorship, worse than even the
military government in Pakistan. Let alone scandals, it is
enough to call this government corrupt. It is a crime in broad
daylight. The government must amend Bill C-2 and restore
democracy in Canada. If this bill goes through in its present
form Canadian voters should refuse to vote Liberal in the next
election.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in
support of the government's introduction of a new elections act.
Let me begin my remarks today by congratulating Elections Canada
for the work it has done in the past. I know that under the new
bill it will continue to do fine work.
I have been involved directly in two elections. I do not know
if Elections Canada is monitoring this speech, but if it is I
want to say how well I thought it did from my own personal
experience. Any Elections Canada official I had to deal with was
extremely fair and I have had nothing but a good experience with
the organization. I know that with the new bill it will continue
to operate in a fair-handed, even manner and we look forward to
the continuation of a tradition which I think Canadians hold
dear, democratic elections.
Elections Canada really is like a referee. We have the best
election when we do not notice that it is there. It is like a
sports game where we do not notice the calls that are being made
by the referee. There is much work that Elections Canada does in
getting ready for an election, such as voters lists and setting
up the polls. It is a tribute to the hard work that there are
not more complaints, given the complexity of the task of having
people vote in a country as large as this.
I will now turn to some substantive issues which have been
addressed by members opposite. The opposition has raised the
issue of the bill going to committee before second reading. I
want to point out to members in the Chamber and to Canadians
generally that by having the bill go to committee before second
reading gives committee members greater latitude for a fuller,
broader debate and to make different amendments than they would
otherwise be able to make if the bill went to them after second
reading.
The basic principles of parliamentary procedure are that once a
bill goes through second reading it has been approved in
principle. Amendments that can be made are somewhat more
narrowly defined than would be allowed under parliamentary law,
or more narrowly defined in that they cannot go against the bill
which has already been approved in principle.
By going to committee before second reading committee members
can have a broader debate. They can look at numerous amendments
in a broader context. Being a member of that committee I look
forward to having a very full and frank debate, which will impact
on all of us elected to the House as well as Canadians
everywhere.
There are a number of administrative changes that are being
proposed in the bill and there are reasons we need to make those
changes.
Canada's electoral laws are based on principles we value as a
democratic society: fairness, transparency and accessibility.
They provide the framework of our electoral system. A House of
Commons committee has concluded that Canada's electoral law
remains strong, although a number of provisions came into effect
nearly 30 years ago and should be updated. The proposed
administrative changes are based on the committee's report.
The first electoral administrative change I would like to talk
about is the adjusting of voting hours. We will allow for the
adjustment of voting hours for areas that do not switch to
daylight savings time when other clocks move ahead one hour.
This will ensure that polls in Saskatchewan will close either
before or at the same time as polls in Alberta and British
Columbia. This corrects the problem experienced in Saskatchewan
in the last election.
1245
I am sure we all remember a time when it used to be a grievance
of western Canadians that as they turned on their televisions on
election night there was a sense that the election had already
been determined even before they had cast their votes because of
the time zone switch. A government may have obtained a majority
once the returns were made in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and
Ontario. By the time the returns got to either the prairie
provinces or British Columbia, the majority had already been set
and there was a sense that their vote did not matter as much.
I understand that. The government was wise to try to correct it
in the last parliament. Now we are fine-tuning it a bit so that
we will get the results at the same time. In 1997 it made for an
exciting return. All Canadians have a sense that their votes
count just as much when the returns come in at roughly the same
time.
The act will also provide for standardized hours of voting for a
single byelection or more than one byelection in the same time
zone, being from 8.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. It will enable returning
officers to vote. At present they may vote only in the case of a
tie. It will authorize the electronic submission of nomination
papers for all candidates to take account of the advent of new
technologies.
It will ensure the right of electors to post reasonable
electoral signs and of candidates to canvas in multiple unit
residential buildings, including condominiums, during campaigns.
Having canvassed in apartment buildings, as have most of the
members of the House. it is often a case of dispute between
oneself and the caretaker of the premises. It will be good to
have it spelled out more clearly in the Canada Elections Act that
candidates actually have a right to go into apartment buildings
during reasonable hours to canvas.
The act will abolish the process of vouching to reduce the risks
of electoral fraud, a practice whereby rural voters could vouch
for neighbours at the polling place so that they would be allowed
to vote even when they had not been enumerated. It will
consolidate, clarify and modernize the language and organization
of the act to make it easier to understand and apply.
In regard to elections financing the bill makes a number of
changes. Some of them are minor and some of them are more
substantive. To offset the impact of inflation it will increase
the threshold to $200 from the $100 level which was set in 1974,
the 75% threshold for the political tax credit.
All of us as politicians who have to raise money understand what
this means, but the general public may not. Right now, if one
makes a donation to a political party one gets a tax credit for
75% of the first $100. That was set in 1974 and obviously it
needs to be updated in light of inflation so we are proposing
that it be raised to $200.
It will increase the threshold for disclosure to $200 from the
current $100 limit. This provision ensures that all donors who
contribute more than the threshold level to a registered party,
candidate or third party are identified by name and address.
The issue of what level the threshold should be, whether $100 or
$200, is somewhat academic. The main point is that it is an
example of something that makes our system fair. If one wants to
donate to a political party, whether one's name is Gerry Schwartz
or some other name it becomes a matter of public record. This is
one of the key elements of our electoral law that prevents
corruption in our system.
Someone may want to try to influence me by making a donation to
my party or to my campaign. However, if it has to be public
there is a record. The opposition can obtain that record and
raise the issue in the House. The local media can obtain it.
This is one thing that limits the influence of big money.
In Canada we have a system of which we can be particularly
proud, particularly in comparison with the system in the United
States where the accusation is often made quite rightly that its
politics are driven by big money. The amount of money that a
congressman or senator has to raise to run for re-election in its
federal system is somewhat scandalous.
My next campaign will spend in the neighbourhood of roughly
$50,000.
My equivalent in the United States would probably spend in the
neighbourhood of millions of dollars. That is something of which
all of us should be proud. It is something we should applaud. It
says something very worthwhile.
1250
Under the new act we will require a more detailed financial
reporting by registered parties. It is the same issue of making
sure that parties conduct their business in a transparent way. If
a party is receiving money from individuals, they are registered
and become public. It will also let us know what money is being
spent on.
During a campaign there are limits on what someone can spend. It
should be open and transparent reporting so that we can see
whether someone is trying to sneak around the campaign limits by
spending money ahead of the campaign. Proper reporting is one of
the cornerstones or the guardians of making sure that people do
not overspend their limits.
The new act will also prohibit the transfer of surplus funds
from a party or local association to a candidate after polling
day. All this does is prevent someone from trying to run to
raise money for their own personal benefit.
I am happy the government is proceeding with the bill. As a
member of the committee I look forward to debating with the
opposition the merits of the bill and any amendments that will
come forward from all members of the House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be able to rise in this short debate today. As you
know, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps not everyone within hearing
distance of the debate knows, we are indirectly talking about
Bill C-2. The motion before the House right now is whether or
not we should send the bill to committee prior to second reading.
I have had some experience with this matter. I will use the
first couple of minutes of my time to address what we are really
supposed to be addressing today, whether or not the bill should
go to committee at this time.
When the bill was first introduced I thought it was a very good
idea. We could get bills out to committee and let the members of
the committee work through the bill in its initial stages so that
before there is an entrenched position we could exercise the give
and take of debate and give due consideration to various aspects
of the bill. Hopefully we would come forward with a bill with
less controversial wording and less in need of amendment. The
whole idea sounded like a really good one.
How do I put this gently and within the rules of parliamentary
language? I think committee work in this parliament is a sham.
That is really a strong statement but it really is so,
unfortunately.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ken Epp: I wish members opposite would listen to what
I am saying. I know they have a duty to protect their political
party and the government of the day.
It is a sham in this sense. It is known that the Liberals as
the governing party dominate every committee. For the Liberals
to have eight members and all of the opposition parties together
to have seven is I suppose okay, but unfortunately government
members lose their freedom in committee as they do the House.
Just as we have had members of the Liberal Party stand with tears
in their eyes to vote against something they were deeply in
favour of, so we have those members in committees controlled by
the leader of the government or the minister, as the case may be.
I have firsthand experience in this regard.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Elk Island has the floor. With all the yelling that is going on
it is very hard for the Chair to hear him. I know members are
enthusiastic in their support of what he has to say or against it
as the case may be, but it is nice to be able to hear the words
of wisdom of the hon. member for Elk Island. I am sure all hon.
members would like to do that.
1255
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I really wish they would give
thoughtful attention to what I am trying to say. As defenders of
democracy, as they like to call themselves, they should also be
speaking the same words I am now speaking.
I remember that when I was first elected in 1993 I came here and
I was involved in a particular party. I brought in an amendment
to a bill at committee. It was one of the first bills that went
to committee before second reading. I was involved in the
debate. I thought it would be great and I put forward an idea.
A clear majority of members, including those on the government
side, were in favour of the amendment I proposed. One Liberal
member used my name and said that I had a good idea. I cannot
use my own name here. It is a stifling of freedom of speech in
the House of Commons. I proceeded with the amendment to the
wording of the bill and assumed that it would be accepted.
There came a day some time later when we voted on clause by
clause in committee. The chairman asked “Shall clause one pass,
shall clause two pass, shall clause three pass”. When it came I
moved an amendment to the appropriate clause as required by
procedure and the Liberal members all voted against it.
Later on I challenged them. I said “I thought you guys were on
my side. I thought you agreed with the common sense of what I
was trying to propose”. I would never divulge the name. Nor
would I even identify the riding, which is within the rules here.
The Liberal member to whom I spoke looked at me, shrugged his
shoulders and said “We really don't have a choice”.
I put forward that evidence to say that the whole process is a
sham. Even though the committee will do the work, and I have no
doubt that it will try to do good work, the ultimate control will
come from the government House leader in that committee. He will
basically dictate what the final results of the bill will be.
It is surely unfortunate that I do not have a couple of hours to
debate everything. I will have to hurry. I will now talk a
little about the bill. My colleague has already mentioned the
magnitude of Bill C-2. It is a huge bill. It has 250-some
pages. There is a lot of detail in terms of prescribing how we
conduct our elections. The index alone has xxii pages, and I
will talk about two of them.
According to the government House leader who made a speech this
morning, one of the topics covered is improving the way our
elections work and of improving democracy in Canada. I want to
talk about clause 39. It is important to actually put on the
record what it says. I want to alert Canadians across the
country from coast to coast who are sitting there glued to CPAC
this morning to pay attention to what it says. There are several
different positions. I cannot read them all but they all have
this wording:
Then it says that the candidates shall be appointed as much as
possible half from the candidate's party that finished first and
half from the candidate's party that finished second.
Is not Elections Canada and the work of Elections Canada
impartial? Is that not what democracy is? We have right in the
elections act proposed by the government an entrenchment of a
practice which has been in our procedures for far too long. There
is a pay off if one votes correctly. The Prime Minister will
tell people in his riding to vote for him and he will be able to
funnel millions of taxpayers dollars into the riding. That will
be their prize for voting for him.
It is time to give Canadians free choice to vote for the
candidate and the party that are principled and that represent
the true values of Canadians. We should not cloud that decision
by the immediate appeal of having money funnelled into the riding
or getting some patronage appointments at the next election
because all these positions are paid for by the Canadian taxpayer
via Elections Canada.
1300
I was surprised when I was first elected to find out that this
process existed. In fact I was a brand new candidate back in
1993. I had never participated in elections before and one day I
got a phone call telling me that the Reform Party came second in
the 1988 election and that I now had the right to name all the
deputy returning officers in the polls. I said, “That cannot
be, Elections Canada is surely impartial. Just because we came
second surely does not give me the right to now say that the
people who voted for the Reform Party in the last election will
now get a payoff, a government job”.
This was wrong and I recognized it right away even though I was
inexperienced. I declined. I told the returning officer in Elk
Island to choose the person who did it the last time if she or he
did a good job. I also said that I did not care what party the
person was with, but that if there was somebody who worked last
time and did not do a good job that I would give my permission to
fire them. I should have been out of the loop.
The principled Reform Party, not the one of political expedience
doing anything that needs to be done to get elected but rather
the one that is based on principle, says that the Reform Party
supports giving Elections Canada the power to select and hire all
of its own employees, including but not limited to returning
officers, deputy returning officers and other field staff. We
believe that the decision should be made on merit and on ability
to do the job and not based on a debt to be paid because of
having shown favour to one political party or another.
If I had time I would also love to talk about many other issues
in Bill C-2 but of course with this process we cannot. I have
only these few minutes and members cannot even ask me any
questions. That is regrettable, I am sure.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My colleague spoke so eloquently that I wonder if the House would
agree to allow him another 10 minutes. It was such a great
speech, I would like to hear more.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the hon. member for Elk Island's time by an additional 10
minutes?
An hon. member: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to speak to Bill C-2.
I was particularly interested in the analysis and comments by
the previous speaker with regard to the work of committees. In
the last two years I have served on the public accounts committee
which is chaired by one of the Reform opposition members who, I
would add, does a very good job, is very impartial and fair and
really runs an excellent committee. We have a process in place
here where the official opposition automatically gets the
opportunity, if it so chooses, to chair the public accounts
committee.
I also served on the citizenship and immigration committee and
filled in on a number of different committees. The committee
system that is in place is not dysfunctional and is not what the
member has said, a sham. In fact, it is representative of the
make-up of this place. Why would that be? Interestingly enough,
the majority of Canadians voted for this government in two
elections in a row.
Should we abdicate our responsibility? We have been told by the
Canadian people that they want the Liberal Party and this Prime
Minister to run the government. We understand that the
opposition is not happy with that. I served in opposition myself
to a labour party, to Bob Rae and—I will be nice—his group of
colleagues. It was somewhat frustrating, to say the least, to
see a majority government of New Democrats in the great province
of Ontario.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me there
are not very many members to hear the speech of the member
opposite. I ask that quorum be checked.
1305
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum. The hon. member for
Mississauga West has the floor.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is not my fault if the
room empties when I stand up to speak. I try to do my best. I
do appreciate the assistance to bring in some of my colleagues
whom I know are working hard at their desks on behalf of the
people of Canada and their constituents.
People often wonder why the Chamber is so sparsely populated
when members of parliament speak. It is because we have so many
things to do and committees are just one example. Even though
the official committees are not up and running yet, although I
understand they will be in a day or two, we, in particular, have
caucus committees. We have interparliamentary committees of
Canada and Europe that are meeting and, as we speak, the
Canada-Taiwan interparliamentary committee is meeting.
Last evening I had the privilege of having dinner with the
parliamentary group from Barbados who are here on official
business and will be here for question period. There is a lot of
work to do. I recently attended a meeting of AECL where it gave
us an update of its work around the world. To denigrate the work
of members really is not fair. It is not something that I would
do on that side of the House and would not expect it to be done
here.
I would say that the committee system is very clear in this
government. In this place, in Ottawa, there is a role for
opposition members. Sometimes I am quite surprised, actually.
Were I in opposition, I think I would be substantially more
aggressive in going after—
Mr. Lynn Myers: Or effective?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I might be more effective, I do not
know. I will leave that for others to judge. I certainly would
find more opportunities to raise issues. I do not see that.
I put a proposal forward back in the Ontario legislature in
1992. In fact, I stood for the leadership of our party. One of
my proposals was that a bill should not be referred to committee;
an idea or a problem should be referred to committee and that a
committee should be convened in an attempt to write a bill and to
put forward a solution that could go in the bill rather than
having the bureaucrats draft something, put it on our desk and it
appears too many times to be a fait accompli.
This is about as close as I have seen any government get to that
particular principle. This is taking the bill reforming the
Elections Act into committee before second reading. If I were in
opposition I would have my staff working overtime going through
the bill. I would see this as an open and accountable government
giving opposition members the opportunity to make comments at
committee, to repair anything they thought needed repairing, to
change parts of the bill and to have input into the process.
What do we get? We get, I am afraid, the somewhat typical
response, “If they are doing it, we must disagree with it”.
That really is unfortunate. It is somewhat myopic and
narrow-minded.
It does not do credit to the constituents who sent these people
here, who expect them to roll up their sleeves and get into
committee and work with government members and other members of
the opposition to make this bill a better bill. Why would anyone
opposed it?
1310
My next election will be my tenth at the municipal, provincial
and federal levels. I have had some experience. In fact, my
wife has had three elections. She sits on the Mississauga
council. I guess one could say we are a bit of a political
family. We care about the process that is in place. We care
about the rules. I, along with my family and the government,
believe very much that the rules need to be fair for everyone.
Frankly, I would go a little further with this reform. If I
have an opportunity at committee, I might even float an idea that
members may accept or reject. I believe there should be a
penalty for someone who does not vote. I know it is a very
controversial idea, but there are places in the world where they
actually do that. The penalty in Australia is a fine. It could
show up on one's income tax reporting.
I find it disgraceful that municipally we only get a 30% voter
turnout. It is the one level of government, in my view, that
impacts more directly on people's lives than any other level of
government and less than 30% of the people vote. In fact, if
there is not a high profile contest for mayor, quite often less
than 20% of the people vote. However, they are quick to pick up
the phone to call their elected representative to solve a
particular problem in the community, for example, if the garbage
is not picked up or they have other difficulties. They just do
not accept the responsibility to cast a ballet.
Provincially, that percentage goes up to between 50% and 60%
depending on, I guess, the nature of the election. In the 1995
Ontario provincial election I think there was a higher voter
turnout because the public generally wanted to dismiss the
government of Mr. Rae that was in office. However, we have now
slipped back down again. Federally, it again increases into the
65% to 75% range.
We live in a country with democratic freedom and we see other
places in the world experiencing difficulties, in particular, the
problems we see in Pakistan today.
I had the privilege of being part of a parliamentary group
visiting Croatia during the first free election since the second
world war. I saw men and women lining up down the street, with
tears in their eyes, having the first opportunity to actually
cast a ballot.
Let me tell members what that experience was like. When I
walked into the polling booth there were Yugoslav soldiers with
rifles on their shoulders standing on either side of the ballot
box. Behind the ballot box was a life-sized picture of General
Tito. It was only just a little bit intimidating to those people
casting their ballot. I tried to lighten it up by pinning
Canadian flags on the lapels of the soldiers but I do not think
they were particularly amused by it.
When one sees that kind of thing, when one sees people fighting
and dying for freedom and democracy all around the world as we
have seen in our generation, one realizes that a Canadian who
does not cast a ballot unless there is a legitimate reason,
although I cannot think of one other than being dead, is not
living up to the responsibility that goes along with the freedom
of living in such a great and democratic society.
I would go even further, but the bill at least sets a level
playing field, makes it fair for everybody involved and cleans up
the election procedure in Canada.
1315
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am quite
pleased to take the floor for the first time in this new
session, and especially so because we are debating the Canada
Elections Act, which is supposed to be completely amended by
Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House
of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and
making consequential amendments to other acts.
I am very happy to take part in this debate because I have been
involved in the consultations undertaken by the chief electoral
officer after the May 2, 1997 election. He was looking for ways
to improve this legislation which is rather outdated.
For well over 30 years, it has not been revised significantly,
and the chief electoral officer was striving to have it amended
significantly.
After what I had gone through and what had been reported to me
in my riding during the election, I got involved in this process
with the help of an excellent lawyer and friend of mine,
Jean-François Lacoursière. As a legal adviser to the Bloc and a
good adviser on electoral law, an area in which his expert
opinion has been frequently sought, he agreed to write a report
which I have tabled in the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, a report we may come back to. It has hardly been
mentioned.
Incidentally, it is very hard to find one's way around in this
bill.
Mr. Lacoursière himself told me some time ago that the Canada
Elections Act was very difficult to consult and to understand.
This is not normal. The federal government is already being
criticized for its lack of transparency. The elections act is an
extremely important important tool in that it is the basis of
the election process in our country.
Therefore, it is important to call a spade a spade. It is
important for the thousands of people who have to work with the
Canada Elections Act at some point to be able to find whatever
they are looking for quickly and efficiently instead of always
feeling lost in the legalese used by government lawyers—we hope
they themselves can find their way through it. It really is
difficult to consult that document, which is at least one inch
thick.
Something is wrong here.
The problems raised by Mr. Lacoursière dealt with issues that
will undoubtedly be raised again, issues like voting by mail, a
process that is riddled with flaws, and voting at mobile polling
stations, a process that will certainly have to be refined.
In my speech, I will touch on three main elements of this bill
on which we are criticizing the government. First, there is
political party financing, which is not a new issue but which
deserves to be raised again because of the scandalous way in
which political parties are managed and because of the
connections that exist between large corporations and the
election funds of traditional political parties in Canada.
Second, we want to address the designation of returning
officers. Third, we want to talk about voter identification,
something that leaves a lot to be desired and, here again, we
can give some examples from Quebec.
Party financing is really outdated. We have not made any
progress in this area. We know full well that the legislation is
full of holes that allow corporations as well as individuals to
shamelessly contribute all they want to Canada's traditional
political parties.
Issues like the Onex proposal, which I feel, as a Quebecer, goes
against the best interests of Quebec and maybe even of all of
Canada and which, notwithstanding its basic flaws, demonstrates
the more or less honourable relationship between the Liberal
Party of Canada and the main promoter of the Onex deal, can only
further undermine the proposal.
We feel this entitles us to criticize this proposal all we want.
1320
Its credibility is open to question, given the known
relationship between one of the major contributors to the
Liberal Party, former Cabinet members and current party
managers. The federal government blithely announced that there
will be a moratorium, as if it were one of its own management
decisions. Obviously, it is part of the Onex agenda to get the
federal government involved at some point by taking such a
measure to help the deal along.
The Canadian government obviously committed itself in favour of
Onex, for reasons that may too shameful to mention because they
are related to the financing of the party currently in office.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: It is true.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: This is shameful, because it is primitive.
So-called civilized societies such as ours should ensure that
rules are in place to protect government decision makers from
undue influence.
This is what democratic financing is all about. This is what we
realized in Quebec. We set a limit of $3,000 for contributions
made to political parties, and such contributions can only be
made by voters.
The Parti Quebecois government is depending on no one in
particular, but on everyone, whereas this government depends on
financial backers such as oil and pharmaceutical companies,
banks and logging companies. All these businesses contribute
tens of thousands of dollars and, in return, get privileged
access to the ministers and the Prime Minister. This is
unacceptable, it is a unending scandal, and it is easy to figure
out why the government sometimes makes very dubious decisions.
It is all a matter of cause and effect.
When the financing process is flawed, it is not possible to look
after the public's interest only. The government must take other
things into account, because the telephone could ring at any
time and someone might say “We will remember this the next time
you come looking for work or money”.
Nowadays, governing is complicated enough in itself. Therefore,
it is a good thing that the Quebec government does not have to
concern itself with private interests. This is the strength of
the Quebec government, given the complexities involved. It is
free to act. It only needs to do so intelligently, whereas the
federal government must accommodate all kinds of phantoms who
remain nameless.
My second major criticism has to do with the appointment process
for returning officers. This is issue is not as well known. We
are talking here about the qualifications of individuals who
hold strategic positions in each of the ridings, during
elections. These positions should be filled through a process
that is above suspicion.
Here again, what we have is basic and primitive; it does not
provide any protection against abuse.
All these people possess personal qualities that are beyond
doubt, but there is one condition that must be met to be a
returning officer for Elections Canada, or so it seems, although
it is not written down anywhere: to be a member of the Liberal
Party of Canada. It is even better if one has been the
president or vice-president of an association, and better yet a
defeated candidate.
This is unacceptable, and primitive. It smacks of the way
things are done in a banana republic. Canada is one of the
western democracies that go around preaching to the whole world
on how things should be done. We travel all over the planet to
tell people how to govern themselves, and yet to this very day
we still tolerate having as one of the main, yet hidden,
criteria for appointment active membership in the Liberal Party
of Canada.
To top it all off, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada saw how
incongruous and unacceptable the situation was, and has long
been recommending that the Canadian government change the rules
so that, like Quebec, there would be a competition to designate
elections staff, as indeed there should be.
1325
Finally—and I shall close with this—the last weakness is that
there is not a word about voters being required to identify
themselves with a card or some other means. Given the
impersonal character of our society and our big cities, it is
completely normal for citizens to be required to identify
themselves to the person at the polling station, since we know
all the funny business there can be.
It is in within the order of things for voters to be required to
identify themselves to whoever is duly mandated to require it
before giving them authorization to vote, a fundamental right in
a democracy.
Yet again, this is a considerable weakness in the bill and one
against which we must speak out.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to enter this debate today with respect to the
Canada Elections Act. I find it of considerable interest. I sat
on the procedure and House affairs committee and this was
certainly a part of the committee's work. I thought we did it in
a very non-partisan, effective way that ended up being very
succinct and to the point in terms of the kind of meaningful
changes Canadians expect in terms of their electoral system.
We in Canada have a model electoral system that is emulated
around the world. It is certainly considered to be one that is
of great interest to nations wherever they are in the world. It
underscores the great democracy that we in Canada have. It is
one which I think we should be very proud of in terms of its
effectiveness and what it means for Canadians wherever they may
live in this great land of ours. It also underscores the values,
institutions and symbols that unite us as a people and present us
as an effective nation not only to ourselves internally but to
the wider world community.
I am a little surprised by the Reform Party, especially the
member for Elk Island who tried to denigrate the things we are
trying to do. Instead he should be celebrating the fact that
this bill is going to committee where they can be part of a
system where there can be effective changes. Instead of trying to
work with the government in this all important area, Reformers
are content as usual to take extremist views to try to sabotage
the system. That is most unfortunate.
But then Reform is a party that is always intent on pitting
region against region, people against people and group against
group. It is most unfortunate that Reformers take that tact all
the time. It underscores where that party is coming from. I know
Canadians want and will have no part of it. What Canadians will
have a part of is the government's position on this all important
legislation, understanding that this is the way we have to go. We
need to ensure that we do the right thing for Canadians in this
area because it underscores our democratic system as we know it.
There are many issues I could get involved with, election
financing for example. I know—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but it is my duty to
interrupt the hon. member and the proceedings at this time and
put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The chief government whip on a point
of order.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Discussions have taken place between all the party whips.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45 I believe you would find consent to
defer the recorded division just requested on Bill C-2 until
later this day at the end of the time provided for government
orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent to defer the
division to 6.30 p.m. as agreed to by all the whips?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I will call it again if need be but I
believe five members rose and I am prepared to defer it.
Therefore the vote is deferred until 6.30 p.m.
* * *
1330
[Translation]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from
the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: The notice paper contains 157 motions
in amendment with respect to report stage of Bill C-6.
[English]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
[Translation]
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 27 to 33, 36 to 43, 47
to 49, 57, 59 to 97, 100 to 157.
[English]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 26, 34, 35, 44 to
46, 50 and 51.
[Translation]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 52 to 56, 58, 98 and 99.
The voting order for each group is available from the clerk.
The Chair will repeat this order for the House as each vote is
taken.
Members are of course aware that the notice paper contains many
motions at report stage with respect to Bill C-6.
Motions Nos. 100 to 155 are of concern to the Chair because they
depart from usual House practice. These motions would drop all
clauses in schedule 1. Normally, a single motion would suffice.
[English]
I have decided to allow these motions at this time. However, in
the future only one motion will be accepted. I have so
instructed the clerks in Journals. They will advise members
wishing to place such motions on notice that these would not be
accepted.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 27 to 33, 36 to 43,
47 to 49, 57, 59 to 97, and 100 to 157 to the House.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like some clarification on what you have just said.
Did I understand correctly that for this one time only you
will allow Motions Nos. 100 to 157 to stand individually but
that in the future you want them in a single group, which in
any case does not alter the present situation since these
motions are all in Group No. 1, which will be debated starting
today?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is absolutely right.
Today, we will study all of the motions before the House, as the
member indicated. I said that in the future we will permit
one motion only instead of several.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
1335
That Bill C-6, in the title, be amended by deleting the long
title.
1340
1345
1350
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that after
that 20 minute speech debates are limited to 10 minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the
first group of amendments to Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, an act
to support electronic commerce and protect personal information.
I will start by saying that we have many problems with this bill
for several reasons. This explains why we are proposing so many
amendments asking for the withdrawal of the bill or, at the very
least, the suspension of its implementation in Quebec.
When we deal with the second group of amendments, we will have
an opportunity to discuss more specifically one particular
amendment that would make this possible, should the government
have the will to do so.
The purpose of the bill is, in a rapidly evolving technological
context, to foster the development of electronic commerce while
respecting the confidentiality of the information we supply or
agree to supply, or the use that could be made of personal
information provided without knowing how it is going to be used.
It should be noted that, for the past five years already, Quebec
has had a law protecting personal information. The introduction
or implementation of a federal act will create administrative
chaos, making life very difficult for businesses. One can
understand the will displayed by the federal government in this
respect. In the other nine provinces, there is no law protecting
personal information. Therefore the federal government has
decided to go ahead and legislate.
Too bad for the other provinces if they do not want their own
law and are willing to withdraw from a field of jurisdiction
that could be theirs. This is not the case in Quebec.
1355
Quebec has already clearly stated, through a law, its intent
to protect personal information. Moreover, the civil code contains
provisions making specific reference to it. Quebec businesses
have to abide by the civil code provisions as well as the law.
This is why many groups appeared before the Committee during the
hearings and told the government “You are placing Quebec in a
very bad position, when we already have a provincial act that
protects both privacy and access to information. With this new
act, businesses will not always know which act to enforce and
which definition to use in specific cases. Some organizations
will have to abide by the federal act, others by the provincial
act and others yet by both or part of one and part of the
other”.
Of course, the government will say “Listen, this will only take
effect in three years because, in the first three years, the new
act will not apply to all fields, data or businesses”. But, in
three years, it will get much more extensive and will apply to
everybody.
The Cabinet could make an order to withhold a particular field
of activities or ensure that some sectors get under another act.
But this will have to be decided by the federal government after
careful consideration of its objectives and criteria. Since we
all know that the Civil Code and the common law do not always
have the same approach on certain issues, there will undoubtedly
be differences of opinions and policies as well as differences
between mechanisms adopted.
I can quote a number of people who addressed this issue at the
committee's hearings.
I will start with the Conseil du patronat du Québec, which came
to say “Inasmuch as the constitutional jurisdiction over the
protection of privacy and personal information given to the
provinces by section 92.13 of the British North America Act, it
is obvious that the legislator”
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt, but since you
still have six minutes to go, I thought it would be best to do
so at this point. I am going to table a report, and then we
will proceed to Statements by Members. You will have the floor
again after Oral Questions.
* * *
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
1998-1999 report of the Privacy Commissioner.
[English]
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ALEXINA LOUIE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent Alexina
Louie on receiving the Jules Leger prize for new chamber music
for her award winning work, “Nightfall”, a piece for 14 solo
strings.
Established in 1978, this prize is a national award designed to
encourage Canadian composers to write for chamber music groups
and to foster the performance of Canadian chamber music. This is
the only governor general's award given for music, and Alexina is
the first woman to receive it.
Alexina Louie's work has received both national and
international acclaim and recognition. Ms. Louie has previously
been named composer of the year and received a Juno award and a
Chalmers award for her compositions. Ms. Louis has also received
the Socan award for being the most frequently performed Canadian
composer. As a composer in residence with the Canadian Opera
Company she is currently working on a main stage opera which is
to be performed in the fall of 2000.
I say congratulations to Alexina.
* * *
ORGAN DONATIONS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government just released its response to the organ
donor crisis in our country. What an enormous disappointment it
was. With 150 Canadians dying every year waiting for a
transplant and with one of the worst donor rates in the entire
developed world, it took the government four months to respond,
during which time 66 Canadians died.
The government's solution to this crisis is to ponder it, study
it and examine it, despite the fact that there is a 13 point
federal-provincial agreement and despite the fact that the health
committee put forth an exhaustive, doable plan to save Canadian
lives.
1400
Why was there no commitment to have a national registry for
potential donors and recipients? Why was there no commitment to
train and identify organ donor co-ordinators? Why was there no
commitment to have a national effort to put an organ donor card
on every single patient's chart in our country?
If this government cannot resolve the organ donor crisis which
is really a motherhood issue, what hope is there that it will
have a chance to resolve the more complex health care challenges?
* * *
WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 12, 1999, I was honoured to be asked on behalf of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to unveil a historic sites and
monuments plaque commemorating the importance of Women's College
Hospital in providing medical services for women by women.
[Translation]
Women's College Hospital has always played a vital role in the
community. Today's commemoration is a deserved recognition of
the hospital's contribution to the women's movement, to the
community, and to medicine.
[English]
The plaque reads:
Women's College Hospital has earned a distinctive place in
Canadian medical history. From its beginnings as a small
outpatient clinic in 1898 to its development as a modern teaching
hospital, the institution symbolizes the struggle of women to
claim their place in the medical profession. It offered them
opportunities in teaching and in hospital practice, which were
often unavailable or extremely limited elsewhere in the country.
The hospital has made innovative contribution to the treatment
and diagnosis of disease through its vital focus on health issues
affecting women and families.
I would also like to thank Lindalee Tracy for the film
Passing the Flame: The Legacy of Women's College Hospital.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK ON CULTURAL POLICY
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in June
1998, Canada hosted the first international meeting of national
ministers responsible for culture. At that time, the
international network on cultural policy was created.
After a year of existence, the Network has a membership of some
forty representatives from a wide diversity of countries, such
as France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, South Africa, Italy,
Senegal, Barbados, Mexico and the Philippines.
The second informal meeting of the international network on
cultural policy was held last month in Oaxaca, Mexico. The
purpose of this meeting was to ensure the viability of the
network as a dynamic international forum for issues related to
cultural policy.
The ministers of culture of Quebec and Newfoundland were members
of the Canadian delegation to Oaxaca, and their presence
enriched our participation, as well as the discussions in
general.
Canada is pleased to provide the network with a permanent
liaison office which will follow up on the Bureau's activities.
* * *
[English]
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has a near monopoly on grain
buying on the Altawan and Notukeu rail subdivisions in my riding.
Because the pool is able through zone allocation and car flexing
to use its grain car entitlements elsewhere, the elevators on
that line have been plugged for more than two weeks.
The railway company will not deliver cars to the few competing
elevators or to producers who wish to load their own grain
because the competition alone cannot assemble a 50 car train.
Farmers in the area are therefore forced to haul grain as much as
80 kilometres over substandard roads while their local elevators
are idle.
I am not suggesting that the pool and the railway company
collude, but they do share a common interest in limiting the
amount of grain shipped off of that line. As less grain is
shipped, the line becomes less viable and line abandonment
becomes more easy to justify.
As usual, the interests of farmers are being subordinated to
those of the grain companies and the railways.
* * *
[Translation]
ROBERT MUNDELL
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Robert Mundell, a professor at Columbia University, has been
awarded the Nobel prize in economy. The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences has recognized the work of this Canadian economist, a
pioneer of the European monetary union, barely a few months
after the introduction of the Euro.
In the early sixties, Professor Mundell did a great deal of
research on monetary and economic union, at a time when no one
dared question the use of national currencies.
The academy said that “Robert Mundell displayed remarkable and
quasi-prophetic anticipation regarding the future problems of
international monetary arrangements and financial markets”. It
is unfortunate that the Liberal government refuses to listen to
this great economist and will not do like the Bloc Quebecois and
seriously consider a North American monetary union.
One of the best ways to prepare for the future is to build it,
not wait around passively, like this government is doing on an
issue that comes under its jurisdiction.
* * *
1405
[English]
ENDICOTT PEABODY HUMANITARIAN AWARD
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour and privilege to congratulate our Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, on being
named the winner of the inaugural Endicott Peabody humanitarian
award for his lead role in helping to rid the world of
anti-personnel land mines. Our minister will receive the award
on Friday from the United Nations Association of Greater Boston.
A former governor of Massachusetts and vice-president of the
Boston UN association, Mr. Peabody spent his retirement years
working for a variety of peace groups that focused on land mines.
The treaty banning anti-personnel land mines became law on March
1, 1999. It has been signed by 135 countries and ratified by 86.
This is not the first time our minister has been recognized for
his work on land mines. He was also honoured last October when
he was awarded the Council of Europe's North South peace prize.
Congratulations.
* * *
TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure today to bring to the attention of the House that
many of the key representatives of Canada's trucking industry are
with us in Ottawa today.
It is important to remember that trade is one of the engines of
economic growth for Canada. With a relatively small population
spread thinly over a vast distance, Canada does not have the
luxury of neglecting transportation and trade.
In my riding of Etobicoke North we are close to the Pearson
airport and the 400 highways. We know very well why the trucking
industry is so vital to Ontario's economy. Total commercial
trucking accounts for approximately 400,000 jobs.
[Translation]
I am pleased to see the trucking and railway industries working
together to ensure an efficient and safe transportation system
that will continue to benefit local and national businesses and,
in turn, keep our economy strong.
[English]
That is why we must work closely with Canada's trucking industry
to ensure that we have an environmentally sound and sustainable
transportation system into the next millennium. Working
together, Canada's trucking industry keeps Canada rolling.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to criticize the government on the current crisis in
western agriculture.
The farmers in my riding of Dauphin—Swan River and across the
prairies face bankruptcy because of the government's lack of real
solutions.
Today the government continues to neglect the farm disaster
taking place in western Canada. Farming, an important sector of
the Canadian economy, is under attack. Last week farmers from
Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to Ottawa to say enough is enough.
During the summer they tried peaceful demonstrations to bring
attention to their plight.
In light of the recent controversy surrounding the fisheries of
Atlantic Canada, the government has pleaded for peaceful
negotiations. Prairie farmers have tried peaceful negotiations,
yet the government does not listen. The farm community is
pleading for help.
I ask the House to support my call in asking the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food to do the right thing. Western farmers
need help and they need it now.
* * *
[Translation]
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October 17
was International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.
Unfortunately, in Canada, a large number of people are still
living in poverty.
I want to mention the extraordinary work done by community
groups in the riding of Ahuntsic, including Solidarité Ahuntsic,
for which I act as spokesperson in the fight against poverty,
the Carrefour d'aide aux nouveaux arrivants, which organized a
seminar on poverty on Thursday, the SNAC and the Corbeille
Bordeaux-Cartierville, with which I organize a non-perishable food
drive at Christmas.
[English]
Our government in the past and with the recent Speech from the
Throne has taken positive steps toward assisting Canadian
families living in poverty, and most important, children, with
programs such as the national head start program, the new
national child benefit and the Canada child tax benefit program.
But together we must do more. We owe it to future generations to
ensure that none of our children go hungry, or have no shelter,
or grow up poor.
* * *
THE LATE FERNAND DUBÉ
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, all New
Brunswickers were saddened at the recent passing of the hon. Fern
Dubé.
First elected to the New Brunswick legislature in 1974, he
served his province for 13 years as Minister of Tourism and the
Environment, Finance and Energy, then as Attorney General and
Minister of Justice, and finally as Minister of Commerce and
Technology. He was especially instrumental in building
understanding between French and English speaking New
Brunswickers.
Those of us who knew Fern will always remember him as a true
gentleman. Fern never lost touch with the grassroots people. At
the time of his passing he was still serving them as mayor of his
beloved city of Campbellton, New Brunswick.
1410
Fern is survived by his wife Monique, his daughters France and
Anik, and his sons Pierre and Jean, our colleague the hon. member
for Madawaska—Restigouche.
I am sure I speak for all members of the House when I say that
our sympathies go out to the Fern Dubé family.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois I congratulate Robert Rabinovitch on his
appointment as the president of the CBC.
M. Rabinovitch certainly has the qualities and the abilities
needed to carry out his new duties honourably. He will,
however, face a major challenge, that of ensuring the
independence of the CBC, on which the public places its trust,
justifying the allocation of public funds.
The corporation's independence is threatened by the desire of
Canadian Heritage to use the CBC to serve the political ends of
its government.
Recognized for his determination to have a free hand in
performing his duties, Mr. Rabinovitch, we hope, will feel freed
of the old Trudeau demons, who wanted the CBC to be an
instrument of Canadian unity.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL PARKS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 10
years ago the government pledged to complete the national parks
system by the year 2000. To date, only four of the promised 15
national parks have been created.
Two years ago Parks Canada reported that only one park is not
under pressure. The other 38 are threatened by logging, mining,
road construction, hydroelectric and tourism developments. In
addition, eight national parks are not protected by the National
Parks Act. Evidently, Canada's national parks are in deep
trouble as the panel headed by Jacques Gérin, a respected
international consultant, is about to report.
The Speech from the Throne makes a very positive reference to
national parks. I congratulate and urge the government to
provide legal protection to all national parks, complete the
national parks system and implement the recommendations of the
Gérin report.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend the minister of agriculture hosted the Funfest on
the Farm, a celebration of the Canadian farmer. Each of my
colleagues in the House received an invitation in a glossy
package of materials delivered by the minister.
If this is the minister's response to our farm crisis that
almost every Canadian, except those in government, seems to be
aware of, then all hope is lost for our farm communities.
I personally challenge the minister of agriculture to hand
deliver his pretty little calendar to a farm family who will
literally earn less than nothing this year. For the western
farmer about to lose the land that has been in his family for
generations, there is no funfest on his farm.
Since June the minister has repeatedly said the AIDA program is
almost complete. I realize the farming community only represents
3% of Canadians, but let us hope that they receive some
assistance before next October's Funfest on the Farm.
* * *
WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is the fourth annual YWCA Week Without Violence. This week has
become a major national tool in our efforts to make Canada a less
violent society. Each year it gives us an opportunity to think
about the impact of violence on us all.
One of the focuses this year in Peterborough and across Canada
is youth. The idea is to involve young people and encourage them
to think about the richness and joy of a non-violent lifestyle.
I urge young and old to visit www.7wv.com, an Internet website
designed by youth for youth to exchange thoughts about
non-violence.
I encourage all members and all Canadians to contribute to the
YWCA's Week Without Violence.
* * *
MEMBER FOR DARTMOUTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
with immense pleasure that I inform our colleagues in the House
that today the NDP member of parliament for Dartmouth becomes the
first sitting member of parliament ever nominated for a Governor
General's literary award.
Nominated in English drama for her play Corker, the member
for Dartmouth blends her passion as a parliamentarian with her
artistry as a playwright to create a powerful drama about the
importance of supporting families and building communities which
value and celebrate the contributions of all.
1415
I ask everyone to join in extending our congratulations to our
artist in the House, our playwright parliamentarian, our beloved
member for Dartmouth.
[Editor's Note: Members rose and applauded]
The Speaker: It is not often that we have one of our own
recognized in such a fashion. For this day, of course, you can
have a prop in the House. On behalf of your colleagues, Wendy, I
wish you well and thank you for what you do for our House by
being such a great artist and a good parliamentarian.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, just hours ago Air Canada and its partners announced
their proposal for reorganizing the airline industry. Onex and
Canadian Airlines announced their proposal a number of weeks ago.
We now know where both the airlines stand but we still have not
heard from the government. The government did not even mention
this subject in the Speech from the Throne.
Now that everyone else has abandoned the status quo, will the
Prime Minister tell us what he envisions for the Canadian airline
industry of the 21st century?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as was said, some offers were made today by Air Canada,
as there was an offer made by Onex to the shareholders of the
company. Its shareholders will look at what is best for them and
they will decide.
The Minister of Transport enunciated very clearly the five
conditions that the government is demanding under the
circumstances, but we have to know the results of the bidding
before we carry on with our policy of making sure that we have at
least one national airline in Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is standing still while everything else
in the airline industry is moving. Surely the government has an
obligation to be more specific about a policy framework for the
airline industry. For example, both the Onex-Canadian proposal
and the Air Canada-Lufthansa-United proposal envision a major
role for foreign air carriers and investors.
Where does the government stand on the current rules for foreign
ownership and participation in the industry? Does it endorse the
current rules or does it have plans to revise them?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have always said that the government would
consider any regulatory or statutory change that would enhance
the viability and competitiveness of the Canadian airline system,
and we will do just that.
We feel very strongly that not only should the government
outline the five principles as I did the other week, but that we
should seek the input of parliamentarians on this very important
matter. That is why the committee is meeting. We will be guided
on all of these issues by members of the House and of the Senate.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it will be a novel day when the government talks to us
and consults the advice of the House.
Hundreds of thousands of air travellers want assurances that
they will continue to have a quality service at the lowest
possible cost. We have tens of thousands of workers in this
industry who want to be assured that there is a place for them in
the future. All regions of the country want to be assured that
particular routes and services of importance to them will be
addressed.
Where is the government's policy framework to ensure that all of
these interests will be properly addressed?
1420
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the Leader of the Opposition is
adhering to the five principles that the government enunciated a
few weeks ago. That is the outline of our framework and over the
next few weeks we will be putting more detail on the policy, but
we will not do it unilaterally. The Leader of the Opposition
would be the first one to condemn us if we came in here with a
policy, put it on the floor of the House of Commons and ignored
the views of members of this House.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the federal court ruled that the government is on the hook
for $5 billion in its pay equity dispute. We know there is a
very good chance that the government is going to lose its appeal.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the government
have a contingency fund large enough to cover this $5 billion, or
does this mean the end of any meaningful tax relief for
Canadians?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
read the decision this morning and we are in the process of
analyzing it.
It is an important decision for all federal employees. We will
take the time we need before reaching a decision.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to address this question again to the finance minister.
The government has known for years that it was going to face
this day of reckoning, but does it have a plan? No. Does it
have a contingency fund? Evidently not. Does it mean that
taxpayers are on the hook? I suspect so.
Why does the minister not just admit that the government has
mishandled the file and it is the taxpayers who are going to have
to pay for this fiasco?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let us be clear. We have just received the judgment. We are
looking at it.
There is a big difference between the government's position and
the position of the Reform Party. The Reform Party does not
believe in pay equity. We believe in pay equity.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
copyright scandal is not limited just to the CINAR production
house.
Apparently, many people are involved in this scandal and
millions of dollars are said to have been obtained illegally
from the federal government.
Does the Minister of National Revenue not think it is becoming
important that his department take action and that he order it
to conduct a special investigation into the illegal practices in
this industry?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, information involving the
relationship between the department and an individual or
corporate taxpayer is confidential and I may therefore not
comment.
If ever additional events were brought to the attention of my
department and myself, obviously we would see that the necessary
action was taken, but for now the information is confidential.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
not asking that information be revealed. I am asking for a
special investigation. I think that the newspapers have been
sufficiently eloquent.
We know that names were used, that phony corporations were set
up by law firms for the purpose of diverting federal public
funds.
Does the Minister of National Revenue not understand that it is
his duty to call for an investigation?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage has outlined the measures taken. I think that what is
involved here is the fundamental relationship of trust that
exists between taxpayers and National Revenue. I believe there
is a strong relationship of trust.
What we are talking about here is information that is basically
confidential, and it will remain so.
At the risk of repeating myself, if ever additional information
is brought to our attention, we will see that the necessary
action is taken.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the leader of the Bloc Quebecois revealed that the
name of Thomas LaPierre, son of the chairman of the board of
Telefilm, had been used by CINAR in order to illegally obtain
federal funding for production assistance.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Since the
name Érika Alexandre, a pseudonym made up of the first names of
the children of CINAR president, Mrs. Charest, has already been
identified as a possible link to the same type of fraud, has the
Minister of Canadian Heritage asked her departmental staff to
make the necessary checks in order to confirm or deny this?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday, following the allegations made by the Bloc
Quebecois, I asked the RCMP to conduct an investigation.
1425
Among other things, I do know that Montreal urban community
police officers will be in Ottawa this Thursday to meet with
officials from Canadian Heritage and National Revenue. They have
been informed of all the allegations that have been made. That
is precisely why we have asked the RCMP to investigate.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
for the benefit of the minister, is she also aware that the name
of Patricia Lavoie, Vice-President, Production and Fiction
Development at CINAR, has apparently also been used to illegally
obtain funding for the film Who Gets the House, the screen-writer
of which was in reality the American Timothy Neilson?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member has any allegations to make, let him
do so, and I shall put him directly in contact with the RCMP.
The Government of Canada takes these allegations very seriously,
and that is why we asked for an RCMP investigation. This will
cast the necessary light on all the facts and I can put the hon.
member in direct contact with the RCMP if he wishes.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the fight for
pay equity has been going on for 15 years. The courts keep
rejecting the government's appeals one after the other.
Yet, the federal government keeps denying women the right to
equal pay for work of equal value.
When will the government stop appealing the rulings made by the
courts and when will it finally pay what is owed to its female
employees?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is clearly committed to the principle of pay equity
for women and men.
The ruling was issued today. It is only normal that we take a
few days to look at it, to discuss with the various
stakeholders, including the attorney general, so that we can
make the best possible decision.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
government supports the pay equity principle as long as it does
not have to treat women as equals, as long as it does not have to
pay any money. However, when it is required to actually obey the
law and pay, its principles go out the window. Its words say
yes, but its actions say no.
Why will the government not treat women as equals?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this ruling is very important for all federal public service
employees. Therefore, it only makes sense that, as a responsible
government, we would take time to analyse it. I can assure you
that we will then act.
I can understand that affected employees are somewhat anxious
about the government's eventual decision, but I would ask them
to wait a few more days, to allow us to choose the appropriate
direction.
* * *
[English]
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. Air Canada today
announced its proposal for a restructuring of the Canadian
airline industry and in that proposal it requested a full merger
review process by the Competition Bureau.
Will the minister require that all proposals, either present or
future, go through the same process so that they are all treated
the same?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, under section 47 the
Competition Bureau is very much engaged. In fact, I asked the
bureau for its advice on the restructuring and that report should
be coming to me in the next few days. It will be made public and
it will be the subject of discussions at the Standing Committee
on Transport.
This ensures the role of the bureau on issues dealing with
competition, but the bureau does not have the statutory
responsibility to deal with levels of service, the protection of
employees, price gouging, or whether or not the airline is
effectively Canadian controlled. That is why we put section 47
in place, so that the elected representatives of the people will
determine the outcome of this matter.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in fact the Competition Bureau is there to protect
consumers. The Competition Bureau is there to protect consumers
for a good reason and it serves a good purpose for the country.
My question is simple. One proposal will accept a full review
by the Competition Bureau. Will the minister require all
proposals to go through the same process, or is there favoured
treatment?
1430
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the treatment we have treats everyone equally and
that is the treatment envisaged under section 47 as I have just
described.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is hiding behind the judicial robes of
the Supreme Court of Canada and its new federal representative in
the Marshall decision.
Its own Captain Canada, the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland, has
said that the Supreme Court of Canada has to take responsibility
for the anarchy in the maritimes. The Marshall decision must be
reviewed, not entrenched as government policy. The troubles on
the east coast could end today if the government acted.
Why will the government not reject the fisheries policy that
assigns jobs on the basis of race?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member
does not understand the issue. This is about a treaty right
which is recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Over and over again we have said that we recognize and respect
that treaty right. We will work within the spirit of the supreme
court judgment.
That is exactly what we are doing now. We have appointed a
federal representative. That federal representative is talking
to all the groups right now. We are looking at a long term
solution to the issue.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fisheries minister has delusions of adequacy. The
supreme court has willy-nilly determined that Canada's fishery
should be regulated along blood lines. I find that offensive and
the government should too.
The West Nova Fishermen's Coalition is seeking clarification of
the Marshall decision. The government refuses to support it. Why
does the minister not stand now and tell the House how many
maritime fisheries jobs he is prepared to sacrifice to satisfy
his race based fisheries policy?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans I want to ensure that we create more jobs out there.
If the hon. member has been listening, we are talking about
emerging products, marketing some of their products and
aquaculture. All the things I am talking about will create new
jobs in the area of fisheries and oceans.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in March 1997,
following the first investigation by the RCMP, the attorney
general decided not to lay charges against CINAR. Barely one
month later, Ms. Charest, the president, hosted a Liberal Party
benefit supper with the Prime Minister.
I would like the Prime Minister to explain the coincidence
between the favorable decision by the attorney general with
respect to CINAR, a decision that is hard to explain, and Ms.
Charest's involvement in the Liberal Party.
The Speaker: I will permit the question, but it must be
remembered that questions regarding a political party are not
permitted in the House.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is again making allegations in the House.
These are very serious allegations, and I think that if he does
have allegations to make, he should make them to the RCMP.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the president
of CINAR is involved in the Liberal Party of Canada. The Prime
Minister himself appointed her to the board of the Millennium
Scholarship Foundation. Telefilm must investigate this whole
matter, as the name of the son of the president is being used
and Mr. Macerola, the former Liberal candidate and executive
director of Telefilm, says it is an urban myth.
What we want to know is who is the main player in the urban
myth, which might be called “In the Kingdom of the Cronies”?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find that very regrettable, because we know at the
moment that SODEC is being investigated, and I would not be the
one to throw mud at a political party, because an investigation
is being conducted.
Investigations are necessary and for this very reason we have
asked the RCMP to get involved. If the member and the Bloc
Quebecois have allegations, they should pass them on directly to
the RCMP.
* * *
1435
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Supreme Court of Canada has generated serious conflict and
confrontation by declaring a special native only commercial
fishery on the east coast of Canada.
In spite of the very obvious problems that come from treating
Canadians differently, the minister is about to ratify the
Nisga'a agreement, effectively creating the exact same special
native only commercial fishery on the west coast of Canada.
Why in the world would the minister promote such a concept in
the Nisga'a treaty when he knows full well the kinds of serious
problems that come with it?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reason I am doing it is
because it is the right thing to do for B.C. and for Canada.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government had a wonderful opportunity to negotiate equality into
the Nisga'a agreement but it went for special status and special
legal rights instead. It had an opportunity to embrace unity but
opted for division, an opportunity to build bridges but opted for
walls.
Ordinary Nisga'a people will pay the biggest price for that
folly in the end. Why are the minister and the government
prepared to promote disunity, division and discord rather than
equality?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this will bring
certainty and foster economic development in the member's
backyard.
I would suggest to the member, knowing that he has 24 first
nations of his own and he does not talk to them, that he get some
advice from them. The advice they would give him is that this is
the right thing to do for B.C., for that particular region of
British Columbia, and for Canada in the long run. He should
support it.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
is in great disarray over genetically altered foods.
The Minister of Industry wants to promote them at all costs, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food wants to export them
without knowing their effects, the Minister of Health does not
have enough staff to evaluate them, and the Minister of the
Environment is blocking the adoption of an international
protocol on biosafety.
Will the Prime Minister finally tell them to quit playing around
and make the quality of food a priority?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public and consumers of
Canadian food around the world can be very proud of our
regulatory system to ensure the safety of Canadian food.
Any genetically enhanced foods go through a very stringent
regulatory process to ensure that they are safe for humans, for
animals and for the environment before they are approved.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister realize that, if the safety of genetically
altered foods cannot be guaranteed, this industry will lose the
trust of consumers at home and abroad?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the regulatory and approval processes
that are used to determine the safety of food applications in
Canada are based on science, the best science available today.
The science process is approved by the World Health
Organization, by the FAO and by all international bodies. It is
peer tested science and we use it to judge the safety of any
applications. Nothing is approved unless it passes that
stringent safety assessment.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
access to information is a fundamental right of all Canadians.
I have in my possession a letter from the information
commissioner which reveals that the Minister of National Defence
routinely delayed release of access by several months so that his
staff could prepare speaking notes for the minister.
Why did the Minister of National Defence put his own political
interests above the legal rights of all Canadians?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that people get the
access to information they are entitled to just as quickly as
they can.
I only asked that I be informed so that I could respond to any
concerns that might be raised by members of the House or by the
public. I certainly have made it very clear to the Department of
National Defence and to all my staff that access to information
regulations are to be fully followed and information is to be
provided as quickly as possible. That is being done.
1440
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister told his executive assistant to tell departmental
officials not to respond to access requests until the minister's
spin doctors were finished with them.
The information commissioner said in his letter to me that this
action was improper interference. Improper interference is very
serious for a minister of the crown.
I will ask the minister again. Why did he put his own political
interests above that of the right of Canadians to access to
information? Why?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has it all wrong. If the
member wants the letter from me to the department and to my staff
indicating exactly the opposite, I am quite happy to provide it.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, federal
public servants have been waiting 15 years for pay equity.
In 1993, the Prime Minister promised to honour the decision of
the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The government certainly
has the money to pay its employees. Finally, today, the
Treasury Board lost its fourth legal appeal. Enough is enough.
Will the President of the Treasury Board formally undertake
today to stop using the courts and to pay public servants
without further delay?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
formally undertake to respect the principle of pay equity.
That having been said, we must be allowed the time to go through
the decision carefully in order to understand the impact and to
conduct the necessary consultations. However, I can tell public
servants that they will hear what this government plans to do in
a few days.
* * *
SOMMET DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as host
country for the 8th Sommet de la Francophonie, Canada welcomed
heads of state and of government from more than 40 countries.
Can the Secretary of State for the Francophonie tell the House
to what extent Canada took advantage of the summit as a forum
for getting certain countries to make commitments relating to
human rights?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification) (Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada was
able to exchange views on a number of issues such as
democratization and the respect of human rights.
As well, Canada saw that its concerns and intentions relating to
these issues were raised in the Moncton declaration.
Canada has shared the parallel summit's documentation with all
delegations that were in attendance. I can assure my colleagues
that Canada had a hand in the progress of democracy at the
Moncton Summit.
* * *
[English]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, here we go again. Cable TV rates are going up again.
Rogers Cable has announced an increase of $1.90 a month, well in
excess of the rate of inflation. This is what happens when we
have a monopoly: consumers get hosed, consumers get gouged.
My question is for the minister responsible for the CRTC, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage. Will she step in and block this
unconscionable increase? Will she go to bat for consumers and
ensure that cable companies do not willy-nilly increase rates to
the detriment of consumers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Second, as a lawyer the hon. member will know that there is a
process for objection to rate increases and I encourage him to
follow the legal process.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is responsible for the CRTC. The CRTC has
a track record of supporting cable companies over consumers.
I am asking the minister to use her authority as the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to stop these unconscionable increases in cable
TV rates.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer the member will know that in fact the
CRTC is a quasi-judicial body and as such it would be very
inappropriate for me to interfere with it.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
processing only four of the six hundred migrants who arrived on
our shores this summer, the IRB has denied all four refugee
claims and then released them. I want to repeat that. It has
deemed they are not refugees and then released them.
It would seem that the government is determined to assist the
efforts of organized crime by releasing claimants whether or not
they are refugees. How could the minister allow bogus refugees
to be released in Canada, knowing that they are likely to
disappear?
1445
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to this
member and to everyone that I deplore human smuggling. I am very
concerned about the welfare of the people who are in the hands of
those smugglers.
The IRB is an independent quasi judicial process. It has
assured me that it will accelerate the determination procedure.
The department is making arguments to detain those individuals on
the grounds that there is fear of flight until we have their
identity and know who they are, or if there are criminal
proceedings. That is the law.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government should be taking control of this issue. Already one
of the four bogus refugees has disappeared and the rest are sure
to follow. The minister thinks it is okay to detain claimants
until they are deemed not to be refugees and then let them go.
This does not make sense to me. It does not make sense to most
Canadians. Can the minister explain how this makes sense to her?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the Reform Party, the government
is determined to enforce the charter of rights not just for some
of the people some of the time, but for all of the people in
Canada all of the time. Part of that procedure is to allow the
IRB to do its work and make its decisions.
The department will continue to argue before an adjudicator to
detain when we believe the detention is warranted. However, it
is a quasi judicial, independent body and we will not interfere
with its process.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The minister seems to be sending out conflicting signals as to
whether or not there will be any additional funding over and
above the AIDA money for hard-pressed prairie farmers. For
example, last week following the meeting with the counterparts
from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the hon. minister hinted that the
generous support payments in Europe and the United States could
result in some new money for Canadian farmers.
Will there be any new money before Christmas for prairie farmers
to help them through the worst financial crisis in more than 60
years?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made a number of changes to the net
income stabilization account program and to the crop insurance
program. We have also made some changes to the agricultural
income disaster assistance program as time has gone on.
The hon. member knows that I have had discussions with the
safety net advisory committee. We are looking at some more
possible changes to that program as time goes on.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
issue is really of critical importance everywhere in rural and
urban Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It is sufficiently important
that two agriculture ministers were here last week to meet with
the minister. It is important enough that the premiers of
Manitoba and Saskatchewan are expected to be here next week to
press the case.
This issue goes far beyond partisan politics and deserves a
clear, straightforward answer. Will any new moneys be made
available for prairie farmers before the end of this year, yes or
no?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously not
listening. I just said that we have been consulting with the two
new recently appointed ministers and the other provincial
ministers and with the safety net advisory committee. We are
looking at possible changes that, if made, will certainly assist
farmers before Christmas, as the AIDA program is already doing.
We are making it as flexible and innovative as possible.
* * *
MERCHANT MARINES
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
It is time for justice for the merchant mariners. The merchant
navy suffered the highest loss of life ratio versus any arm of
the armed forces in World War II. If they had received a $1,000
benefit in 1946 it would be worth $21,000 today.
When will the minister deliver a fair and dignified compensation
package to the merchant mariners so they will not be forced into
another hunger strike?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter with the
Merchant Navy Coalition, the Merchant Navy War Veterans
Association, the Royal Canadian Legion and the National Council
of War Veterans Associations.
1450
This is under discussion, as all matters are under discussion
concerning veterans, because we want to maintain our
international standing as giving the best services to our
veterans compared to any nation in the world.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
heard that old tune before from the previous minister.
The press reported last week that the government is considering
a compensation package of only $5,000 to $14,000 per merchant
mariner. This $5,000 amounts to 25 cents for each day these men
have waited for the last 54 years. It is an insult to them.
Will the minister inform the House today that he will give
$20,000 compensation packages to the merchant mariners?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when that government was in power it said
no to the merchant navy veterans when they asked for what this
government gave under Bill C-61. It said no to the merchant navy
veterans when they asked to have discussed what we are discussing
today.
The hon. member should cross the floor and say thank you to the
Prime Minister for the Liberal yes instead of the typical Tory
no.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when Onex made an offer to purchase the shares of Air
Canada, the Minister of Transport set out five principles to
guide the government in approving any potential merger. This
very day, Air Canada has just made an offer.
If either of these offers goes through, would Canadians have any
guarantee of access to bilingual air services from coast to
coast in Canada?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in addition to the five principles I have already
stated: consumer protection, protection of level of service to
small communities, protection of employee rights, promotion of
competition, and promotion of effective control by Canadian
interests, there is one other that is inescapable and
unquestionable, namely enforcement of the Official Languages
Act.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
is the solicitor general listening? The chronic underfunding of
the RCMP is aiding and abetting rip-off artists. The RCMP have
written to a Kamloops couple saying that due to the shortage of
resources it is unable to continue the investigation into a
$450,000 swindle. This is Canada, these are Canadians and they
are being ripped off.
When will the minister come forward with funds to support the
RCMP?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of some historic
problems with the RCMP. That is why Treasury Board conducted a
review.
During the review, the government was able to give $10 million
to E Division in British Columbia. It was able to give $115
million to CPIC. The government has given a lot of funding to
support the RCMP.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
said in her former position that she had compassion for native
women.
They, on the other hand, have constantly complained about her
inability to resolve their problems. Today, the minister is
saying she has compassion for women who are denied employment
insurance.
Now that she is looking after employment insurance, will she act
as she did in her last department, or will she finally
understand that the vast majority of women are denied employment
insurance because of the eligibility rules? Can she understand
that?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The government has
spoken out loudly and clearly in support of women. Last week the
Prime Minister doubled the parental benefits that will be
available to families in the year 2001. He talked about making
the benefits more flexible and more accessible. We are acting.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Labour
Congress study confirms what we have known for a long time:
woman have been penalized by the employment insurance reform.
The government said it wanted to address the new realities of
the labour market. But women, young people, seasonal workers
and independent and part time workers have all been abandoned by
the employment insurance reform. The Liberal government has
really missed the boat.
When will the Minister of Human Resources Development change
employment insurance to really address the realities of the
labour market for everyone?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CLC is strongly supportive of the
government's undertaking to double parental benefits. The CLC is
also, as we are, very happy to see the most recent labour force
statistics proving that after 20 years we now have the lowest
female adult unemployment level at 5.9%.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
federal court issued a clear ruling: the federal government must
pay what it owes to its public servants under the principle of
pay equity.
Will the President of the Treasury Board comply with that ruling
and finally do justice to these public servants, who are
predominantly women? Will the government comply with its own
legislation and pay its public servants, or will it appeal once
again?
The minister is a woman. I am convinced she understands the
problems that women are facing. Today, she has an opportunity to
show that she can make decisions that will be fair for women and
of benefit to them.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, we support the principle of pay equity, of equal pay for
equal work.
That being said, we have just received the ruling today. It is
perfectly normal for a responsible government to not only take
time to read the ruling, but also to analyse its impact, so as
to make a well-informed decision. And this is what we will do in
the coming days.
* * *
[English]
SIERRA LEONE
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa.
With so many conflicts going on in the world, little attention
has been paid to the terrible tragedy of Sierra Leone. With a
fragile peace deal now in place, what is Canada doing to support
peace and stability in this area?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada supports the proposal to
establish a new UN presence and peacekeeping force in Sierra
Leone, including 6,000 peacekeepers. We have been working
closely on the motion which we expect will be voted on Friday at
the Security Council. We have donated approximately $10 million
in the last two years. The member for Carleton—Gloucester was
there recently as our special envoy to explain the importance we
give to the peace process. We are basically doing as much as we
can and we hope to do more.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is about that $10 million the minister was boasting about
sending to British Columbia. Seven million dollars of it went
toward well deserved raises for the RCMP officers.
Another portion went to pay down the deficit, leaving only $1.5
million of the $10 million. The $10 million does not exist.
1500
We have a problem. The commercial fraud and rip-off are not
being investigated because of lack of resources for the RCMP.
When will the minister come forward with proper resources for the
RCMP to protect Canadian consumers?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated a list of things that the
government has put in place like the DNA databank and many other
things.
There are 500 cadets in training in Regina at the moment and 164
of them will be relocated in British Columbia. The government is
putting dollars into the RCMP.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Today we have in our gallery two
Speakers from Barbados and a delegation. I would like to present
to members the Honourable Senator Sir Fred Gollop, Speaker of the
Senate of Barbados, and the Honourable Ishmael Roett, Speaker of
the House of Assembly of Barbados and their delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period I made reference to a report from the
information commissioner. I would like to seek unanimous consent
to table that report.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have consent to table
the report?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[Translation]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from
the standing committee; and of motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will now
start where I left off earlier. I will remind members who
are joining us just now that we are debating Bill C-6 promoting
electronic commerce and the protection of personal information.
I was explaining that Quebec already has legislation to protect
that field of activity and that a new federal law will only make
things more complicated for the organizations that will have to
abide by it, in view of the double jurisdiction that will exist
because the federal government did not recognize the precedence
of the Quebec act in this field.
In fact, in its March 1999 brief, the Conseil du Patronat
stated “However, since subsection 92(13) of the
British North America Act clearly gives the provinces
jurisdiction in the area of protection of personal information
and privacy and since Quebec has already enacted legislation
within its jurisdiction and its borders, many jurisdictional
disputes can be expected”.
Of course, when the Conseil made that statement, it expected the
federal legislation as it stands today to be passed.
The Conseil further stated “As for Quebec consumers, they would
constantly be forced to try and determine which legislation
applies and choose between two types of remedies, depending on
whether their information is protected by one statute or the
other”.
It is important to really understand the situation because
consumers will have some recourse if they feel their personal
information has not been protected. However, they will have to
know if it was the federal legislation or the Quebec legislation
that was supposed to protect them.
Also, the Quebec Commission d'accès à l'information appeared
before the committee to explain about all the problems the
implementation of both these acts would cause in the field and
to stress that, in the end, Quebecers have a lot to lose given
the complexity of this legal issue and the fact that they are
the most protected consumers in the country.
If passed, this bill aimed at protecting consumers in the rest
of Canada, in other words the nine provinces that do not have
such legislation, will penalize Quebec consumers because the
federal government has not recognized in its bill the existence
of Quebec's act and the fact that the province has jurisdiction
over this area.
Other groups made their voices heard. I am thinking for instance
of the Barreau du Québec, whose brief also stressed the
complexity of such an act. It said “This means that from now on
a huge number of Quebec based businesses will be subject to the
federal act rather than Quebec's, which will not make it any
easier for citizens trying to know what their rights are in this
context of legislative changes. Moreover, businesses based in
Quebec will have to master a new personal information protection
system slightly different from Quebec's”.
Obviously, there are many differences since, as I explained
earlier, Quebec is governed by civil law while the federal
government follows a totally different approach, the common law.
The Barreau further stated that it supports the recommendation
made by the Access to Information Commission, which reads “In
order to avoid any confusion and insure that Quebecers continue
to enjoy the benefits of a full personal information protection
system, we submit that Bill C-54 should be amended in order to
provide that the act will not apply to businesses already
subject to the Protection of Personal Information in the Private
Sector Act”.
Accordingly, businesses would be subject to the existing act.
The federal government could reach its goal of having an act in
force across Canada, but which could be different in the case of
Quebec. Businesses are already familiar with it and comply with
it.
The Barreau goes further still, saying “In our view, the bill
should incorporate Quebec's act, even with respect to federal
areas of jurisdiction, so as to avoid confusion, overlap and
duplication of legislation in Quebec”.
This is a very interesting point of view. Normally, the federal
government's approach is always the opposite. The federal
government is the one interfering in provincial jurisdictions.
The Barreau du Québec is saying that there is already an act so,
to avoid any confusion, it should apply even where the federal
act normally would.
This is an interesting approach that was supported by various
groups which appeared before the committee, but all of which met
with the insensitivity of the federal government, the same
government that, one week ago, brought us a lovely throne speech
full of lofty goals on paper. We can see that, when this
government says, for instance, that it wants to work with the
provinces to improve the quality of life of Canadians, in
practice that is not what interests it.
1510
What interests it is to extend its authority, to acquire greater
and greater control, to be the government that plans our
economic and social development and controls the protection of
personal information, and so on.
Day after day, in one issue after another, this government
bulldozes ahead, taking over one jurisdiction after another.
And, if no amendments are made, this is what is going to happen
again.
We are at report stage. There is still time for the government
to amend the bill. It could include provisions acknowledging
the existence of Quebec's act and providing the legal framework
necessary for the development of e-commerce—we are not just
talking about personal information in the electronic domain in
this bill; its scope is much broader—as well as ensuring the
protection of personal information under the legislation that
already exists in Quebec.
In this way, a reasonable balance and a workable solution could
be found. I hope that there are still some sensible people left
across the way and that their beautiful speeches will translate
into something concrete. That is something we will see in the
course of the debate and there will be an opportunity to hear
what a number of my colleagues have to say about the bill this
afternoon.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased today to speak to the first group of amendments to
Bill C-6 which was formally known as Bill C-44.
We agree that there needs to be some certainty in the area of
privacy. We agree there needs to be some certainty in the rules
surrounding the whole electronic commerce section of business, a
fairly new area. We are a little concerned that the government
was probably a bit remiss in not trying to get a more
co-operative approach from the provinces before embarking on its
experiment in terms of privacy in the area of business, but we
recognize that it is required.
My understanding is that there is a three year timeframe for the
provinces to introduce their own privacy legislation. I think it
is regrettable, though, that a consensus could not have been
reached to allow for the provinces to be part of a program that
would introduce legislation on their own. The federal government
has decided to go out on its own, and my hon. colleague reminds
me that it is a three year phase-in.
The answer is that the provinces will have three years to
introduce legislation in this area of privacy. However, if they
are not able to do that or choose not to, the federal legislation
will take precedent and become the legislation in the land in the
areas of privacy in commerce and business.
That still leaves the other amendments that we will be dealing
with in section 2 to which I want to speak later on. We agree
that there needs to be rules and legislation surrounding the area
of privacy. Although we would have preferred to have a
co-operative approach, most of the provinces will be introducing
their own legislation to cover this area in the next three years.
Therefore the federal legislation will probably not even come
into effect. The provinces may have better legislation in those
areas of their own which they want to put in place, and I would
encourage them to do that in this timeframe.
The Reform Party supports the part 1 amendments.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I cannot say how delighted I am to speak
on Bill C-6 on personal information protection and the electronic
documents act.
The reason I am delighted is that today we were talking about
perhaps the birth of a whole new economy for the country. Others
have described it in the last 24 hours as electronic commerce
becoming the central nervous system of business, society and even
of government.
1515
We truly are into a form of commercial revolution, the
consequences of which are almost unpredictable. The fantastic
growth in the use of the Internet in terms of business to
business relationships as well as consumer to business
relationships is nothing short of astonishing. To illustrate
this, Internet traffic doubles every 100 days and every second of
the day seven new clients sign up on the Internet. It truly is a
revolution that is happening before us.
Like all revolutions we actually do not realize there is a
revolution going if we are part of it. One day we wake up and
realize that the entire world has changed. I suspect during the
industrial revolution people were not standing around talking
about the revolution that was going on, except when they looked
back and realized the tremendous change that had occurred.
I believe, as we have heard from the Minister of Industry, the
Prime Minister and government spokespersons in a variety of
capacities in the last number of weeks, that Canada is to become
the most electronically connected country in the world by the
year 2000. There was the commitment the other day to set up 600
Internet sites across the country and to mobilize 10,000 young
people to serve those sites to ensure that every Canadian from
coast to coast to coast, no matter where they live, no matter the
size of their community, no matter the resources at their
disposal will have access to the Internet of one kind or another.
Obviously there is a crucial issue that has to be dealt with and
Bill C-6 attempts to do that. I refer to what happened last
month at Microsoft when hackers broke into the hot mail service,
exposing 40 million accounts and the integrity of the e-mail
system. This kind of high profile breach of security obviously
is something that consumers are concerned about.
Madam Speaker, I know that you are an e-commerce fan and I
suspect that when you talk to your constituents about electronic
commerce the kind of thing you hear is what the rest of us hear
and that is that people are concerned about the security of the
information they provide.
When we send off our credit card number or when we carry out a
business transaction, is it secure? Do we have confidence that
the person receiving that information is the person that we
expect to be receiving that information?
In Canada the electronic commerce section will grow from $1
billion in 1997 to about $13 billion by 2002. There is an
incredible rate of economic change that is occurring before us.
In 1998 there were 414,000 active commercial websites and by 2002
it is predicted that number will jump to 1.6 million. It is
astonishing economic activity that is occurring before us. Bill
C-6 attempts to build in some security in terms of personal
information.
Today we are dealing with the motions in Group No. 1. I want to
say on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party that we will be
opposing the motions in Group No. 1 put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois. The reason is obvious. Bloc members believe, and
they make a compelling argument, that we should have one system
for the province of Quebec and one system for the rest of the
country. Obviously that is going to be a messy, patchwork system
of protection. We represent all Canadians in the House and we
want to have a policy that will protect Canadians from coast to
coast to coast.
My friends in the Bloc Quebecois argue that there is already
protective legislation in the province of Quebec. They are right
in that respect. It is lacking in most other jurisdictions of
the country. However, to pass federal legislation that does not
include all provinces and territories I think would be folly. We
do not want a patchwork of different standards across the
country. National standards are crucial. For that reason we
feel that we must oppose this group of amendments.
1520
It is not right or fair that some Canadians should be deprived
of privacy protection because their provincial government has
been slow to act. The reality is that there are some provinces
that are dragging their feet on this issue. I suspect one of the
reasons is that they really do not know what to do. The
provincial governments are looking to the federal government to
say that rather than all of the provincial jurisdictions
introducing their own protective legislation, why not have a
decent standard from coast to coast to coast introduced by the
federal government, which is what Bill C-6 is all about.
In other policy areas where there is federal and provincial
overlap both levels of government will be required to co-operate
to ensure the strongest protection is given to Canadians and to
reduce any confusion.
I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. friend from
the Bloc Quebecois, who argued that in his judgment the
legislation presently in place in Quebec would be adequate. Let
us ensure that whatever is the best piece of legislation to
protect the consumer will be the piece of legislation that will
dominate.
In conclusion, we support the federal government in its efforts
to exercise its commerce power in respect to privacy protection.
We support the intent of the legislation generally, and for that
reason I am afraid we will have to oppose the motions in Group
No. 1.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, before I commence speaking I
would like to take this opportunity, as a newly appointed
parliamentary secretary, to express my thanks to the Prime
Minister for giving me the opportunity to engage in this level of
our government.
We on the government side oppose the motions in Group No. 1.
These motions, tabled by the Bloc, strike at the heart of Bill
C-6 and indeed undermine the government's ability to introduce a
national law that will protect the privacy rights of all
Canadians, and I stress, all Canadians. These motions attack the
government's competence to deal with federal laws that impede
electronic government and electronic services delivered to all
Canadians.
In our consultations at the industry committee, consumer groups
and industry expressed the view that the government has achieved
the right balance in Bill C-6 between the right of individuals to
have some control over their personal information and to have
access to avenues for effective redress, and the need of industry
to collect and use personal information as a vital component of
success in the information economy.
For these reasons, consumer groups like the Public Interest
Advocacy Centre, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
and the Consumers' Association of Canada, and industry groups
like the Information Technology Association of Canada, the
Canadian Marketing Association and the cable and telephone
companies have all called for rapid passage of Bill C-6.
Swift passage of Bill C-6 will help build the consumer trust and
market certainty needed to ensure that Canada is a world leader
in electronic commerce and the global information economy.
The motions tabled by the Bloc are unacceptable and must be
rejected. With the passage of Bill C-6 Quebec citizens will
benefit from the best data protection in the country. Bill C-6
will provide all Canadians, and I stress, all Canadians,
including those in the province of Quebec, complete and
comprehensive privacy coverage across our country.
Quite frankly, I would have expected better of the Bloc than to
table amendments which deprive all Canadians, who have no privacy
protection in the private sector, of getting the benefits of this
national law.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this
bill, not so much because it is back on the agenda but because I
get a chance to clarify the situation once again.
Bill C-6 is the resurrection of Bill C-54. The purpose of this
bill is to implement legislation to protect personal information
at the federal level, when similar legislation already exists in
Quebec. This bill will enable the federal government to
interfere in a provincial jurisdiction in spite of the fact that
Quebec already has a legislation protecting all personal
information. This seems to me to be a rather absurd situation.
1525
I would like to quote from a letter to industry minister John
Manley and signed by Denis Marsolais, the president of the
Chambre des notaires du Québec, copy of which was sent to us by
this organization. It reads as follows:
We submit that overlapping systems will cause undue
misunderstandings and complications both for consumers and
organizations subjected to two sets of regulations dealing with
a single matter.
This is not a separatist speaking, but the president of the
Chambre des notaires du Québec.
I point this out to the previous speaker, who said that it is
not surprising to see the Bloc Quebecois take this standpoint.
The Bloc Quebecois is not the only one to take this standpoint;
there is a consensus throughout Quebec.
The president of the Chambre des notaires also stated:
Even more disturbing is part 2 of the bill. Clause 38 recognizes
the validity of electronic versions of notarial acts in Quebec
which are referred to in a federal law, not only if they are
recognized as such under the laws of the province of Quebec but
also if they are listed in one of the schedules of the
legislation. These schedules would be maintained by the
minister, an agency or anyone given the authority to modify
them. For all these reasons and many more—
This implies that not all the reasons were listed.
This is the president of the Chambre des notaires du Québec
speaking, not a separatist member of Parliament, as my colleague
opposite would have you believed. The president of the Chambre
des notaires du Québec represents all the notaries in Quebec.
This point of view is shared by all Quebecers, all interested
parties, not only the sovereignists, not only the separatists,
but even the federalists in Quebec. Everyone in Quebec knows
that, for five years now, we have had an act to protect personal
information, not only in the government but also in the private
sector.
The amendments we have put forward only try to ensure that the
federal government will respect the situation in Quebec. So, I
was somewhat offended when I heard the previous speaker say “Of
course, the Bloc members are always asking for something,
because they do not want Canada to work”.
This is utterly false. It is a matter of how things are supposed
to work.
There is already legislation under Quebec's jurisdiction. Out of
respect for Quebecers, the government should not have
reintroduced this bill or should have amended it to ensure that
Quebec's legislation would apply in that province while the
federal legislation would apply elsewhere if this were what
people wanted. But precedence should be given to Quebec's
legislation so that our province can give personal information
the protection it feels it deserves.
We live in a distinct society. The House recognized it in a
motion on distinct society that was moved by the government, but
ever since the motion was agreed to, the government just paid
lip service to it.
It is not mentioned in any legislation and whenever Quebec's
distinct character, society and people have to be recognized in
a bill, there is no mention of it.
Liberal members say that this is the position promoted by the
Bloc, by the separatists, but I invite all Canadians to assess
the situation.
On the one hand, the federal government wants to introduce a
bill on electronic commerce that also covers the area of
personal information, while, on the other hand, Quebec has
already passed a groundbreaking bill whose value was recognized
by people around the world.
But the federal government is now stepping in, clumsily, several
years after Quebec has passed and implemented its own
legislation. All of a sudden, Quebec should step aside, because
it is only a province. It would appear to be saying to Quebec
“You people think in a different way”.
The hon. member used the term “national legislation”. It reminds
me of all the fuss about the national capital. The federal
government claims to be the national government. I am sorry but,
under the constitution, it is merely the federal government and
should act as such, respecting the jurisdictions of other
governments. Quebec has jurisdiction over personal information,
and it has exercised that jurisdiction quite well for 15 or 20
years, because it has legislation in place and has enforced it.
In Quebec, we passed a first version of this legislation, and
then a second one in which the protection of personal
information was included.
When we look at the whole situation, it must be understood that
the position the Bloc Quebecois is fighting for is the result of
a consensus in Quebec. It is supported by all kinds of
organizations. For example, we have a letter from the Chambre
des notaires to Mr. Manley, dated April 7, 1999, that reads—
1530
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member knows very
well that he cannot name a minister or a member.
Mr. Paul Crête: It is an unfortunate oversight on my part, and I
apologize.
The Minister of Industry of Canada received that letter on April
7, 1999. In his letter, the president of the Chambre des
notaires—he is not a member of parliament so that I can name
him—,Denis Marsolais, said “For all these reasons, among
others, we believe that an amendment is necessary in order to
exclude professionals, notaries as well as any other person or
organization otherwise subject to Quebec's legislation from its
application”.
Can it be any clearer? And it is the president of the Chambre
des notaires who is speaking. He represents people who deal
every day with this act. These people draft contracts; they are
in regular contact with governments and private corporations
when they sign contracts. They know Quebec's law also applies to
the private sector, and the president of Quebec's Chambre des
notaires says that this bill cannot be adopted without an
amendment excluding Quebec from its application on its
territory.
When Liberal members present this bill in the House, I agree
they can defend its validity. I have nothing against the fact
that they are saying it could be good legislation.
They have the right to say those things, but they do not have
the right to say that we are against it just because we are
always against everything the federal government does.
As far as reasonable and interesting measures are concerned, we
have a support rate very similar to that of all other opposition
parties. However, we withhold support when Quebec's interests
are at stake and must be defended, when we must ensure that all
Quebecers are covered by legislation. This also means that this
coverage must not be too extensive, because we have seen many
instances of both governments legislating in the same areas of
jurisdiction.
Members need only think of the administrative nightmare and the
extra operating costs incurred by an insurance company that has
its headquarters in Quebec but does business in other provinces,
when two acts based on different sets of basic principles apply.
The costs could be prohibitive.
It will also create problems for people affected by these two
acts. All this because the federal government is determined to
pass what it considers national legislation. It seems that the
government cannot recognize that there can be solutions that are
not all inclusive. It must always include all of Canada. For the
government, all problems must be addressed the same way, be it
in Vancouver, St. John's or Quebec City.
But that, however, is not the reality. In Quebec we have a
particular civil code. The Liberal members should know that.
Especially those from outside Quebec. I hope that those from
Quebec have known this for a very long time. However, I do not
see why they cannot be here in the House to say that it makes no
sense to vote in favour of this bill.
Why do they not rise and say “As members for Quebec, we are
federalists, but in this instance, Quebec legislation must be
respected”. I simply cannot understand why party discipline is
involved in it.
I will conclude on this point. The federal government has been
trying to have us swallow a bill on the protection of personal
information for over a year. We are defending here all the
interests of Quebecers with respect to the matter of personal
information.
We will defend them to the end. We will insist on our point
until we get satisfaction from the government. Should the House
pass this bill, it will be like all the other measures taken by
the federal government that constitute the main reasons we want
to leave this country, which does not understand us, and most
importantly, which does not want to understand us, because of
its invasive action.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am happy to speak to this bill, now called Bill C-6.
In our last session before we rose for the summer this bill was
Bill C-54.
As the previous industry critic, I spent a lot of time on this
bill in committee and also talking to industry and other members
of the public especially involved in privacy issues. I am happy
to be able to speak to it today.
I also want to note that my colleague from Peace River, who is
now the industry critic and I think well deservedly, will do an
excellent job of representing the Reform Party on industry
issues. I want to congratulate him on all the hard work he did
in his prior post of international trade. I look forward to
working closely with him as we continue down the road of creating
a legal framework around electronic commerce.
1535
I had many concerns, as does the Bloc, on this issue, especially
on the issue of jurisdiction and how privacy specifically falls
under the provincial jurisdiction of powers. Through my
discussions in committee and with people in Alberta, I have come
to realize that maybe there is not the conflict that the Bloc
identifies on these issues.
As I speak on the motions in Group No. 1, I want to clarify that
we are opposed to the Bloc motions in this group. We do in fact
support the direction of the government on this legislation. My
colleague from Peace River will reiterate that as we move to
Group No. 2.
To summarize specifically what this bill is trying to
accomplish, Bill C-6 creates a legal and regulatory framework
that will be applied to the commercial use of sensitive and
private information in all areas of business. Reform supports
this initiative to protect privacy. Reform supports limited
government and free enterprise, but recognizes the important role
of government in creating an economic climate in Canada with fair
and transparent rules that protect both consumers and businesses.
This is also exactly where my second concern came up during the
course of dealing with this legislation, especially in committee.
Is the government in creating this legal framework and
formulating this legislation going to be too heavy handed on the
businesses that are engaging in electronic commerce and
respecting privacy currently, thereby actually putting a
disincentive on industry to continue with the work it has done to
allow electronic commerce to flourish in this country?
This is where we have to separate the two areas of privacy and
electronic commerce. Often that gets confusing because both are
very important. They have to be treated as equally important,
but there are distinct differences between electronic commerce
and privacy.
One of things brought to my attention while sitting on the
committee was that if one looks at how electronic commerce has
developed and begun to flourish, a lot of this has been done with
relatively no government intervention until now. Over $1 billion
of trade is being done through electronic commerce, whether it is
through the Internet or other forms of electronic commerce. This
consumer confidence in electronic commerce has begun with almost
entirely no government intervention, which is quite phenomenal if
one thinks about it.
That is one of the reasons we have to be very concerned, as I
mentioned, about being too heavy handed on industries as we
develop legislation that tries to encourage electronic commerce
to continue. This was one of the points I tried to bring up in
committee.
As I said, one of the things we cannot take lightly is the issue
of privacy. Some of the companies that have been doing business
on the Internet have taken privacy very seriously. That is why
customers, consumers who are currently engaging in trade on the
Internet, feel confident enough to disclose information on the
Internet and purchase services and goods. That is a positive
thing because obviously industry is doing its part.
Privacy extends far beyond the provincial jurisdiction,
particularly when one starts to use mechanisms of trade that go
beyond the national scope and into a global scope. Therefore,
there needs to be some sort of legal framework in place which
shows that Canada has certain standards when it comes to privacy
that the rest of the world has to take seriously.
[Translation]
This is why I would like to share with my dear colleagues in the
Bloc Quebecois my opinions and those of my party with respect
personal information.
The provincial and federal governments should work together in
this area and share responsibilities, because e-commerce is not
limited to the provinces, it goes beyond provincial and national
borders. It is truly a global matter.
1540
[English]
That is the reason I wanted to bring it up specifically in my
meetings with the privacy commissioner in Alberta. The Bloc had
concerns with how this federal legislation would combine its
resources provincially.
The privacy commissioner in Alberta stated that this fall the
government is going to be coming up with legislation that is
going to deal specifically with strengthening privacy legislation
in Alberta. It feels that in doing so it is going to be
complementary with the scope of the federal government. The
federal government has outlined that once this legislation
passes, it will allow a window of three years for provinces that
currently do not have privacy legislation to put privacy
legislation in place and make it as strong as the provinces wish.
The federal government will work with the provinces to respect
that.
Even if there is provincial legislation that is stronger in
certain aspects of privacy than the federal legislation, it will
take precedence over the federal legislation. This is actually
encouraged by the federal government which often does not respect
much provincial jurisdiction, but in this case there is a bigger
scope and I commend the minister on this.
That is where we have to try to focus specifically on this
issue. I encourage my colleagues from the Bloc to look at this
because if there are strong privacy laws, and I know Quebec is
very proud of its current privacy legislation, it will be
complementary to the federal legislation. This is one of the big
reasons that the Reform Party supports this. Even in Alberta we
have the privacy commissioner and others involved with this
particular legislation who say it is going in the right direction
and we should support it in its current form.
When I spoke about other groups that are looking at this
legislation, whether it is industry groups or privacy groups, the
general consensus is that there has been a balance reached so
far, especially through our deliberations in committee and
through the amendments that have been proposed in the House here
today. There is balance so far in taking seriously privacy
concerns and those of electronic commerce. The focus has to be
not so heavy handed. The Reform Party will support this
legislation, until we see that the government is turning its tide
and becoming too heavy handed in the process.
I will not speak to the Group No. 2 motions yet but we hope at
this report stage the government will consider some of the things
the Reform Party has put forward when it comes to amending the
privacy area especially in the areas of health services and
health information. I think most Canadians agree that is very
important information and should be treated as such.
I am hoping the amendments I have put forward on behalf of the
Reform caucus will be taken seriously. Now that I will be
working with my colleague from Peace River we hope we will be
taken seriously because we would like to see that area of privacy
strengthened.
Bill C-6 includes a two year phase-in timetable after which
those provinces that do not have comparable legislation would
fall under the federal legislation. Currently only Quebec has
this kind of comprehensive privacy protection. Alberta will be
coming on board this fall. Other provinces have determined that
they neither have the resources nor the inclination to create
their own provincial privacy protection legislation and prefer
that this be included under the broad federal legislation. The
Bloc would like total exemption for any province that has or
creates privacy legislation. Under this legislation that concern
is taken care of.
The difficulty with provincial privacy protection legislation is
that for international and interprovincial trade purposes there
should be a national standard for privacy protection. Canadian
businesses have asked for this in order to simplify trade rules.
Those are the most important points to mention during this
debate on the Group No. 1 motions. We are not really opposed to
the fact that there needs to be a balance. This legislation is
achieving that. But we need to keep our minds open to look at
electronic commerce in a global perspective and see how
legislation can be created that works positively with the
provinces. This legislation does this and I would encourage my
colleagues from the Bloc to consider that and look at ways to
strengthen that relationship, especially when it comes to
electronic commerce.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Madam Speaker, on behalf of
the PC Party of Canada, I am pleased to speak on the Group No. 1
amendments to Bill C-6, the personal information protection and
electronic documents act.
Before I begin my comments I would like to thank the many
witnesses who took time to make submissions either in person or
in writing to the Standing Committee on Industry.
Their representations were extremely helpful with respect to
bringing new issues to light.
1545
I pay tribute to all my colleagues who were on the industry
committee and the new colleagues who are coming on board because
this is definitely a very important area. I compliment the
government for bringing forth in committee an amendment to clause
18 of the bill which was identical to the one I had sponsored.
We in the PC Party believe in the need for personal privacy
legislation, but we do not feel the government has adequately
taken into account the views and concerns of the Ontario and
Quebec governments.
We do not feel it has adequately considered the cost impact of
the new regulatory regime in Bill C-6 on the private sector. We
do not see the need to pass a law to meet a European Union
directive when our number one e-commerce and overall trading
partner has adopted a diametrically different approach. Ninety
per cent of all the e-commerce traffic in this country is in
trade with the U.S. Therefore I cannot see the need to rush to
beat the Americans in this regard because down the road they
could adopt a different standard and we would have to change.
I will speak to the specific amendments tabled in Group No. 1,
all of which were sponsored by the member for Témiscamingue. To
be fair to the member I note for the record that the industry
committee and a Bloc member at the time presented the following
motion:
Whereas witnesses were recently heard by the Standing Committee
on Industry, on Bill C-54 concerning the major problems in
implementing this legislation; and took into account the big
application difficulties of this bill,
Whereas the Quebec government has repeated its demand that Bill
C-54 be withdrawn,
That the Committee suspend Clause by Clause consideration of
Bill C-54 and ask the Industry Minister to undertake negotiations
with all the provinces, to forestall any constitutional challenge
that might impair the attainment of its objectives.
This motion was defeated by seven to four. It was basically the
Liberal majority that won the day and it was supported by all
opposition members of the committee.
Having heard many concerns from witnesses the Liberals had the
choice to take their time to consider meaningful changes to Bill
C-6. The Bloc, the Reform and the Conservatives were ready to
work together to draft a better bill. To their credit the
Liberals allowed some minor tinkering to Bill C-54 which is now
Bill C-6. For example, they supported two of the sixteen
amendments I brought forward, but on the major question of
overall regulation in the form of excessive power granted to the
privacy commissioner and provoking battles with the Ontario and
Quebec governments, they refused to budge. They refused to
co-operate. They refused to compromise.
On behalf of the PC Party I refuse to blindly support Bill C-6
for the sake of getting a law, any law, on personal privacy and
e-commerce. One glaring example of the defects in the
legislation is subclause 18(1) which would give the privacy
commissioner the right to audit a company based on disputes
regarding recommended business practices listed under schedule 1
of the bill.
Recommended business practices are just that, recommendations.
They are not laws and should therefore not be enforced as such.
The privacy commissioner should be allowed to conduct an audit
only when there are reasonable grounds to believe the law has
been violated. Audits are intrusive and place a heavy
administrative burden on the business operations of Canadian
companies. The audit power under Bill C-6 should only be used to
cover alleged violations of mandatory obligations set out in the
bill.
The privacy commissioner should not be permitted to micromanage
whether a company complies with recommended business practices
such as what types of passwords or encryptions are being used by
a company. Therefore subclause 18(1) as presently drafted is not
necessary since Bill C-6 already provides the privacy
commissioner with the tools needed to ensure the compliance of
schedule 1. For example, section 11 allows an individual to file
a complaint if he or she feels an organization is contravening
the legislation or not following a recommended business practice.
Further, clause 12 gives the privacy commissioner the power to
investigate all complaints including a complaint that an
organization is not following a recommended business practice.
I reiterate the longstanding objections of a variety of
witnesses to the far-ranging powers granted to the privacy
commissioner under clauses 12 and 18. While I do not object to
extending search and seizure power to the privacy commissioner
under Bill C-6, it is in the best interest of all concerned that
his office be required to obtain prior judicial authorization.
1550
The lack of any obligation for the privacy commissioner to
obtain the approval of our courts before exercising search and
seizure power is deeply troubling.
Clauses 18 and 12 of Bill C-6 create a fundamental conflict by
allowing the privacy commissioner both to determine whether to
exercise search and seizure powers and execute those same powers.
The authorization should be granted by a neutral third party as
in the case of criminal investigations.
Bill C-6 already provides the privacy commissioner with broad
investigative and audit powers. The commissioner may summon and
enforce appearances of persons under oath, converse with any
person, comply with the production of documents, and receive and
accept any evidence in the same manner and to the same extent as
the superior court.
It is for these reasons that additional safeguards are needed in
Bill C-6 as it relates to the privacy commissioner or to his
delegate actually entering the premises of a private organization
and seizing records.
These are not just the concerns of allegedly self-interest
companies. Indeed, Blair Mackenzie from the Canadian Newspaper
Association told the industry committee that the provisions
within Bill C-6 are “frightening”.
Other witnesses have alluded to the provisions in the bill
prompting challenges under the charter of rights and freedom if
the privacy commissioner acted upon clause 12 or 18.
I am also troubled the government did not bring forward any
study or reports on the cost impact of Bill C-6. From a legal,
constitutional and economic standpoint these unfettered audit
powers constitute a tremendous defect in the legislation.
Sadly the Liberal majority decided to ignore the fears of free
speech advocates, to ignore the pleas of the private sector and
to chose to defeat my amendments to oblige the privacy
commissioner to obtain a court order before exercising search and
seizure.
If there is any reluctance I have in supporting the Group No. 1
amendments, it is due to Motions Nos. 56 and up which deal with
parts 2 through 5. Most of my objections pertain to part 1 of
Bill C-6.
Unfortunately the familiar double dose of Liberal arrogance and
heavy-handedness has left me with no choice but to support the
Group No. 1 amendments on behalf of the Conservative caucus.
The Liberals had their chance to co-operate at committee to make
a substantially better bill and they chose not to do so.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in today's debate on 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 bill that we are debating today at report stage is the old
Bill C-54 which, in spite of being the most significant step
taken by the federal government since 1983 to protect personal
information, does not fulfil its primary objective of protecting
citizens. It falls short of our expectations.
The minister has failed to put forward a bill whose real
objective would be to protect people's private lives in the
private sector. In a technological world where this basic right
is threatened, the Minister of Industry is proposing a fragile
and confusing act whose core element is a schedule that repeats
verbatim the principles set out in the code of the Canadian
Standards Association.
The minister's bill is one that gives huge discretionary powers
to the governor in council, while not giving any authority to
the privacy commissioner. This is a bill that puts the emphasis
on electronic commerce at the expense of the basic concept of
the right to privacy, that ignores Quebec's unique experience in
the area of personal information protection in the private
sector and which, ultimately, could create problems for Quebec's
current legislation.
Before dealing specifically with some of the major flaws of this
bill before us, I want to say a few words about the concept of
privacy, which is at the core of this bill, in the context of
the Canadian and Quebec legislation.
1555
The right to privacy is a human right along with the right to
equality and justice. The United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which is celebrating this year its fiftieth
anniversary and of which Canada is a member, clearly states that
everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
The declaration also states that “No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation”.
In Canada, this protection is provided under sections 7 and 8 of
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Moreover, in 1983, the Canadian government passed legislation
respecting the protection of personal information that applies
to over one hundred government agencies under its jurisdiction.
Since then, the federal government has promised an umbrella act
to force the private sector to protect personal information.
Bill C-6 is the sad outcome of all this.
In Quebec, the right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and in the Quebec
Civil Code.
Furthermore, the Quebec government is the only government in
North America to have passed laws to govern the protection of
privacy in the public sectors in 1982 and in the private sectors
in 1994. Experts agree that Quebec's act governing the private
sector is probably one of the best in the world.
The federal government is once again causing confusion, and this
act will give a different meaning to the Privacy Act, just as
Bill C-68 will with respect to the young offenders legislation.
This is contrary to what Quebec has put in place. This bill has
many flaws, it is a weak bill whose essence is in its schedule,
a small one at that. Most of the provisions that will govern the
protection of personal information are set out in the schedule
to the bill.
Moreover, this schedule is nothing more than the model code for
the protection of personal information developed by the private
sector and consumers as a framework to protect personal
information on a voluntary basis.
By not going beyond this text, the minister endorsed neither the
consumers' recommendations nor those of the privacy
commissioners, who recognized that the model code proposed by
the Canadian Standard Association was a good basis for
reflection, but that it should be reviewed and improved if it
ever were to be incorporated in the act.
This shows beyond any doubt that the minister gave precedence to
economic values over social values, at a time when this
fundamental right is so threatened by the expansion of
electronic commerce.
This bill gives huge discretion to the governor in council.
Under paragraph 27(2)b), the federal government gives itself the
right to amend the act through a simple order in council,
without consulting parliament.
We know that the Liberal government has mastered the art of not
being accountable to parliament.
Therefore, it will be possible to amend the act under the
pressure of lobbying efforts on behalf of the large companies
that fund traditional political parties in Canada. The Liberal
Party knows what I mean.
This bill gives no power to the Privacy Commissioner. Although
the other Canadian provinces followed Quebec's model, giving the
commissioner the power to issue orders, the federal act does the
exact opposite. Thus the commissioner will not be able to issue
orders, which will make access to the act difficult for
consumers and cause it to have no effect on business.
This bill ignores Quebec's unique experience. It ignores its
unique experience in the protection of personal information in
the private sector.
Here are some examples: the objectives of the act are better
defined in the Quebec legislation because the purpose is to
protect privacy independently of any commercial consideration;
the Quebec legislation clearly covers all undertakings, whether
for-profit or not-for-profit, whereas the federal calls for the
protection of personal information only for commercial
transactions; Quebec's act allows a group of individuals to
appoint a representative in a class action case. There is no
such provision in the federal bill.
1600
It is therefore obvious that this is a bill with the potential
to make life difficult in Quebec. In addition to all the flaws
that have been pointed out, there is one still greater area of
concern. The only guarantee Quebec has that it will be exempted
from this legislation is a timid statement by the Minister of
Industry. Its mistrust is in large part motivated by Quebec's
past experience with certain formal commitments made to it,
about which the federal government has too often kept mum or
which it has denied.
For example, I will remind this government if I may of the
present Prime Minister's promises made within days of the 1995
referendum in the Verdun auditorium.
The stakes are clear, then.
For the Minister of Industry, it is a question of ensuring that
Canada participates fully in the rapidly expanding e-commerce
without inordinate concern about peoples' worries about their
privacy. Nor does the Minister of Industry hesitate to adopt a
centralizing position that runs counter in a number of respects
to what should be done in the provinces of Canada, and could
have served as a model to Quebec in particular.
As the Deputy Premier of Quebec so aptly put it, “If Quebec were
to participate fully in the concert of nations, its culture and
the protection of its policy on the privacy of personal
information, as concretized in its charter, its Civil Code and
its two pieces of privacy legislation, would have been advanced
by its government at the Ottawa OECD meeting in Ottawa”.
The Bloc Quebecois calls for immediate withdrawal of Bill C-6.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
TRANSPORT
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent in the Chamber
to the following motion dealing with the televised hearings of
the transport committee. I move:
That the House, pursuant to Standing Order 119.1(1), authorize
the Standing Committee on Transport to televise the meetings
between October 20, 1999 and December 19, 1999 during its study
on the future of the airline industry in Canada, in accordance
with the guidelines pertaining to televising committee
proceedings.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
ACT
The House resumed consideration of 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, reported from the committee (with
amendment), and of motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today on Bill C-6, which affects a fundamental value
in our society, privacy protection.
The debate goes beyond these walls. On November 2, 1998,
parliamentarians, as well as Quebecers, had the opportunity to
read in Le Devoir an article entitled “Pressure is mounting for
consumers' privacy protection”.
The article talked about threats against our privacy and the
need for citizens to be well informed of their rights. It also
talked about the bill and some aspects of it that we are
discussing today in the House. This article clearly specified
that provinces that will not pass legislation in this area will
have to comply with federal legislation within three years.
Yet, the need for legislation protecting personal information
and privacy is not new.
1605
Most provinces already have such legislation. In this instance,
the federal government has long been delaying taking its
responsibilities by introducing a bill that would apply only to
corporations under its jurisdiction.
In fact, we were expecting something from this government, that
it take its cue from provincial laws already in place to
introduce a consistent, efficient and clear bill, one that is in
keeping with those provinces' jurisdictions. Unfortunately for
all Quebecers and Canadians, this bill fails miserably.
Instead of protecting privacy, the bill limits itself to
protecting the right of big business to make profits with as few
restrictions as possible. This is totally unacceptable. The
federal government must get the bill back to the drawing board
as quickly as possible. It must introduce a bill really aimed at
protecting privacy.
If the government is not yet convinced that it is urgent to act,
that the situation is urgent, it should get in touch with the
president of the Quebec access to information commission. The
Minister of Industry would soon find that every month the Quebec
government receives 2,000 calls from people concerned about the
protection of their privacy.
The Liberal Party fuels the public's cynical attitude toward
politicians by using this empty and confused measure to try to
convince our fellow citizens that it is concerned about the
protection of privacy.
The government does not say, however, that it has introduced a
bill that only favours commerce, one that is predicated on
voluntary compliance by businesses with its provisions to
protect privacy.
What the minister responsible is not saying is that the bill is
riddled with loopholes and leaves many sectors without any
protection. Those sectors that are covered by this bill are
conditionally covered. This means that businesses are told to
take care, if possible, of their clients' privacy. This is
totally unacceptable.
I want first to stress the fundamental nature of the right to
privacy. It has been said before, but it is important to remind
this House that the Liberal Party is putting the right to make
profits before the right to privacy.
Experts consider the right to privacy as a human right, the same
as the right to equality and the right to justice. Thus, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights—as cited by several
colleagues before me—which was adopted 50 years ago by the
United Nations and which Canada adhered to, specifies that
everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person
and provides that:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
honour and reputation.
In Canada, the charter of rights and freedoms also protects
privacy, although not in so many words.
In this connection, I would mention that, in Quebec, as members
are undoubtedly aware, this right to privacy is recognized
explicitly in Quebec's 1975 charter of rights and freedoms.
Article 5 is unambiguous where privacy is concerned:
1610
This right is also recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil
Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and Privacy”. I draw
particular attention to article 35. This is not just something
the Bloc Quebecois is pushing. I remind members that last
April 7 the Chambre des notaires du Quebec wrote a letter to
the minister responsible, mentioning this provision in Quebec's
Civil Code.
Article 35 is clear. It says:
Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and
privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the
consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.
That seems clear to me. Respect of privacy is a fundamental
right, which is recognized internationally, as well as in Canada
and in Quebec. It is ridiculous for the federal government to
be introducing a bill that does not protect this fundamental
right.
Earlier, I mentioned a Devoir article I tabled. I see I have
the House leader's attention. That article clearly said that
the Government of Quebec was the only government in North
America to have passed legislation protecting personal
information in the public and private sectors. In addition,
many experts say that Quebec's act regarding the private sector
is one of the best in the world. This is a far cry from the
federal act, which covers only the public sector.
It is not so surprising that the federal government did not draw
upon the Quebec legislation. That would have been killing two
birds with one stone. On the one hand, it would have ensured
consumers of the exemplary protection of personal information,
and, on the other hand, it would have avoided the loopholes and
violations which are inescapable when enforcing federal and
provincial laws which have not been harmonized.
This leads us to believe that the real object of this bill is
not protection of privacy, but a pitiful public relations
exercise. The government would like to use this legislation to
show that it is finally taking heed of people's concerns.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill does not meet
the expectations of those who wish for privacy. It simply serves
the interests of big business.
Even Canada's privacy commissioner observed that the discussion
paper proposed by Industry Canada and the Department of Justice
focuses mainly on commerce, not on privacy.
That is why we categorically oppose Bill C-6. The federal
government refused to draw from Quebec's legislation, even if it
is recognized as exemplary in this respect. This is not
surprising, as the Quebec legislation focuses mainly on the
protection of personal information, while the federal bill aims
essentially at pleasing big business.
BILL C-6—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached
under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with
respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of 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.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a
motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at these stages.
1615
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask
for guidance. Are we to understand—and that is what we would like
Canadians to realize—that the government is trying to do
something that will certainly gag the opposition?
Please give us guidance, Mr. Speaker. Is that what is happening
and do you think that this procedure is democratically
acceptable?
The Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to decide whether
something is democratic or not, but only to determine whether it
is in order or not.
Obviously, what the leader of the government has indicated is
perfectly in order as far as procedure is concerned. This is a
notice of motion. Maybe the motion will be moved, and maybe not.
One never knows. The debate could be concluded this afternoon.
One never knows.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House
leader to clarify if this is the 65th or 66th time that they have
used closure since coming to power in 1993.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not sure the hon. member has a
point of order. It may be a matter of great interest that I am
sure could be determined by someone.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, just to make sure we understand
fully what is going on, could you confirm for the benefit of the
members and the viewers that, as parliamentarians, we will be
denied our right to speak on a important bill dealing with
privacy?
Could you tell us whether eventually parliamentarians could be
denied that right? Could you tell us under which Standing Order
the government can do this, and do you think as our Speaker who
should uphold our rights that this is acceptable in a democracy?
I would like to receive some guidance from you on this, Mr.
Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve
knows full well that it is almost impossible to deny members of
Parliament the right to express their point of view. However,
under the Standing Orders, the government can put an end to a
debate after a certain time.
As a servant of the House, the Speaker has to ensure that the
Standing Orders are respected and that the procedure applied by
the government or the opposition is in accordance with the
Standing Orders. That is all the Speaker can do and is asked to
do.
Maybe we could proceed with the debate to avoid wasting time
and ensure that the hon. members keep their right to speak and
address this important issue.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a Point of order.
Would you be kind enough to remind the House that, when the
House leader sat in opposition on this side of the House and was
part of the so-called “rat pack”, he would never have accepted
such a tactic? Well, today, we want to let him know that we do
not accept it either.
The Deputy Speaker: This may be an argument, but it is not a
point of order.
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported from the committee
(with amendments), and of motions in Group No. 1.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with what
the leader of government has done to us today, namely gagging
us, it is with sadness that I am taking part in the debate on
report stage of Bill C-6, Personal Information Protection and
Electronic Documents Act.
This bill is nothing more that a reincarnation of the bill
presented by the Minister of Industry as Bill C-54 during the
first session of this Parliament, and which was unanimously
rejected in Quebec.
1620
Since the federal government refuses to withdraw its bill, the
Bloc Quebecois and its representative on this issue, the Member
for Témiscamingue, are presenting today an amendment motion
whose intent is to suppress clauses of the bill which would
represent a setback in the field of personal information
protection in Quebec. Let us not forget that the Minister of
Industry tabled his bill on personal information without waiting
for the results of a consultation that he had himself launched.
The minister tabled his bill in October 1998 without waiting for
the comments of his provincial counterparts to whom he had just
sent a proposal of bill.
However, at a meeting held in Fredericton in June of 1998, the
ministers in charge of information highway agreed to consult
each other on the opportunity to adopt a legislation concerning
personal information protection in the private sector.
Once again, the federal government adopted a unilateral and
paternalistic approach and imposed its point of view to the
provinces. That is not very surprising.
The Bloc asked that the bill be withdrawn for reasons of
principles, including the fact that it had been introduced
without consultations and that the bill is an encroachment on
provincial jurisdiction over civil law.
The Bloc also asks for the withdrawal of the bill because it
would represent a major weakening of the legal provisions
concerning personal information protection in Quebec. The bill
contains many legal deficiencies and its implementation in
Quebec would cause many duplications and a lot of confusion.
This is not the first time the liberal government duplicates
legislation since I have been elected in this House.
Quebec's legislation is based on the charter of human rights
where the protection of personal information is declared a basic
right. As a matter of fact, section 5 of the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms says that: “Every person has a right
to respect for his private life.”
This right is also defined and framed in the Quebec Civil Code,
which states the basic principles governing the collection,
retention and use of personal information.
The personal information of Quebecers is also very well
protected under two laws. The first one, adopted in 1982, deals
with the protection of privacy in the public sector, and the
second one, adopted in 1994, extends that protection to the
private sector.
It seems the federal government cannot accept the fact that
Quebec has the best system in Canada and is adamant about
imposing its legislation even if it means reducing the
protection now enjoyed by Quebecers.
And yet, we heard the federal Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs say in one of his speeches in May 1998 that we had to,
and I quote:
Obviously, the minister does not do as he says or he does not
talk often enough to his colleague, the Minister of Industry,
who says it is urgent to legislate to protect the rights of
Canadians and uses that as an excuse to interfere in areas under
provincial jurisdiction and to impose a system that is
criticized by Quebec's society as a whole.
When the committee held public hearings regarding this bill,
every professional, business, labour and consumer organization
in Quebec expressed its preference for the system already in
place in that province.
This is why these organizations unanimously requested that
Quebec be excluded from the application of the bill we are
debating today so that the federal government does not impose
upon them, with regard to the protection of personal
information, a system that is different from the one that has
been in place in Quebec for five years.
1625
In a letter to the industry minister dated February 4, the
Barreau du Quebec wrote:
Privacy falls under provincial jurisdiction over property and
civil rights—Generally, we believe that the federal access to
information and privacy system is not efficient enough—the
bill—should be amended in order to provide explicitly that
the federal act does not apply to private sector businesses
subjected to the Privacy Act.
For its part, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, which
represents over 3 000 legal professionals, wrote to the industry
minister on April 7 to denounce the duplications that would
result from this bill being imposed on Quebec, and ask that it
be amended to avoid such a situation. I will quote from its
letter:
We believe the overlapping of systems will result in undue
complications and misunderstandings both for consumers and
organizations subject to two different sets of rules in the same
area—we believe an amendment is necessary to exclude from
its application professionals, notaries, and any individual or
organization subject to the Quebec legislation.
Finally, the Conseil interprofessionnel du Québec, with 260,000
members from 43 Quebec professional organizations, also wrote to
the Minister of Industry on March 23 to tell him the following:
Quebec professionals are already governed by a specific and
structured set of acts and regulations tailored to the values of
the Quebec people—We believe that superimposing several
systems with the same intent can only cause confusion and
uncertainty about citizens' rights—The emergence of another
comprehensive system might unduly complicate citizens' life.
Also of concern is the fact that the second part of the bill,
which deals with electronic documents, could deprive the
provinces from their right to define concepts such as signature,
contracts and other procedures that are now covered under civil
law.
Given all the deficiencies in Bill C-6 and the threat it poses to
the system now in place in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois has
proposed an amendment to limit damages that this bill, if
passed, could cause by explicitly excluding from its scope
provinces that already have legislation on the protection of
personal information in the private sector.
Another amendment is designed to maintain the privacy protection
afforded to Quebecers by provincial legislation when dealing
with federal companies doing business in Quebec.
I am afraid that, once again, the federal government is not
listening to Quebec's will and putting it in a yoke. I condemn
the domineering attitude of the federal government, which wants
to dictate its will to all the provinces by imposing, from sea
to sea, measures that are “made in Ottawa”, without any concern
for effectiveness and without taking into consideration their
negative impact on citizens' rights.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak to this bill. In light of the notice of
motion for time allocation, I even consider it a privilege to be
allowed to speak at the report stage of Bill C-6, also known as
the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents
Act.
This bill is identical to Bill C-54 brought forward in the last
session of Parliament.
I am adamantly opposed to this bill that the industry minister
introduced without any consultation with the provinces and which
constitutes an unacceptable intrusion in provincial areas of
responsibility with respect to civil law.
Incidentally, the provincial and territorial governments met on
October 29 and 30 of last year and exposed the extraordinary
intrusion in the provincial and territorial jurisdictions
created by Bill C-54. The government is somehow attempting to
recycle it as Bill C-6.
1630
The motion in amendment before us today would delete a number of
sections in this bill, which, if adopted, would mark a backward
shift in the matter of protection of personal information in
Quebec. This bill is very weak from a legal point of view and,
without any harmonization with Quebec's legislation, its
enforcement would cause confusion.
As it now stands, the bill much too flawed, from a
constitutional, democratic and legal point of view. Far from
improving the protection of personal information, it in fact
threatens it.
This is why we are asking, and have asked already numerous
times, that the federal government withdraw its bill and resume
consultation with the provinces in order to table a bill that
respects provincial jurisdictions.
I would take advantage of this debate to remind the Minister of
Industry and the hon. members on the government side that my
colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques
had made a motion during the 35th Parliament calling for the
government to make Crown agencies subject to the Privacy Act.
This motion was passed unanimously with the support of all of
the Liberal members, including the ministers.
Unfortunately, the government did not follow up on it. Yet now
we have that same government wanting to interfere in areas of
provincial jurisdiction while incapable of first putting its own
house in order.
In light of the federal government's refusal to withdraw its
bill, the Bloc Quebecois called for modifications in order to
have it not apply in Quebec, where personal information is
already adequately protected.
In 1982, the Government of Quebec passed legislation protecting
privacy in the public sector, and Quebec is the only state in
North America to have legislation protecting personal
information, which it has had since 1994.
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms, which dates from
1975, stipulates that everyone is entitled to the protection of
his or her privacy. The Quebec Civil Code also addresses the
protection of privacy, placing it within a framework that
addresses the fundamental principles governing the gathering,
retaining and use of information relating to an individual.
The two acts to which I just referred complete the Quebec
legislative framework by stating the rights, obligations and
rules of public and private organizations in the matter of
privacy.
Quebec is obviously a leader regarding the protection of
personal information, but this bill could reduce the protection
provided to Quebecers. Indeed, contrary to what one might have
expected, Bill C-6 does not even extend to the private sector the
principles governing the protection of personal information in
the federal public sector. The bill does not go nearly that far.
Let us look at a few flaws in this legislation.
Under the existing act, federal institutions are required to
inform individuals that they collect personal information that
concern them, and they must also specify how that information
will be used. Under Bill C-6, this is merely a recommendation,
not a requirement. The Quebec act is much more specific and
strict, since it provides that any agreement relating to such
disclosure or use of personal information must be expressed
clearly and freely, and must be given in an informed manner and
for a specific purpose.
Bill C-6 relies on the voluntary CSA code, whose purpose is not
to protect privacy. Also, the notion of personal information is
not as well defined in that code, and the definition of consent
is vague. Thus, it seems that the bill primarily seeks to
promote electronic commerce, at the expense of privacy
protection in the private sector.
This is not surprising, since the Minister of Industry has
always ignored the part of his mandate that concerns consumer
protection.
Moreover, the remedies provided in the bill are time-consuming,
costly and ineffective because the federal commissioner cannot
issue orders, but can only write reports. Canadians will have to
go to the federal court to settle disputes, but only after the
privacy commissioner will have issued a non-binding opinion, and
only after all other recourses will have been exhausted.
Finally, unlike the Quebec act, the bill does not provide for
criminal penalties when the principles governing the protection
of personal information are breached.
Given all the flaws of Bill C-6 and the step backward it
represents for Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois has presented several
amendments aimed at limiting the damage that may result from its
overlapping the existing legislation.
1635
The Bloc Quebecois has presented several amendments which aim to
limiting the damage that may cause its superimposition on the
existing legislation. One of these amendments aims to explicitly
exclude of the application of the bill the provinces that
already have a legislation that protects personal information in
the private sector.
Another amendment that we tabled will eliminate the power of the
governor in council to unilaterally decide to whom the federal
law applies.
Another amendment presented by the Bloc Quebecois aims at
maintaining the right to privacy insured to Quebecers by the
provincial legislation in their relations with federal
businesses operating in Quebec.
Finally, an amendment presented by our party aims at avoiding
the establishment of new rules concerning the legal definition
of signature and rights to a contract for the electronic sector
because these questions fall under the provincial jurisdiction
in matters of property and civil rights.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec government are far from being
the only ones in Quebec to oppose the passing of Bill C-6. They
have the support of the Quebec Bar which wrote on February 4th
on the then Bill C-54:
The Quebec legislator's approach seems preferable because it
specifies even more the rights and duties in a legislative text
that is relatively clear and simple to apply. We believe the
Quebec plan to protect the personal information in the private
sector is better than the one which is provided by Bill C-54.
As for the Chambre des notaires, on April 7, they wrote this:
We submit that overlapping systems will, in our opinion, cause
undue misunderstandings and complications both for consumers and
for organizations subjected— We believe an amendment is needed
in order to exclude from its application professionals, notaries
as well as any person or organization otherwise subjected to
Quebec legislation.
Finally, on last March 23, the Quebec Interprofessional Council,
which regroups all 43 professional corporations in Quebec and
some 260,000 members, wrote this:
We believe that Bill C-54 and the system it is proposing are
highly inappropriate within the Quebec context, and we ask you
to amend it in order to specify that it does not apply to
persons or organizations already subjected to Quebec legislation
in that regard.
In the wake of the 1995 referendum, the Prime Minister presented
his motion on distinct society and said that he would take this
notion into account when bills were passed. On June 2, the
Minister of International Trade stated in an article published
in La Presse that:
Canada decided not to eliminate differences, but to base its
future on a system of accommodation between majorities and
minorities.
The minister added that Canada did not want a single legal
system for everybody.
Therefore I ask the Prime Minister to respect Quebec society and
withdraw this bill, which, in its present form, is not
acceptable to Quebec.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, it strikes me
has a bit odd that a bill dealing with the protection of
personal information has already been put under gag order, as we
are just beginning.
Here we are in the high forum of debate and democracy, and as
soon as we begin it, because our electors have asked for it—301
members have been elected to this House to speak on behalf of
the voters—the Liberal government has the annoying habit of
trotting out a gag order immediately, a time allocation order,
and put an end to debate.
We must look very seriously at this strategy. The Liberal
government has become the champion of the guillotine. Some of
my colleagues in the Reform Party have raised this point. This
concerns us very much. There a lot of things that concern us
about parliamentary democracy.
Without revealing caucus secrets, I can say that we wondered
about this type of expeditious and often time wasting measure,
in which the government says “Into the closet with this debate.
We have decided to put an end to it at a certain point”.
So we ask ourselves: is this where we are to express the views
of the voters, yes or no? I would point out that the right to
speak is not just allowing someone to speak for ten minutes. It
is also how long the debate will last.
1640
In fact, I recall the Liberals criticizing such proceedings with
the Progressive Conservatives, when they were in power. Today,
they are in power and are applying the same principle, if not
doing worse.
There are a lot of other things that bother us too, debates
without votes for example. I realize that there are what is now
called exploratory debates. Members have a fundamental right,
the right to vote. Instead of asking members to speak and to
vote, the government will say “You can speak now for three or
four hours, for two days, but there will be no vote following”.
The government members ought to support us and criticize these
strategies as well.
Without revealing what was said in caucus, I do hope they also
had such a discussion. It is a fundamental right.
It is often said that power is entirely centred in the Prime
Minister's Office. Here, people learn of the government
positions. These are fundamental democratic issues. Today, once
again, we saw how the fundamental democratic values of
parliamentarians can be violated.
This is totally disgraceful. Strange to say, it happened in
connection with a bill dealing with the protection of personal
information. This is a fundamental issue in society. People are
a bit fed up with their personal information being used and
disclosed all over the place.
This is a major concern of our constituents, and today we have
just been told to “Make do with a limited debate on the
subject”. This is totally disgraceful. I just had to start by
condemning this measure by the government.
I looked at the title. The last time, when we debated old Bill
C-54, there were basic differences between it and the title of
the Quebec legislation.
I remind the House that the Quebec legislation is entitled an
“Act on the protection of personal information in the private
sector”. Obviously, the Quebec government aimed mainly at
protecting personal information. This is slightly different, and
I would even call it the antithesis of the title of the federal
bill being debated today. The title is quite long, but it is
also quite revealing.
Here are the first few words of the title of this bill:“an act
to support and promote electronic commerce”. Right from the
beginning, it is clear that the main issue is the promotion of
electronic commerce. Let me read on: “by protecting personal
information that is collected, used or disclosed”—
I will not read the whole title because it is quite long, but we
can readily understand that the purpose of the government is
always the same, that is looking after the interests of
business. Personal information and human rights are an
afterthought. They are not important. We have very often
criticized these priorities.
If we look at campaign contributions, it is easy to understand
why the federal government would want to protect its friends.
Furthermore, it is intruding into Quebec's jurisdictions.
Once more, those who make big contributions to campaign funds
will get special treatment.
I remind the House that our hands are not tied, because our
party is financed through the small contributions of ordinary
voters. We do everything we can to keep it like that. We go
everywhere in the countryside and in the towns and cities to
collect $5 or $10 contributions. That way, we are free to speak
our mind, as we are doing today.
We are also free to disagree sometimes with the federal
government. Most of the time, actually. We have a perfect
example of that today.
In Quebec, many people have made their position clear on this
issue. My colleagues have said a few words about that. The
Quebec bar association, through its president, has taken a very
interesting and significant stance. It goes like this:
Quebec's system has been in place for almost five years; it is
well known and businesses have made the adjustment.
Accordingly, the Quebec Bar Association supports the basic
thrust of this recommendation by the access to information
commission.
Here is what the commission says:
In order to avoid any confusion and so as to ensure that
Quebecers continue to enjoy a comprehensive system for the
protection of personal information, we submit that bill [—]
Today, it is Bill C-6, previously Bill C-54,
They go further still:
Furthermore, in our view, the bill should include a reference to
Quebec's act, even in federal areas of jurisdiction, so as to
avoid confusion, overlap and duplication of legislation in
Quebec.
1645
Of course, for the minister and for the federal government,
which is just as centralizing and paternalistic as ever, what is
happening is exactly the opposite, given the sequence of events.
On June 12, 1998, there was a meeting in Fredericton of
ministers responsible for the information highway. At this
meeting, ministers from all provinces agreed that they wanted to
be advised about any protection of personal information issues.
I will explain what the federal minister understands by advising
the provinces. On September 21, two or three months after the
meeting, the minister sent the bill in essentially the same form
as it is today to the ministers concerned. On October 1, a few
days later, he tabled his bill, thus bypassing completely the
jurisdiction of each of these provinces, as well as the very
explicit jurisdiction of Quebec, where the law has obviously
proven its worth.
The president of Quebec's bar association was not the only one
opposed. Other organizations spoke out as well.
There was the Commission d'accès à l'information, which made a
very positive assessment of the Quebec legislation five years
after its enactment.
When a province passes legislation in one of its own areas of
jurisdiction, Ottawa always tries to interfere and impose a
federal policy coast to coast. Several members even add the
third coast.
This is another thing that is working fine in Quebec, just like
the millennium scholarship fund. We have implemented some
remarkable practices in Quebec. The federal minister now wants
to go over Quebec's head and do things his own way.
We are getting a bit tired of the way this government's
approach, and our critic in this matter is right to say that the
federal minister needs to step back and withdraw this bill.
But once again, we have seen how the government operates. Not
only does it not intend to withdraw the bill, but it wants to
limit debate on a bill that concerns directly all voters.
The way the government is dealing not only with Bill C-54 but
with all the issues I mentioned earlier is most disgraceful.
This is why I join with my colleagues to ask the government to
withdraw this bill and let the provinces handle the protection
of personal information.
We are doing just fine in Quebec. The federal government should
act in good faith and withdraw from this area. We will deal
later with the government's attempts to undermine democracy and
muzzle the opposition, which we cannot tolerate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Vancouver East, child care; the hon. member for
New Brunswick Southwest, fisheries.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it is always with sadness that we rise in this
House when we feel it is the last time the government will allow
us to speak on a given bill. First of all, let me say that I too
feel it is an outrage.
I believe the protection of personal and private information in
a bill regarding electronic commerce is something that obviously
concerns us all because it very deeply affects all Quebecers and
Canadians. One might wonder whether the government has something
to hide.
1650
I will remind this House that the difficulty in developing a
legislation is to identify the problem and to propose a bill
that is so clear that it can also be implemented easily.
First of all, the minister is trying to create dissension
because he disregards this first principle. Some of my
colleagues just mentioned that, in the summer of 1998 or at a
meeting held in the spring of 1998, the minister discussed this
issue with his colleagues. However, he presented them with a
draft of the bill in September and, if my memory serves me
right, he introduced his bill in this House on October 1, 1998.
So much for the discussions.
Just like a game or electronic commerce that the minister is
getting ready to do, he is making things appearing or wandering
at his will. This could instil fears into people.
The second point I wish to raise—and members will say that
I am a member of the Bloc and that I am always sensitive to this
question—is the issue of jurisdiction.
Of course, when the British North America Act was first enacted,
the issue of the protection of personal or private information
in electronic commerce was surely not a concern in the
legislators' mind. However, we must say that Quebec's Act
respecting the protection of personal information in the private
sector is a good one. It is applied in its jurisdiction. It is
fully in force.
What I do not understand is that the federal government, by the
back door, through its Minister of Industry, wants to pass an
act on electronic commerce. By saying in clause 4 that the act
applies everywhere in Canada, he is looking for trouble.
I said in my speech that the most difficult task was to find a
justification for the enactment of a law and then to define so
clearly the issue that the act can be very easily applied.
Because the minister is looking for trouble, I must say, if the
bill is passed and if he continues to reject all amendments
suggested by the Bloc, we will have two different jurisdictions
regulating the same thing.
Since everybody knows that electronic data travels very fast,
merchants will have to ask themselves if the data they received
or collected on a given day on their customers must be dealt
with according to the Quebec act or the federal act.
If they have to transfer data to another province or elsewhere,
they will have to clarify the situation before sending it.
The other issue I want to raise relates to the good faith of the
Minister of Industry. In the speech he gave when he introduced
the bill—I do not remember the date—he said that “Where a
province adopts substantially similar legislation, the
organizations covered by the provincial legislation will be
exempted from the application of the federal law within that
jurisdiction.
Quebec already has privacy legislation similar to the bill
entitled Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act, so the province will be exempted from the
application of the federal Bill”. That is what he said at the
beginning of the debate, but I do not see anything in his bill
that would confirm such a statement.
1655
The government will have to amend the bill because the present
wording does not allow for such an exemption. The only provision
concerning exemptions is found in paragraph 27(2)(d). That
provision allows the exemption of an organization, an activity
or a category from the application of the part of the bill
concerning the collection, use or disclosure of personal data
inside a particular province.
In that definition of the power conferred to the governor in
council, organizations and activities are mentioned, but it
cannot be used to exempt everything that is done in a particular
province.
We already know that the legislation will have to be changed or
amended accordingly.
In light of the bill's flaws, considering that electronic
commerce is just beginning and will become much more prevalent
in the future, and that this is a sensitive issue for Quebecers
and Canadians, why did the minister not accept the Bloc
Quebecois' proposal to withdraw the bill and to go back to the
drawing board to harmonize this legislation with the Quebec act
while also taking into account the need for legislation in the
rest of Canada?
It would have been easy for the minister to do that,
particularly since the government postponed the beginning of the
session.
In the process, former Bill C-54 died on the order paper. In the
new parliament, it has now become Bill C-6. It moved up in terms
of its number, but not much has moved in the minister's head or,
I should say, in the department.
Why rush things now? Could it be that after this thundering and
daring throne speech, the legislative agenda is such that the
government must reintroduce old bills that are flawed and must
rush them through parliament? I find it hard to understand.
Perhaps this is what the throne speech was all about: do
nothing, introduce old bills as new ones, come up with bills
that we did not have time to finish debating during the last
parliament. One wonders what kind of government we are dealing
with.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is almost up.
This is unfortunate, because I would have liked to continue. I
would like all parliamentarians who are here to understand—and
I must point out the number of members opposite who are here on
a Tuesday evening. It is remarkable to see the government
benches full—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I must
interrupt the hon. member to tell him that we cannot refer to
presence or absence of members.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I did not refer to anyone's
absence, at least I do not believe I did. But you will excuse me
for being so enthusiastic on a Tuesday night. I want to be sure
the government is responsible enough to consider the amendments
since it refused to take the opportunity it was offered to
redraft the bill from scratch. The government must stop
interfering in areas under provincial jurisdiction, and
everything will be fine.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, I take
this opportunity to wish us good luck in this new session.
Like my colleagues, I am pleased, following the excellent work
done by the member for Mercier on Bill C-54 in the previous
session, to support the work of my colleague from Témiscamingue,
which I am sure will be just as excellent, on this new bill now
referred to as Bill C-6.
I listened carefully to my colleagues' speeches, and a
particular remark made by one of my colleagues led me to
slightly change my introduction to talk to you about a motion.
1700
I had forgotten to mention it in my speech. I think the motion
has been adopted in early 1996 by the government party. It said
that the government in its politics and decisions, should take
into account the fact that Quebec is a society distinct from
other Canadian provinces, motion we opposed to, need I remind
you.
At the time, we opposed the motion not because of non
recognition but because of the pathetic aspect of the motion or
its role.
We have an outright proof of the unfounded grounds and the lack
of seriousness of a parliamentary motion when such a serious
subject is discussed. And the government does not take into
account this same motion in the application or analysis of the
bill before us.
My voters were saying “Why did the Bloc Quebecois vote against
this motion, since you were being recognized.” I gave them an
example and please allow me to give you the example I used with
my fellow citizens, who, by the way, were laughing a lot, to
illustrate the role or importance of a motion. I expressed it in
the following way: When we entered the House of Commons in 1993,
several members had little or no experience. We passed two
bills.
In 1994 or 1995, legislation was passed recognizing hockey as
Canada's national sport. I myself had always thought that was
the case, but they had just found it out, so we voted hockey to
be the national sport.
Then somebody realized that a group had been left out, and
everyone must always be thought of. The aboriginal people had
been forgotten, so a national sport had to be found that
included them. The motion was therefore changed to read that
hockey was the national winter sport, and that a summer one
would be determined later.
If people do not know, the summer sport of Canadians is
lacrosse. That is what the motion passed in this House states.
A motion is something very important.
The following year, I was the critic for amateur sport, and I
got a call from the national lacrosse team, informing me that
their budget had been cut to zero.
The government had just passed a motion that this was our
country's national sport. They came up with that in 1994 or
1995. I am not familiar with the statistics on participation to
this sport, but in my riding I know they are relatively low.
The people that play this sport are not percentages. There are
few people practicing this sport. The very same year, the budget
of the national team was reduced to zero.
If you want to know what a motion is worth, I have two examples:
that of national sport and that of Bill C-6. In both instances, a
motion was passed. I think that the Prime Minister does not
perhaps recall having voted on it. However, we can see the
consideration that is accorded a motion when it is time for
decisions to be made.
That said, I return to Bill C-6. Often, in cavalier fashion, the
government thinks, when a bill is analyzed, that we are wicked
separatists and do so from a separatist standpoint. As a result,
it covers its ears and does not bother to listen. It prefers to
read other things, like “Awake”, perhaps.
So, in this presentation, I will draw not on a Bloc Quebecois
document, but on a document by the Quebec Access to Information
Commission. Even though the word “Quebec” is part of its name,
the commission is not dangerous. It analyzed Bill C-54—now,
Bill C-6.
I know that my colleagues have used a lot of documents and
committee briefs to present another vision, another aspect of
Quebec's unanimous objection to this bill.
I remind members that the title and the intent of the bill are
based on the constitutional power of the federal government to
establish a climate of trust among Canadians in the way industry
gathers, uses and transmits personal information to allow
e-commerce to flourish. This sector is indeed growing vigorously
and must be protected.
However, a little further along—and I will repeat the name of
the group—the Quebec Access to Information Commission has said,
and I quote, even if it is a bit long, but I have to quote it:
“For nearly five years now, the act respecting the protection of
personal information in the private sector affords all Quebecers
a means of protecting personal information, has proven its
mettle and its usefulness”.
1705
I read on:
Based on Quebec's constitutional powers in the area of property
and civil rights, Quebec's act is meant to complement Quebec's
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its Civil Code. Quebec's
legislation, which includes an act respecting access to
documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal
information, shows how important privacy is to the lawmaker.
Further it says:
The Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector Act
does not apply only to commercial activities, but also to
personal information likely to be gathered, used or disclosed
through electronic means.
What the Commission d'accès à l'information explained in its
brief was that, on the basis of Quebec's constitutional powers,
its Civil Code, its values and customs, and also, as my
colleagues explained earlier, Quebec's experience with an act
which has been working well for five years, it was saying no, as
we are doing now, to Bill C-54, the current Bill C-6.
Why? Because clauses 4 and 27(2) of the bill define the scope of
the future federal legislation and provide that organizations or
activities might be exempted from federal rules regarding the
protection of personal information.
As the commission understands it, the federal legislation will
apply to businesses based in Quebec or to part of their
activities, unless an exemption is granted by the governor in
council, which is not very likely.
Even if an order was made for a Quebec business operating
outside of Quebec, the federal legislation would automatically
apply to 28% of Quebec businesses involved in electronic
commerce with other Canadian provinces.
Further on in its submission, the Commission d'accès à
l'information said:
Moreover, several Quebec businesses will certainly be forced to
apply both the federal and the provincial legislation at the
same time, unless they have no commercial activities or none of
the personal information they have is collected, used or
disclosed outside Quebec.
This would limit many Quebec businesses which are open to
electronic commerce but would have no contact with businesses
outside Quebec.
It clearly states:
We have to oppose this proposal because every business in Quebec
will have to deal with two jurisdictions, while the Quebec
jurisdiction that has been existing for five years is in keeping
with the standards of the OECD that were put forward by
industrialized countries experimenting with electronic commerce
means, even though Quebec has been demonstrating and applying
them well for the past five years.
All witnesses who came before the committee, on which the hon.
member for Mercier, who has now been replaced by the member for
Témiscamingue, sat, have been able to show this.
In conclusion, in its submission, the Quebec Commission d'accès
à l'information said:
To avoid any confusion and to ensure that Quebecers can still
enjoy a comprehensive protection of personal information system,
the commission submits that Bill C-54—
This is actually Bill C-6, which was designated as C-54 at the
time.
I was made to understand, while following the debate on this
issue, that this amendment was rejected by the Minister of
Industry and by the government.
That is why we are simply asking for the withdrawal of Bill C-6,
so we can go back to square one and put in place a more credible
legislation.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Madam
Speaker, like my colleagues, I want to condemn the attitude of
the government for two reasons.
First, the government tabled the bill hastily, without even
bothering to consult the provinces, to the detriment of the most
sacred rights that can exist in Quebec. Second, having tabled
the bill, the government does not even want it to be debated.
1710
My colleague the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve expressed
our dismay and disapproval well when he spoke after the
government House leader's announcement of the gag order. He
basically said “Speak for a while and then the legislation will
be passed, regardless of how well-articulated or useful your
arguments may be to improve the bill”.
I have been sitting in this House for more than 15 years now
and, after this government took office, I have noticed a loss of
what I would call the democratic tradition of this House. In
fact, I am reading these days a document on the history of the
House of Commons, the first debates held in this place and how
well, in the early days, the members of the different parties
were listening to each other.
I can say that, when I arrived here in 1984, the tradition had
been upheld. Amendments proposed by the opposition were often
adopted by the government and consensus was often achieved, not
always in the House but following a committee process.
I also remember that the government House leader who imposed the
guillotine was part of a threesome called the “rat pack”. These
people were hysterics who tore their shirts. They even had their
acronym stamped on t-shirts that they distributed to people on
the street to denounce the then conservative government for
having imposed the guillotine on one or two occasions. It was
unbelievable to see the force and the wisdom with which they
defended the principle of the democratic debate in the House.
These people who were then the guardians of democracy are today
its embalmers.
These members have now become like sheep whereas they were
roaring like lions a few years ago.
The heritage minister also, who was by his side, was proclaiming
her indignation. There was also a third member, who kept his
principles. He is sitting today as the independent member for
York South—Weston. He roared, but when his principles were
betrayed, what did he do? He left his party, and voters in his
riding re-elected him. He is a principled man.
I do not share entirely his views on everything, but I say that
at that time he was shouting on that side, and later on he did
not bow down like a sheep, he stood up and crossed the floor.
Mr. Réal Ménard: He did not knuckle under.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: He did not knuckle under, as my colleague
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is suggesting to me very wisely and
accurately.
I wonder what those members came to do here if not only to vote
when they are told to do so. A little while ago I saw many of
them, and I still see some of them, bowing their head. They have
been forbidden to speak to this bill. They are ashamed, and I
understand why they are looking down. I understand why they are
hiding behind the curtains. I understand as well why they made
signs to their leader when he came in to put the gag on us.
It is difficult to belong to a party that calls itself
democratic and to be told: “Shut up. You are not here to think,
you are here to vote when you are told to do so. We are four or
five here to think for you”.
However, when they make speeches in their ridings, this is not
what I hear.
They say that they will defend firmly the rights of the
individuals, associations, businesses, industries and citizens
of their ridings. We are speaking of the rights of citizens and
what do they do? They do not react. They accept to remain silent
about a bill that is so important that it impacts on everyone in
Quebec and in Canada.
I appeal to these members. I remember some speeches that the
hon. member for Beauce made in his riding when he said “I will
do the same as Mr. Bernier did before me”, but Mr. Bernier would
have reacted to a bill like this one.
1715
The hon. member for Beauce should be ashamed of what he said
that time. If Mr. Bernier were here, he would rise and say “I do
not accept that the rights of Quebecers are being trampled on in
this way by this bill”.
Where is the member from Laval-Ouest? During the last electoral
campaign, she engaged in debates and spoke constantly about
human rights. She has not said a word about this bill.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is always lecturing
us about human rights in Quebec. But what is she doing today?
She remains silent on a bill we are unanimously opposed to in
Quebec.
And what is the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, a former Minister of
the Environment in Quebec and a great human rights advocate
doing? He also is keeping silent.
I call on the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. He is a physician.
He must know what human rights are, what privacy means. But he
also is saying nothing.
I call on the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, a former
unionist and president of the CEQ. How many times has he talked
about human rights in his speeches? I was expecting him to rise
and say “No, this bill does not meet the expectations of the
citizens of Quebec at all. It contradicts everything that was
said by all the Quebec agencies who spoke on the subject”. But
no, this public defender, this former great unionist now goes
along, as his leader is doing, toeing the party line.
And what of the member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, who was
saying the same thing during the election campaign?
Worst still, where is the member for Brome—Missisquoi, a former
president of the Quebec bar association? What does the bar
association have to say? It says all that. However, when he was
the president of the bar association, what did he do? He said
“Vote for me, I will go and defend the interests of Quebec. I
know that the Quebec legal system is different from what exists
elsewhere in Canada, first of all because of our Civil Code”.
The organization that he was heading has told us, and the member
for Terrebonne quoted it earlier, that this bill was utterly
useless, and that if we really wanted to pass it, it would have
to be drastically amended. This organization sent a four-page
letter to every member of parliament. Where is the former
president of the bar association, now the member for
Brome—Missisquoi? He also is remaining silent on this bill.
Then there is the member for Brossard—LaPrairie.
I heard him in Shawinigan, during the 1993 election campaign,
and during the 1992 referendum campaign. Together, we took part
in debates. He was a great champion of rights and freedoms.
Today, he is being silenced by his leader.
I urge all members from Quebec to rise and uphold the rights of
Quebec. I appeal particularly to the famous minister, the member
for Outremont, who said “I will speak out for the rights of
Quebec within the Confederation”. The time has come for him to
prove he can respect Quebec. Not only Quebec, because other
provinces are opposed to this, but Quebec in particular. Five
years ago, it was the first region in the western world to
introduce such a bill and to enact it.
I appeal to all the ministers from Quebec, the Minister of
Public Works, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. If he is
now off his diet, is he now free to deal with human rights?
In concluding, I hope that in the last moments of this debate,
all members from Quebec, no matter their political allegiance,
will rise to tell the minister “Withdraw your bill”.
1720
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I would like to thank my colleague for
Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour for his excellent speech. He has
reminded us that government members have remained quite silent
on an issue related to the protection of personal information.
It is quite something to see that they respect a self-imposed gag
order to let a bill be passed, one wonders why, when it has been
condemned by just about everybody in Canada and in Quebec,
because it will be detrimental to the protection of personal
information. It is totally unacceptable, and I hope the people
who are watching us will take good note of that.
Why do we disagree with this bill? This bill, which will support
and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal
information in certain circumstances, was introduced by the
industry minister just last week.
It is identical to Bill C-54, which was introduced on October 1,
1998. This bill has already been debated. We were hoping for
some amendments when the minister introduced it again as Bill
C-6, because it had been so heavily criticized. But the minister
is coming back with exactly the same bill as Bill C-54.
Why do we disagree? Because the industry minister has introduced
this piece of legislation without any consultation with the
provinces or anybody else. This bill is an intrusion into
provincial jurisdictions.
It will mean less protection for personal information in Quebec.
Its implementation in Quebec will be a cause for confusion. If
passed, this bill will be the worse administrative nightmare
ever. Moreover, this bill is legally flawed.
This bill is not clear enough. All those who have examined it
and appeared as witnesses before the standing committee have
said so. And the list of those witnesses is impressive. We had
members of the Canadian Bar Association, the CSA, the
Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, UQAM professors
and one independent expert, Ian Lawson.
I want to quote the Canadian Bar Association. “The standard was
not drafted in strong enough words to make for a set of
legislative rules. It does not really help to define the right
to privacy or to tell the organizations to which the legislation
applies how they should be protecting the people's rights”.
The Life and Health Insurance Association stated that “other
provisions of the legislation are hard to interpret, especially
the ones dealing with key issues such as the application and
enforcement of the act”.
Professors from l'Université du Québec
à Montréal stated “If one wishes to truly protect the consumer
in an area as formidable as personal information, one must adopt
some strict rules and not rules written in the conditional tense
that, for all useful purposes, do not obligate a company to show
anything more than good faith.
You cannot expect this to produce that result”.
I do not think one can be any clearer than that.
In Quebec, the right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that was proclaimed
in 1975. Also, the Quebec government has passed the only act in
America to protect personal information in the private sector.
This act was enacted in 1994. As I said earlier, this act is
considered a model throughout the world and should be used to
draft the federal bill.
1725
God knows why the government is disregarding it. It is trying to
give its bill precedence over Quebec's legislation, which is
considered as a model all over the world. Why is the minister
ignoring Quebec's legislation is a model all over the world? Can
anyone explain why?
The Minister of Industry acted unilaterally despite his promise
to consult all the stakeholders before introducing his bill. He
may have done some minor consulting to make things look good,
but he did not take anything said into account and proceeded to
introduce his bill.
As a matter of fact, on June 12, the ministers responsible for
the electronic highway met in Fredericton and decided to consult
each other, if necessary, on the advisability of passing
legislation protecting personal information in the private
sector.
On September 21, the federal Minister of Industry sent his
provincial counterparts a draft bill and asked for their
comments on wanted the federal government wanted to introduce.
But the minister did not wait for the comments; he introduced
his bill immediately, on October 1, 1998. His provincial
counterparts received the draft bill on September 21, 1998, but
the minister did not wait for their comments and introduced, on
October 1, 1998, his legislation which was then called Bill C-54.
The Minister of Industry is also responsible for creating a
constitutional dispute that could have been avoided had he
agreed to work in co-operation with his counterparts.
The provinces have jurisdiction in the area of personal
information under the Constitution Act, 1867, which gives them
powers with regard to property and civil law. Every expert
consulted by the Bloc Quebecois recognizes that it is first and
foremost a provincial jurisdiction.
However, Bill C-6 says that it will apply to organizations under
federal jurisdiction in their commercial activities, to
organizations that transfer personal information from one
province to another or from one country to another, and to
employees whose personal information is collected by an
organization under federal jurisdiction.
Moreover, clause 30(1) says that federal legislation will apply
to private organizations, even though they are under provincial
jurisdiction, if the federal government does not recognize the
existence of similar legislation at the provincial level.
If that is not interference in areas under provincial
jurisdiction, I do not know what words to use to make members
understand.
Bill C-6 will be a big step backwards for Quebecers with regard
to the protection of personal information.
Quebec's legislation says, in section 14, that consent to the
disclosure or use of personal information must be evident, free,
enlightened and given for a specific purpose.
With regard to consent, Bill C-6 puts the consumer at a
disadvantage by stating, in various clauses, vague principles
that open the door to interpretation.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to give a thorough
explanation of what is wrong with this bill. In closing, I would
like to remind members that this bill was introduced without any
consultations with the provinces, that it encroaches on
provincial jurisdictions and that it represents a step backwards
for Quebec with regard to the protection of personal
information.
The enforcement of this legally deficient bill in Quebec will
create confusion. This bill is impossible to enforce, it is
vague, it causes undue difficulties for Quebec businesses and
considerably weakens the right of Quebecers to the protection of
personal information.
1730
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
was going to say that I am rising on Bill C-54, but since the
House was prorogued by the government leader, we have to redo
our homework today. We also have to rename this legislation Bill
C-6.
In spite of the three and a half months the government had to
prepare an appalling Speech from the Throne, it begged for three
more weeks, and this of course led to all the bills dying on the
order paper; this is unfortunate since the consideration of
these bills was, for the most part, quite advanced in the House.
Bill C-6 is sponsored by the Minister of Industry, the good
member for Ottawa South in the federal capital region. When we
watch this minister act, we sometimes ask ourselves if his
judgment is failing him.
This is the same minister who, a few weeks ago, said of Quebec's
minister Bernard Landry that it was stupid of him to have met
the mayor of Boisbriand, where GM's plant is located. He said
“Since there is a good dialogue between us, I will help you keep
GM's plant”, when everyone knows full well that 95% of Canadian
automobile plants are in Ontario.
Quebec only has 5% of them, one out of 15, and the minister
would like to close it down. The Minister of Industry would not
even help us keep our plant and he has the nerve to introduce
Bill C-6, which will violate Quebecers' intimacy and
confidentiality.
The title of Bill C-6 reads in part “an act to support and
promote electronic commerce”—everything is fine so far—“by
protecting personal information that is collected, used”, etc.
Members can see how twisted and dishonest the government is.
They changed the name of unemployment insurance for employment
insurance. It means that you pay insurance policy and if your
house burns down, the insurance company indemnifies you. In the
same way, workers pay part of their wages to have protection
against unemployment or lay off. The name of the plan was
changed. Employment insurance was so much nicer!
The hon. member for Drummond knows perfectly well that only 42%
of people who pay employment insurance premiums qualify for
benefits when they lose their job. Why? Because eligibility
criteria were hardened.
The minister of Industry tells us that he will protect the
privacy of Canadians. If he treats the confidentiality of
personal data the same way he treats Canadian workers, there are
reasons to worry.
The way he treated Bernard Landry, the vice premier of Quebec,
shows that the man does not have an ounce of judgement.
The minister is so deprived of judgement that he acted
unilaterally when he introduced his bill on personal data
protection without waiting for the report of the very
consultation committee he had created. I wonder how a man like
him can be member of the cabinet. He created a consultation
committee, but one week later, he went ahead without even
waiting for the report of that committee. Isn't that bright?
There is even worse. On September 21st 1998, 13 months ago, he
consulted the provincial ministers. A few days later, on October
1, he went ahead and introduced his bill, Bill C-54.
1735
I am not the only one, and the Bloc Quebecois is not the only
one to object to the way the minister is behaving. In Quebec,
his critics are unanimous.
There is the government of Quebec, the Conseil du patronat, the
CSN, the Chambre des notaires, Options consommateurs, the
Barreau du Québec-of which the member for Brome—Missisquoi was
president. There was a by-election after Mr. Peloquin, who
represented this riding, died. The member who has replaced him
said: “I will go to Ottawa to defend the interests of
Quebecers.” He was then president of the Quebec Bar.
Five years later, his former association says: “Bill C-6 is
garbage, it should be thrown out.”
Worse yet, a group of constitutional experts said that Bill C-6
was in violation of the constitution. A little while ago, the
member for Drummond said that in 1994 Quebec had passed a bill
protecting personal information. In Quebec, we already have an
act. A few years later, the federal government is getting ready
to destroy, ruin, put the axe to something which is working well
in Quebec.
We saw the same thing in the throne speech we heard two weeks
ago. In Quebec we have a drug plan which is working well. The
federal government now wants to create it own. Once again it is
going to cause trouble in Quebec.
The Minister of Industry knows full well that in Quebec we have
what we call civil law and in the rest of Canada they have
common law.
I would like to read section 3 of the Civil Code. It
is very short:
“Every person is the holder of personality
rights, such as the right to life
Everyone agrees
, the right
to the inviolability and integrity of his person, and the right
to the respect of his name, reputation
That is, not saying anything against someone
This is section 3 of the Civil Code and it is from the latest
volume that was just published.
Bill C-6 should be put in file 13, shelved and simply be
cancelled. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, want that Bill-6 be simply
withdrawn for a number of reasons.
First of all, the Minister of Industry has tabled it without
consulting the provinces.
The bill would interfere with provincial jurisdictions. It would
force Quebec to go backwards with respect to the protection of
personal information, as the hon. member for Drummond argued so
well earlier, because its enforcement in Quebec would produce
confusion and because it is lacking on the legal level.
Finally, it uses electronic commerce as an excuse to invade the
civil right of Quebecers and of all Canadians.
In conclusion, I wished that the Prime Minister, the hon. member
for Saint-Maurice, would try to make the minister see reason,
although I sometimes question his intellectual abilities, as he
demonstrated about a week and a half ago. If he is not able to
do so, he should get rid of him as Minister of Industry and kick
him out of the cabinet.
1740
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise after my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic. I
hope to be as eloquent as he was on the subject.
Like my other colleagues in the Bloc, I am somewhat perplexed
and concerned by Bill C-6. It concerns me because, as we all
know very well—and my colleagues have mentioned this amply
today—we already have in Quebec a law governing personal
information, a law that has been enacted, works very well and
covers the entire field, to the full extent of the law and the
powers of the national assembly.
So, the law covers all areas of personal information, and now we
have the federal government with another law, Bill C-6, which, in
legal terms, is inadequate as it fails to cover all it should.
In addition, it causes serious confusion in business and does
not even protect individuals.
My colleagues have spoken at length of various aspects of the
bill. I would like to focus for a few minutes only on the
presentation made by the Quebec Conseil du patronat in March.
It is not a sovereignist organization. It in fact is known to
represent primarily big business in Quebec and has traditionally
been federalist in its political views.
However, in the case of Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, they came up
with a very detailed report to show that this bill was totally
unacceptable for Quebec businesses because, once again, it
creates confusion.
Bill C-6 does not at all take into account the Quebec act, with
the result that Quebec businesses will be subjected to two
different legal systems.
In its presentation, the Conseil du patronat says that for
information collected, used and transmitted in the province, the
personal information protection act that will apply in the
private sector will be the Quebec act, while the federal
legislation will apply to information transmitted outside the
province. This is only one of many factors that will generate
confusion among businesses.
The Conseil du patronat provides a few examples. For instance,
Quebec companies that come under federal jurisdiction and that
do business outside Quebec, or that are governed by a Canadian
act, will not know which legislation applies. Indeed, there will
be two acts that will put contradictory demands on them and,
moreover, that will not adequately protect people.
There is a jurisdictional conflict, with the result that Quebec
consumers will not be properly protected, while businesses will
have two types of remedy. This is a total contradiction. And
these are only two examples provided by the Conseil du patronat
du Québec.
Consent is extremely important when we are dealing with personal
information. However, the provisions in bill C-6, which is the
federal legislation, and in the Quebec act are different.
1745
Under the Quebec legislation, consent must be express, specific
and clear. On the other hand, according to the principle set
out in section 4, schedule 1 of Bill C-6, consent is required.
There is one contradiction.
There are others, for instance the one concerning the collection
of information. The Quebec legislation states that the
collection of information from a third party cannot be done
without the consent of the individual, except in certain very
specific exceptional circumstances. Bill C-6 on the other hand
states that an organization may collect information without the
knowledge and consent of the individual.
How can anyone see his way clear through two pieces of
contradictory legislation that are complete opposites in their
vision and their application? It is certain that this does not
protect the Quebec consumer but, worse still, it places Quebec
businesses in an extremely unfortunate position, because they
are incapable of knowing whether they should be treating their
customers according to federal or provincial legislation.
Things will be even more complicated for companies carrying on
business with out-of-province companies or those coming under
federal legislation.
There are many examples of these.
However, I would conclude with a quote from the submission by
the Conseil du patronat du Québec:
These are all questions for which we find no answers at this
time, and if Bill C-6 is passed as is, they will mean huge
problems for businesses.
This is one of the conclusions by a council that, I would remind
you, is not a sovereignist organization. It is one that defends
the interests of Quebec business people and often comes across
as federalist.
There are so many questions raised by Bill C-6. That is,
moreover, the reason I am so concerned. If the Conseil du
patronat raises so many questions on Bill C-6, one may well
wonder, given the potential conflicts and obvious
contradictions, whether this bill is just an unplanned accident
or a deliberate act by the federal government.
Does the federal government have the deliberate intention of
adversely affecting Quebec with Bill C-6, not only in its
law-making powers, but also by harming Quebec businesses? Is this
a possibility? I ask you. Does the government deliberately wish
to harm Quebec?
In the case of Bill C-6, we are justified to ask this question
because it is big and obvious and because the contradiction is
also obvious. I wonder if, basically, it could be deliberate.
There is no lack of recent examples regarding the federal
government and its actions against Quebec, whether against the
social union or the provincial powers. We have seen it in the
health sector; we have also seen it recently in the education
sector with the creation of the millennium fund. What an insult
for Quebec. The only thing that could be worst could probably be
Bill C-6.
The federal government directly addresses the students on the
issue of the millennium fund and even they are outraged to see
how it shamelessly holds them hostage.
It does not try to harm Quebec in a hypocrite and hidden way.
No, it does it in broad daylight. Once again, Bill C-6 is an
example.
1750
Bill C-6 is a good example of this attempt which is probably part
of plan B, which is to despise everything that maintains the
distinct character of Quebec, that is the privacy legislation
for example.
In conclusion, as all my colleagues, I wish that the minister
will finally wake up and have the good sense to withdraw this
bill.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, you
can understand how happy I am to take part in this debate, first
of all because we are back and I missed you a little, assuming
that the reverse might somewhat be true. I want also to wish a
good session to all the pages who are joining us for the year
ahead.
However it is also with some sadness that we have to join in the
debate today. Who in this House could have imagined that the
government, whose end of the regime we can already scent, would
have the gall to re-introduce a bill that nobody wants?
This bill was unanimously rejected in Quebec. Through you, Madam
Speaker, I challenge, not the agriculture minister for at this
time he might not be awake, but any other minister to tell us
who in Quebec supports a bill like this.
Do you think it has any support in the union community?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you think it has any support in the human
rights community?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you think it has any support in the legal
community?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you think it has any support in the Quebec
government?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Réal Ménard: And that government is one of the best that has
ever graced the national assembly, as everybody knows.
Everyone who saw the bill rejected, and I would even say
thoroughly disliked, it. But today the government, whose
singlemindedness is second to none, presents us with a bill like
this.
At this time, I think it would be appropriate to express just
how much we enjoyed the excellent and absolutely eloquent speech
by the member for Frontenac—Mégantic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, he reminded us that Quebec has
had a law since 1994, in addition to the Civil Code, which you
have certainly had occasion to look through in your spare time.
The member for Berthier—Montcalm, a lawyer himself, who studied
in this city not far from the Hill, made the same point. He
also told me, in confidence, that he has wonderful memories of
the years he spent studying law.
Anyone looking through the Civil Code will notice article 2, as
the member for Frontenac—Mégantic mentioned, and articles 35 to
41. I should perhaps omit article 41, which talks about respect
for the body after death, because this might give those who
really want to do this bill justice some ideas. We will stop at
article 40.
In my view, article 35 is the most important article in the
Civil Code when it comes to respect for privacy. I will read
it, because it captures the essence of what the legislator was
trying to say about privacy. I will dedicate it to the
government members.
The following acts, in particular, may be considered as
invasions of the privacy of a person: one, entering or taking
anything in his dwelling; two, intentionally intercepting or
using his private communications; three, appropriating or using
his image or voice while he is in private premises; four,
keeping his private life under observation by any means; five,
using his name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other
than the legitimate information of the public; six, using his
correspondence, manuscripts or other personal documents.
The Civil Code is not a meaningless document. It is not the
Liberals' red book. It is the very foundation of our legal
system. We are, and I have learned this myself in my law
courses, a province, a country—soon, let us hope—with a civil law
tradition.
1755
What is the difference between civil law and common law. Let us
say that, in common law, judges can make the law, although this
could be harshly debated. In our system, legislators and
parliamentarians give some direction in a legal system where
everything is codified or pass specific legislation.
We have already passed a specific piece of legislation
concerning the right of privacy. We led the way, as several of
my hon. colleagues pointed out, and we cannot understand why the
government is so eager to legislate in this area. Some people
might find it easy to believe that I am too partisan, even
though I can ensure everyone today as I have in the past that it
is not the case.
I think I have always been perfectly impartial and completely
objective in this House, and to show my hon. colleagues that the
point of view being supported by the Bloc members is not
partisan, is not part of the Bloc agenda, I could share with the
House the opinion of an authority that has always stayed clear
of political partisanship.
I am talking, of course, about the Quebec Bar Association. Has
there been a more respectable institution in our society, a more
neutral one, up until the day the former president of the bar
decided to join the Liberal Party? But we like to think this is
the exception to the rule.
On February 4, 1999, not that long ago,the Barreau du Québec,
with its recognized legal expertise through its president, Mr
Jacques Fournier, not only condemned the lack of vision of this
bill, and questioned its rationale, but also pleaded for the
Quebec legislation to be extended to areas of federal
jurisdiction.
I would like to read you something from Page 2 of the document:
“To avoid any confusion and to ensure that Quebecers continue to
enjoy a comprehensive system for the protection of personal
information, we submit that bill C-54 should be amended so as to
specifically exclude the federal act from applying to businesses
subject to the Loi sur la protection des renseignements
personnels dans le secteur privé, which is a Quebec law. We go
further still, saying that, in our view, the bill should
incorporate Quebec's act, even with respect to federal areas of
jurisdiction, so as to avoid confusion, overlap and duplication
of legislation in Quebec.”
I do not know if I should table the document so that it will be
available to all parliamentarians. I am prepared to do so.
But one thing remains: authorized people of the legal community,
the main spokespersons of the lawyers, the president of the bar
greatly wished that the Quebec legislation be extended. This is
a paradox of this government.
When we read the Speech from the Throne, we expected the
government to budge in a number of sectors. I could give you the
example of the air transportation sector. We expected the
government to do something.
Remember, there has been a cabinet
reshuffle. The Prime Minister has recognized that there were
quite a few jacks in this government and that he needed some
queens. He then has called to the cabinet a number of women and
we expected the government to do something. Even you, Madam
Speaker, somewhat wished it deep down inside.
We expected the government to budge in the air transportation
sector.
We expected it to do something in the area of organized crime,
on the issue of money laundering, for example. So many other
areas should have retained the attention of the government!
1800
Instead of doing something in areas it was mandated to do
something, the government intervenes in an area of pure civil
rights tradition, thus compromising, as you can understand, the
integrity of the powers of the national assembly.
Then, we have no other choice but to oppose this legislation.
All my colleagues will do so with as much determination as our
critic for industry and we will fight this bill until it is
withdrawn.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very
happy to rise on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to speak to Bill
C-6, formerly Bill C-54.
There are some in the Quebec society and elsewhere who are
questioning the role of the Bloc Quebecois here in the House.
Madam Speaker, as a representative of a Quebec riding, this is
the perfect demonstration of the role played by the Bloc
Quebecois in this House, which is, in addition to promoting
sovereignty, to speak up for Quebec's interests.
Where are the other members from Quebec? Where are they? Let us
imagine what would happen if we were still in the days of Pierre
Elliott Trudeau, to whom people are still paying homage today.
If out of 75 members in this House we had 74 sheep, as was the
case for Quebec in those days, what would they be doing faced
with a bill on personal information such as Bill C-6?
It is an obvious intrusion, undue and unbridled, on the part of
a minister who is displaying a self-serving attitude we did not
think he was capable of. As we will recall, he introduced this
bill on October 1st 1998, only days before the opening of the
OECD meeting on electronic commerce in Ottawa. The then industry
minister, who is the same as today, was hosting the meeting.
He probably wanted to look good to his international
counterparts, pretending he was concerned about the real issues
in his area, probably to raise his profile although this was
going against public interest.
There is a consensus in Quebec according to which the federal
government should not intervene in the field of personal
information, since this issue is quite well covered by Quebec's
law. As my colleagues already mentioned it, it is the bar and
the Quebec council of employers, among others, and not only us,
who are saying it. These organizations asked the Government of
Canada where it was heading with its project.
The bar, through its president, Me Jacques Fournier, wrote on
February 14, to my colleague of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and said:
“First, we are puzzled by the lack of correlation between the
title of the act and its contents”.
This is what the president of the bar said. It is normally
embarrassing for the government.
Indeed, the bill has more to do with the protection of personal
information in the private sector than with the promotion of
electronic commerce.
Yet, the subject of the meeting was electronic commerce. But the
government wanted to show itself in the best light. The same
thing happens when terms are changed, as my colleague from
Frontenac—Mégantic said earlier. “Unemployment insurance” was
changed by “employment insurance”. They are changing words to
show themselves in a better light in front of the people.
The president of the bar continues to denounce the federal
project by saying:
Quebec's policy has been applied in Quebec for close to five
years now.
This policy is well known and businesses are accustomed to it”.
Consequently, Quebec's bar essentially subscribes to the
recommendation made by the information access commission, and I
quote: “In order to prevent all confusion and to ensure that all
Quebecers can continue to benefit from a complete policy in
matters of personal information protection, we propose that Bill
C-54 be amended by providing explicitly that the federal act will
not apply to businesses already subjected to the Act respecting
the protection of personal information in the private sector”.
1805
Let me continue quoting from the president of the bar:
We would go even further. We think the bill should be
incorporated by reference in the Quebec legislation, even in
federal areas of jurisdiction, in order to prevent confusion,
overlap, and duplication of legislation in Quebec.
We have been condemning for 40 years this duplication between
federal and provincial legislation that makes such a mess in our
institutions. That is why we are trying to convince more and
more people in Quebec that sovereignty is the solution to all
these problems. We should get out in order to be in a better
position to deal with the rest of Canada as equal partners.
The president said further:
We believe the Quebec plan for the protection of personal
information in the private sector is better than the one in Bill
C-54, now Bill C-6, particularly as concerns rights of appeal and
efficiency.
The merits of the bill cannot withstand the serious examination
made by the president of the bar or the Commission d'accès à
l'information, which has a mandate to speak out, because we are
dealing here with personal information.
However, I have been particularly impressed by what I read from
the testimony of the Conseil du patronat. This organization is a
legitimate advocate for business interests. It certainly has
more ties with the Council for Canadian Unity than it does with
the Parti québécois executive, for example.
This organization has written a chapter that is as good as many
sovereignist speeches.
I will read it to you since I still have a little time left; it
is absolutely beautiful because it shows, once again, the
Canadian mess which becomes more and more institutionalized.
In the brief it submitted to the Standing Committee on Industry,
the Conseil du patronat is critical of the communication of
information.
I quote the brief on page 5:
Because of the double jurisdiction, the companies falling under
provincial jurisdiction will wonder whether the personal
information which is collected from them and consequently
protected by Quebec's legislation and which is transmitted to a
company falling under federal jurisdiction and carrying business
in Quebec will be governed by Quebec's rules or Canada's rules.
In addition, within a single file, some information could be
subject to both statutes.
It is easy to manage for someone who is in the private sector,
who has to do business, who has to deal with a union, who has
orders to fill and deadlines to meet—we know how complicated it
is—and who is confronted with such legislation that clearly shows
the existence of two solitudes.
The fact that nobody on that side of the House nor over there
seems to be interested in this bill, with the exception of the
Quebec's members, clearly illustrates the Canadian drama, the
two solitudes, the fact that something is going wrong.
So, along the lines of Reed Scowen, the government is also
addressing Canadians. Maybe the time has come for our country to
reflect on where we are all going together.
It might be better for each to proceed along its own solidly
built road running in the same direction, rather than crashing
head on and trying to gain the right of way in an area already
governed perfectly well by provinces, and Quebec in particular
with an entire culture behind it that is suited to this type of
problem.
Now to go on with the disclosure of information, again quoting
from the brief submitted by the Conseil du patronat:
What about the organizations whose activities are connected to
federal jurisdiction, for instance loan companies and airports?
One could even conceive of different rules applying to one and
the same file, depending on whether the information collected,
used or held is covered by Quebec or federal law.
This is a constant muddle.
Moreover, any Quebec business with a branch in another
province—such as an insurance company—that is required to send
it information gathered in Quebec would have to know whether to
refer to the Quebec or the federal legislation on protection of
that information. Similarly, if the information in question is
stored in a computerized data bank in Quebec but accessible by
another company outside Quebec, which legislation would apply?”
Now, coming to the conclusion of this chapter:
These are all questions for which we find no answers at this
time, and ones that will pose huge problems to businesses if the
bill is passed in its present form.
This then, is what the business people have to say, the language
they use, and these are the ones responsible for added value in
our society.
1810
We ought to ask ourselves some questions when people like this
speak up so courageously to government. Normally, they are on
the same side. It is no secret that these are natural allies.
But they are telling the government: “Stop, do not continue with
this bill.” This is, moreover, the position of the Bloc
Quebecois. It is an indefensible bill.
Instead of spending his time on such a bill, the minister should
be focussing more attention on the GM affair. He should quit
behaving to the Quebec ministers as if he were an Ontario
minister and abandon the scornful tone he uses with Quebec's
deputy premier and minister of industry and commerce.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
rare for me not to be pleased to be part of a debate on a bill,
as is the case today.
This bill, formerly Bill C-54, which was criticized by most of my
colleagues, remains a bill that should be treated as the Bloc
Quebecois proposes, that is, it should be set aside. The
Minister of Industry should be sent to do his homework so that
everyone is satisfied. To this point, one party is totally
dissatisfied—Quebec.
It is unanimous in Quebec. Everyone opposes this bill on
e-commerce and personal information. Why is everyone opposed?
First, it is as a matter of principle. The federal government
has an almost legendary propensity to meddle in jurisdictions
other than its own.
Every lead taken by Quebec in areas of its jurisdiction is
penalized by the federal government with its wall to wall bills.
Over the years, there have been fairly remarkable examples of
this. In 1994, for example, we were all newly elected to our
first term, and the Minister of Finance started talking about
the appropriateness of establishing a Canadian securities
commission. Securities are under Quebec's jurisdiction
exclusively, and Quebec has worked very hard for the past 30
years to create an effective system with highly interesting
areas of jurisdiction that are in fact higher than what is found
in most provinces in Canada.
Because Quebec took the lead in the area of securities, in a
field the Canadian Constitution recognizes as its own, the
federal government decided, because the other provinces were not
as well organized as Quebec, to establish a Canadian securities
commission, wall to wall, with duplications, overlap and total
confusion in this sector so vulnerable to uncertainty. The
Minister of Finance paid no attention to the problems this might
cause Quebec.
There are other examples, such as that involving provincially
chartered insurance companies.
Quebec had an inspector general of financial institutions, a
Commission des valeurs mobilières to monitor transactions and
minimize the risk for shareholders and insured persons. However,
that did not stop the Minister of Finance from deciding a few
years ago to prevent a provincially chartered insurance company
from Quebec, L'Entraide assurances, from acquiring a block of
insurance from a federally chartered company. The reason given
was that it would create a precedent and other provinces would
want to follow suit, although they were not prepared to do so.
Once again, with the levels of protection Quebec has introduced
in the financial sector generally, and particularly in the
insurance sector, we were penalized because the other Canadian
provinces did not show the leadership that Quebec did in this
area.
If we go back a little further, we will recall that Bill S-31, in
the early 1980s, prevented the Caisse de dépôt et de placement
from acquiring a large block of shares in Canadian Pacific.
Once again, because Quebec had established an institution like
the Caisse de dépôt et de placement starting in the 1960s, which
was already a force to be reckoned with in the early 1980s,
because Quebec had taken the lead, had opted for modern methods
of managing the pension funds of Quebecers, it was penalized.
The federal government wanted to stop Quebec from getting ahead,
from modernizing.
The millennium scholarships are the same thing all over again.
Every time Quebec moves ahead, shows leadership, as we saw with
the millennium scholarships, because the other provinces have
not put together a system like Quebec's—once again, a
coast-to-coast policy—with the millennium scholarships, the
federal government is ignoring the consensus in Quebec opposing
this project.
1815
In the case before us, it is the same thing. Quebec has had a
personal information protection act for five years. That act
works well, and everyone is familiar with it now, both the
consumers, who can invoke its provisions, and businesses.
Quebec's act protects not only personal information in the
province, but also personal information that is sent by a Quebec
business, for example, in other Canadian provinces, or personal
information that is received in Quebec from other Canadian
provinces.
This is such a good act that it enjoys unanimous support in
Quebec. It is not perfect. All laws are, in a sense, imperfect.
Legislation must adjust to evolving situations. But the Quebec
act enjoys the unanimous support of Quebecers. It is a good act
with a good middle of the road approach that pleases everyone
and that includes provisions to prevent any leak of personal
information.
This is so true that, as others have said before me, even the
Conseil du patronat finds that it is a good act with which
businesses can work, and with which they are now familiar,
because it has been in effect for five years. Should Bill C-6
come into effect, it would create total confusion among Quebec
businesses.
In fact, the Conseil du patronat refers to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Quebec government in the area of personal
information protection, as provided by section 92.13 of the
British North America Act. The Conseil recognizes that Quebec
has jurisdiction to legislate in that area.
It also feels that this bill will create confusion not only
among businesses, but also among consumers, who will not know
who to turn to, or to which legislation to refer to protect
their rights and the information that concerns them.
In its brief, the Conseil du patronat said “As for Quebec
consumers, they would always have to identify which act applies
and to choose between two remedies, depending on whether the
information is protected under one act or the other”.
This bill would create total confusion.
It has been criticized since it was first introduced as Bill
C-54. It has been criticized by everyone in Quebec and
particularly by those who take an interest in personal
information protection and in the civil code.
As others have mentioned before me, even the Barreau du Québec
said that the best way to handle the situation—and one must think
that nine Canadian provinces do not have personal information
protection legislation—the only way to respect Quebec's choice
and to avoid any harm to consumers and businesses who have been
operating for five years under Quebec's act would be to enshrine
in the bill a reference to that act confirming that it replaces
the federal act on Quebec's territory and when personal
information is exchanged between a Quebec company and a company
from another Canadian province.
This proposal was made by the Barreau du Québec. It may be worth
considering. As others have said, it is not that we hate the
bill.
We consider that it could very well be implemented in the nine
other provinces but that, in Quebec, the choice made five years
ago should be respected. This could be one of the flexibilities
that people across the way like so much to boast about,
particularly after the Speech from the Throne read by the
Governor General.
It seems to me that that could be a good way to prove that the
government wants to improve a little bit the functioning of the
system. It may also be advisable for the government, after six
years in office, to show that it can respect the choices made by
Quebec and recognize that it was a pioneer.
Since our first day here, we have been asking the federal
government to take action in its own jurisdictions.
For example, it was asked to take action in the transportation
industry during the debate on Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and
Onex. Just recently, we saw another example of the federal
government refusing to co-operate in the transportation industry
with the way Quebec's finance minister was treated by the
Minister of Industry with regard to the restructuring proposal
for the GM plant in Boisbriand.
1820
It is being asked to take action in the area of public safety,
an area under federal jurisdiction. It is being asked to fight
organized crime, reform our tax system, and give middle income
Canadians a substantial tax break as early as this year and this
fiscal year. But it refuses to take action in these areas.
It always finds a way to interfere in areas under provincial
jurisdiction. It creates conflicts, and the opposition always
finds itself in an awkward position when it would have been so
easy for the federal government to say that this bill will apply
to the other provinces, with a reference to the Quebec
legislation regarding the protection of personal information for
that particular province.
Therefore, for all these reasons, we will vote against this
bill.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, everybody
will understand that it is on a somewhat humble tone that I am
speaking today to an issue of such a vital importance, after the
many eloquent speeches from my colleagues. I am making
reference, among others, to the members from St. Hyacinthe—Bagot,
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Rosemont, Trois-Rivières and
Frontenac—Megantic. All those who rose before me are only
adding, if you will, to my nervousness while I am speaking.
Your attention to this debate and your nods of agreement while
we speak are only adding to the determination with which I am
expressing myself here today.
On October 19, 1999—a few days before the birth of the first
child of a couple that are friends of mine and to whom I wish to
say hello—we can talk about an obsession of the federal
government, the obsession of uniformity.
We can only go back to the origins of this country, Canada,
namely the Constitution Act, 1867. This document—until the fast
approaching day when Quebecers will decide to leave
democratically, and we are working passionately to that end
every day—represents the rules we have to follow.
The Constitution, although plagued with defects was nevertheless
sometimes reflecting a certain wisdom. All the colleagues who
spoke before me mentioned that section 92.13 of The British
North America Act gave the provinces exclusive power on property
and civil rights.
But another paragraph which remained almost unnoticed until now
in the Constitution is section 94.
Section 94 allowed the federal government to ensure the
uniformity of legislation in the common law provinces at a time
when there were four provinces in Confederation, that is
Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This allowed the
federal government to standardize legislation in Ontario, Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick, but not in Quebec, because it was
recognized explicitly, not only in section 92.13 but in section
94 as well, that the legal system in Quebec was distinct, based
on a totally different tradition, a civil tradition.
The recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec's legal
tradition is not upheld by those who want to be the heirs of the
Fathers of Confederation, the current government.
Any observer from another country, or even one landing here from
another planet, would say “My goodness, this does not make any
sense. The ones defending respect of the Constitution of 1867
are the sovereignists, the ones who want to ensure that Quebec
is no longer bound by that document”.
Where are the defenders of federalism? Where are the defenders
of the Constitution? They sit opposite, but say nothing. Even
those who come from Quebec did not stand up to say “Wait a
minute, we will not allow the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec
to be flouted, put aside, forgotten, and even, as one my hon.
colleagues put it so eloquently, scorned”.
1825
It is of course the Bloc Quebecois' position that I just
mentioned, but it is widely shared by numerous stakeholders
throughout Quebec.
Once again, the Bloc Quebecois is the voice of Quebec in the
federal arena, to the great displeasure of my colleague from
Chicoutimi, whose speech I did not hear. I do not know if he
rose to speak on this subject.
An hon. member: No, he hasn't.
Mr. Richard Marceau: My colleague, the member for Chicoutimi,
has not yet been heard. I hope that he will rise and, for once,
defend the interests of Quebec in the House and that he will do
so in a strong voice, with his friends from the Bloc Quebecois.
I would like to quote Jean-Pierre Bernier, of the Canadian Life
and Health Insurance Association. The last time I checked, that
association was not exactly a supporter of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Bernier said:
There is a constitutional issue here, since personal
information, in my opinion, comes under provincial jurisdiction,
under the heading “Property and Civil Rights”. Therefore, I
think it would be very difficult for the federal government to
pass legislation dealing exclusively with the protection of
personal information. If you are able to relate personal
information protection rules to an area of activity where
federal authority is not in doubt, you have more chances to
occupy the field, if I may put it this way.
This is rather clear, but he is not the only one who thinks so.
There is also Michel Venne, a well known and respected
journalist in Quebec, who works for Le Devoir, the great
newspaper founded by Henri Bourassa in 1910, the motto of which
is “Do what you must”. We are doing what we must by opposing
this bill.
He wrote: “The justice ministers of the provinces and the
territories expressed strong concerns about significant
invasions of provincial and territory jurisdiction found in Bill
C-54—now Bill C-6. They asked the federal government to withdraw
the bill and to consult the provinces and the territories. If
the resolution passed in the House of Commons in December 1995
and recognizing Quebec as a distinct society by its language,
its culture and its civil code meant anything, Mr. Manley should
have provided for an exclusion for Quebec in the original bill”.
This is a quote, I am reading it.
According to the Standing Orders of the House, we may name a
minister.
In Quebec, there is unanimity against the federal bill. Why is
that? Because in Quebec, who have been at the forefront of the
area for years or even decades, well before we came to this
place, the Liberal government of the day, with the support of
the Parti québécois, put in place its own personal data
protection system in 1994.
That clearly shows that even at that time, the issue escaped
partisan politics that is normal in any democratic society.
However, the bill passed by the National Assembly in 1994 was
only one element of the legal interest for privacy protection
that already existed in Quebec.
As was pointed out earlier by my colleague for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, sections 37 to 40 of the Civil Code
already cover the protection of privacy and the Civil Code on
which is based all the Quebec legal system is not to be swept
aside.
Not only that, but another document which has almost a
constitutional value in Quebec, that is, the Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms, also protects privacy. Thus, the Charter,
which was adopted in 1974, if I remember well, and the Quebec
Civil Code, which has been adopted only recently—we were
governed by the Lower Canada Civil Code between 1866 and 1992 or
1993, if my memory serves me right—all demonstrated how
important the protection of privacy was for the Quebec
legislator.
What is this government doing? Without any consideration not
only for the importance that Quebec had given to the protection
of privacy but also for the unanimous opinion of Quebecers of
all political colours, it has decided to interfere directly in
this area. And it is doing it very awkwardly.
1830
I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois is asking the
federal government to withdraw this bill.
I hope that Quebec's members from the Liberal Party of Canada
will request the same thing. I hope I will have the opportunity
to hear them speaking on this issue.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order passed
earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the referral of Bill C-2 to the committee
before second reading.
Call in the members.
1900
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 161
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 94
|
PAIRED
Members
Cauchon
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Karygiannis
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Normand
| St - Hilaire
|
Turp
| Wood
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
CHILD CARE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
what is a national children's agenda without a commitment to a
national child care program? What is the practicality of a
national children's agenda without any commitment or target and
real program to end the poverty of children and the families they
are part of? What really is the national children's agenda when
there is no sign of federal dollars for meeting the basic needs
of housing in our society?
These questions are front and centre and remain unanswered after
hearing the Prime Minister's response to the so-called national
children's agenda. I wanted to get a clear answer and ask the
Prime Minister directly if he understands that the so-called
children's agenda is worthless unless it includes child care,
especially as the Liberal government still has not fulfilled its
promise for 150,000 child care spaces made way back in 1993.
What are the answers to these questions involving the
credibility and believability of the national children's agenda?
All we got were excuses from the Prime Minister saying that the
provinces had rejected the offers he made for child care. The
Prime Minister is dead wrong. There is nothing for the provinces
to reject because they were not offered any serious initiative
that could be characterized as a national strategy and plan for
an early childhood development program.
1905
Where are we now? Federal New Democrats, the child care
advocacy movement, the labour movement and provincial governments
that are eager to see the federal government show real leadership
want to see the Liberal government get beyond the platitudes of
helping kids and get serious now with a national plan for child
care.
Quebec is doing it and B.C. is doing it. Why is the Liberal
government not moving on this?
Kids cannot wait. New Democrats are saying to the federal
government that if it is serious about ending poverty, if it is
serious about the health and well-being of Canada's children, if
it truly believes that Canada should be the best place to live
for all Canadians, then it should end the vicious attack on
Canada's poor, start building housing for families who
desperately need it, make sure that the child tax benefit goes to
all low income families and fulfil its commitments for child care
spaces.
It seems like the Liberals are torn between two paths. It is
tempted by the lure of tax cuts, peddled by business elites
without offering any real help to low and moderate income
families. While there are others within the Liberal caucus who
know that after years of crushing cuts by their own government
Canadians have as a first priority a reinvestment in programs and
services that will help families.
I implore the Liberals to not use the provinces as a smokescreen
for their own inaction. I know B.C.'s minister responsible for
child care, Mr. Moe Sihota, has gone very strongly on the record
that he wants a comprehensive national plan for early childhood
development and child care.
Please, do not blame the provinces. Just give us a straight
answer. Will the federal government implement with the provinces
a comprehensive national child care program?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the Speech
from the Throne clearly indicates that children are the highest
priority of the government. Raising the next generation of
Canadians is everyone's concern and that is why we are doubling
the EI period of parental leave. That is why early childhood
development is a key theme in the national children's agenda.
As part of that agenda, we are committed to working jointly with
our partners to develop an agreement on early childhood
development by December 2000, an agreement with principles,
objectives and fiscal parameters and a five year timetable for
increased funding to achieve our shared objective.
We recognize that child care and indeed many services for
children fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction but
we have already made great strides with the provinces to improve
the well-being of children. The centrepiece of our progress is
the national child benefit. Thanks to the national child
benefit, $2 billion will be going to modest and low income
families with children by July 2000, bringing total federal
assistance for families and children to almost $7 billion a year.
Through the NCB, provinces and territories are reinvesting in
complementary services for children and eight provinces have
already invested in child care. The member's own province of
B.C. has had $80 million extra to invest in children, some of
which they have chosen to invest in child care.
We, the Government of Canada, have also acted on our own through
the First Nations Inuit child care program which has created or
improved more than 7,000 child care spaces. Through the visions
program, we are supporting research projects to improve the
quality of child care across the country.
These initiatives are solid contributions to child care in
Canada and the Speech from the Throne provides the potential to
do much more.
FISHERIES
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, on October 14 I rose in the House and asked a question
of the minister of fisheries regarding the east coast lobster
crisis in relation to the Donald Marshall supreme court ruling.
I held the minister's record up for review. I pointed out the
minister's record up to now: no moratorium, homes burned,
businesses destroyed, neighbour fighting neighbour, 200 years of
harmony between natives and non-natives jeopardized and the fear
and uncertainty in this free for all continues as it does today.
I asked the question: Can we expect more of the same from this
minister, no leadership, no plan and no hope of a successful
resolution?
1910
There has not been a resolution to the problem and there could
have been. Today there still can be, but the leadership is
lacking.
My concern comes from lobster fishermen who are eighth and tenth
generation fishermen. They remind me that today we have a
healthy fishery, a lucrative fishery and a good fishery because
it is well managed. Fishermen exercise good custodial rights,
which is what we want to see in this ruling. There is no
evidence that the minister is going to insist on that.
Today in the lobster fishery we have trap limits. We have areas
or zones in which fishermen can and cannot fish. They are
designated areas or zones. We have a season and a limit on that
season. We have a limit restricting entry into that fishery.
For many years there has been a limit on the effort in that
fishery. That is one of the reasons this fishery has been very
healthy and able to sustain many livelihoods over the past number
of years. That is what the minister has to guarantee those
people, that it will be there, that their livelihoods will not be
destroyed by mismanagement of the fishery. There cannot be a
wholesale entry into that fishery. They have to have some
comfort from the minister as to when that will happen. That is
part of the solution.
When our livelihood is threatened we react. We understandably
react sometimes harshly when we feel as though our way of life is
going to be destroyed. That is what the non-native fishermen are
experiencing at this very moment.
We want to see leadership from the federal minister. At some
point, when this is all laid to rest, the word compensation has
to enter the equation. If we have a fishery with no limit on the
number of entrants, in other words allowing new players into that
fishery, the entire fishery will be threatened. That is what I
see happening. I think everyone on this side of the House can
see that happening unless the minister takes strong, decisive
action.
Perhaps I could ask for another 30 seconds. I do not want to
see the minister continually abdicate his responsibility—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member. As he knows, the rules are very strict for the
adjournment debate.
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the
House for this opportunity to address an important matter in
Atlantic Canada which concerns everyone in this country. The
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has taken decisive action on his
short term plan as well as a long term plan that all parties will
consider fair and reasonable.
Mr. James Mackenzie has been appointed as the chief federal
representative to work out practical arrangements on access to
fisheries resources that reflect the affirmed treaty right and
that are sensitive to the interests of those who rely on the
fishery for their livelihood. Mr. Mackenzie has an intimate
knowledge of the maritimes and of the importance of the fishery,
being from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and he has been the lead
federal negotiator in comprehensive claim negotiations with the
Inuit in my riding of Labrador. I have every confidence that Mr.
Mackenzie can find common ground on which we can build long term
strategies that will be enduring and successful.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans met with both commercial
representatives and with aboriginal leaders in the maritimes. He
met yesterday, along with the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and Mr. Mackenzie, with 50 aboriginal
leaders. Coming out of that meeting there was agreement to
address fish access immediately and there was agreement on
certain elements of a process.
Many more conversations will have to take place but we are
moving in the right direction. There are no easy answers but I
have confidence that there is a long term solution and that
constructive dialogue is the way of shaping it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)